The retreat of the junk DNA argument

[whirlingmerc]

Seems it isn't junk, rather things we haven't found the uses for as well

quote
The science journal Nature just published a very interesting news feature along these lines (ENCODE: The human encyclopaedia, Sept 5, 2012). This article reports on the ongoing human genome project called the “Encyclopedia of DNA Elements” or ENCODE project. The scientists at ENCODE made a very startling, and very controversial, claim – that at least 80% of our genome is functional to one degree or another!
unquote

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/the-end-of-junk-dna/

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Seems it isn't junk, rather things we haven't found the uses for

I don't think that one can justifiably call code with no currently known function either functionless or having a function that hasn't yet been identified. If we are to be rigorous in our thinking, we must remain agnostic on the matter.

The theory of evolution predicts that our genomes should have some functionless code - perhaps an ERV or a mutation of a redundant gene that inactivated it. That is because the cell lacks a known mechanism to identify and cull such such code. Natural selection only works on the phenotypical manifestations of functional code that confers a competitive advantage or disadvantage. Functionless code would be expected to be immune to the process.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I don't think that one can justifiably call code with no currently known function either functionless or having a function that hasn't yet been identified. If we are to be rigorous in our thinking, we must remain agnostic on the matter.

It's like dark matter

Is “dark genome” becoming the new name for junk DNA?

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems it isn't junk, rather things we haven't found the uses for as well

quote
The science journal Nature just published a very interesting news feature along these lines (ENCODE: The human encyclopaedia, Sept 5, 2012). This article reports on the ongoing human genome project called the “Encyclopedia of DNA Elements” or ENCODE project. The scientists at ENCODE made a very startling, and very controversial, claim – that at least 80% of our genome is functional to one degree or another!
unquote

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/the-end-of-junk-dna/

Yes, and this is more evidence to support the science of evolution. Our DNA is dominately functional in one way or the other to support the evolution of the species,

It remains common that residual DNA currently not functional is found in many species, like the DNA for teeth in chickens and tails in in many animals without tails including humans, Evolution is most definitely not dependent on 'junk' DNA regardless of the amount it still exists,

Your still looking for rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rocks.

 

[Jose Fly]

The science journal Nature just published a very interesting news feature along these lines (ENCODE: The human encyclopaedia, Sept 5, 2012).

"Just"? You know it's 2018, right?

This article reports on the ongoing human genome project called the “Encyclopedia of DNA Elements” or ENCODE project. The scientists at ENCODE made a very startling, and very controversial, claim – that at least 80% of our genome is functional to one degree or another!
unquote

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/the-end-of-junk-dna/

And they ended up walking that claim back. Turns out they oversold their results, likely to generate media coverage. Of course, even with their original 80% overestimate, that would still mean 20% is non-functional.

So how cited something saying 20% is non-functional to reach the conclusion that "it isn't junk" is a bit of a mystery.

 

[nPeace]

Seems it isn't junk, rather things we haven't found the uses for as well

quote
The science journal Nature just published a very interesting news feature along these lines (ENCODE: The human encyclopaedia, Sept 5, 2012). This article reports on the ongoing human genome project called the “Encyclopedia of DNA Elements” or ENCODE project. The scientists at ENCODE made a very startling, and very controversial, claim – that at least 80% of our genome is functional to one degree or another!
unquote

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/the-end-of-junk-dna/

That's quite an old article bro.
Apparently they have long discarded there assumptions on "left over, useless junk" DNA, naming it non-coding. Now it has a more useful name - satellite DNA.
The next couple years, there will likely be a new discovery on its purpose... as is usually the case.

 

[nPeace]

Evolution is most definitely not dependent on 'junk' DNA regardless of the amount it still exists,

...and this an argument from what?

Satellite DNA is the main component of functional centromeres, and form the main structural constituent of heterochromatin.

The physical role of the centromere is to act as the site of assembly of the kinetochores – a highly complex multiprotein structure that is responsible for the actual events of chromosome segregation – i.e. binding microtubules and signalling to the cell cycle machinery when all chromosomes have adopted correct attachments to the spindle, so that it is safe for cell division to proceed to completion and for cells to enter anaphase.

