• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Theory about Junk DNA

dna

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Milan

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:18 PM


Hi

 

I'm an ordinary guy that decided to learn biology last week. I've been reading for a few days on my own and I'm really puzzled about what the scientists call "Junk DNA" which accounts for 98% of our DNA and the rest codes proteins(please tell me if I got it wrong).

 

To me it’s absurd that they would call it junk, maybe I'm going out on a limb saying this, but I’m almost certain that this "Junk" is what makes everyone of us unique. So the thought that struck me is that our Junk DNA has a purpose and it’s to give instructions to our known DNA on for an example, size, shape and appearance. When we talk about size, the junk DNA doesn’t have to control it directly, but it could for an example also code for the amount of HGH a body produces and when the growth plates will fuse, thus indirectly it would still determine the final products appearance.

 

And then we have identical twins who share the same DNA. But! , they only share the same known DNA, not junk DNA. I've not read about this but I’m pretty sure this is true, since we are nowhere close to mapping our junk DNA. You can still notice differences in facial structure, height etc in identical twins and I believe that’s because their Junk DNA is not the same. Though some parts of it may be identical, and some parts may be similar.

 

And then we have a bacteria with only 2-3% Junk DNA. Only a fraction compared to humans and other large organisms. That number is not random, that’s why I would think, the bacteria is so small and simple, it doesn’t have a lot of instructions for its appearance.

 

Curious what you educated people would have to say about this.



#2 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 January 2015 - 04:39 PM

The term junk DNA even though it's old, I think, it still shows which people are most interested in genetics - biochemists, they make therapeutics and those rely on protein interactions with dna, rna and so on. For them noncoding DNA is junk because they can't do anything with it ;).


  • WellResearched x 1
  • Disagree x 1

Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Milan

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 15 January 2015 - 05:35 PM

Junk’ DNA Makes Human Faces Look Different, New Study Suggests

http://www.ibtimes.c...uggests-1442678

 

Wow thats crazy, I wouldnt think that my ideas would make any sense or be true in any way, even though it seems logical to me. 



#4 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 653
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 16 January 2015 - 05:04 PM

Some "junk" DNA, like the LINEs (transposons, something like fossilized endogenous retroviruses) which comprise 21% of our DNA, really is junk.

 

Other 'junk" DNA, like the variable number of tandem short repeats between transcription regulatory sequences and the coding/translated portion of genes, isn't junk at all.

 

By physically adjusting the linkages between transcription promoters/repressors and the expression of proteins, these tandem repeats provide ample and almost continous variation for selection to act upon.

 

Here's an  important study, wherein much of the variation in dog breeds could be attributed to more or fewer repeats of this "not junk", rather than mutations of coding DNA.

 

Fondon, J. W., & Garner, H. R. (2004). Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolutionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences101(52), 18058-18063.

 

Mutations in cis-regulatory sequences have been implicated as being the predominant source of variation in morphological evolution. We offer a hypothesis that gene-associated tandem repeat expansions and contractions are a major source of phenotypic variation in evolution. Here, we describe a comparative genomic study of repetitive elements in developmental genes of 92 breeds of dogs. We find evidence for selection for divergence at coding repeat loci in the form of both elevated purity and extensive length polymorphism among different breeds. Variations in the number of repeats in the coding regions of the Alx-4 (aristaless-like 4) and Runx-2 (runt-related transcription factor 2) genes were quantitatively associated with significant differences in limb and skull morphology. We identified similar repeat length variation in the coding repeats of Runx-2, Twist, and Dlx-2 in several other species. The high frequency and incremental effects of repeat length mutations provide molecular explanations for swift, yet topologically conservative morphological evolution.

 

It doesn't surprise me at all that something similar is going on with human facial morphology.


Edited by Darryl, 16 January 2015 - 05:15 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 January 2015 - 04:21 AM

The term "Junk DNA" comes from an earlier time when we didn't know very much about the genome.  No one who works in the field considers it "junk" any more.  It's now well