 

[Jose Fly]

Apparently they have long discarded there assumptions on "left over, useless junk" DNA, naming it non-coding. Now it has a more useful name - satellite DNA.

Not quite. Satellites are specific types of sequences (basically repeating sequences). Satellites are but one category of "junk DNA".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Seems it isn't junk, rather things we haven't found the uses for as well

quote
The science journal Nature just published a very interesting news feature along these lines (ENCODE: The human encyclopaedia, Sept 5, 2012). This article reports on the ongoing human genome project called the “Encyclopedia of DNA Elements” or ENCODE project. The scientists at ENCODE made a very startling, and very controversial, claim – that at least 80% of our genome is functional to one degree or another!
unquote

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/the-end-of-junk-dna/

Interesting.

 

[nPeace]

Not quite. Satellites are specific types of sequences (basically repeating sequences). Satellites are but one category of "junk DNA".

Thank you.
Satellite DNA had been known to be, or considered junk DNA.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you.
Satellite DNA had been known to be, or considered junk DNA.

No problem. Thanks for posting that news release. Interesting results. I'll be curious to see how that pans out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Just"? You know it's 2018, right?


And they ended up walking that claim back. Turns out they oversold their results, likely to generate media coverage. Of course, even with their original 80% overestimate, that would still mean 20% is non-functional.

So how cited something saying 20% is non-functional to reach the conclusion that "it isn't junk" is a bit of a mystery.

Drat, my old computer died a few days ago. That means all of my bookmarks disappeared. I used to have a couple of articles on this and it turns out that 20% of the genome may be functional. Project ENCODE had a very very lax definition of functional. If a string of DNA would cause coding to occur they tried to claim it was not "junk DNA". At any rate it does not take too much work to find articles critical of the original work. For example:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/14/5294

That life has managed to find a use for "junk DNA" does not mean that it is not junk. This is a weak revision of the vestigial organ argument. That was based on an ignorance of what a vestigial organ is. This one is based upon an ignorance of what junk DNA is.

 

[nPeace]

No problem. Thanks for posting that news release. Interesting results. I'll be curious to see how that pans out.

 

[shunyadragon]

...and this an argument from what?

Satellite DNA is the main component of functional centromeres, and form the main structural constituent of heterochromatin.

The physical role of the centromere is to act as the site of assembly of the kinetochores – a highly complex multiprotein structure that is responsible for the actual events of chromosome segregation – i.e. binding microtubules and signalling to the cell cycle machinery when all chromosomes have adopted correct attachments to the spindle, so that it is safe for cell division to proceed to completion and for cells to enter anaphase.

What you describe is not 'junk DNA.'

 

[nPeace]

No problem. Thanks for posting that news release. Interesting results. I'll be curious to see how that pans out.

Was meaning to post this... got distracted.

Satellite DNA is the main component of functional centromeres, and form the main structural constituent of heterochromatin.

A conserved function for pericentromeric satellite DNA
Defective chromocenter formation leads to micronuclei formation due to budding from the interphase nucleus, DNA damage and cell death. We propose that chromocenter and satellite DNA serve a fundamental role in encapsulating the full complement of the genome within a single nucleus, the universal characteristic of eukaryotic cells.

DNA.aspx
Functions of satellite DNA
Although popularly satellite DNA is thought to be part of ‘junk DNA’ or ‘selfish DNA’ which occupy the genome but have no effect on the fitness of an organism, recent studies show several distinct biological functions.
They reside in the centromeric and pericentrometric regions and regulate centromere function.
They are involved in the formation of heterochromatin. Periodic A-T distribution leads to the curvature of DNA, and satellite DNA with its AT-rich regions is considered to be important for packing of DNA in heterochromatin region.
Transcripts of satellite RNA have been found in invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants where they are transcribed at a particular developmental stage in certain cells and tissues.
As the sequences of satellite DNA are highly diverse and variable, sequence-specific regulatory signals are speculated to be present in satellite DNA which fine tune gene expression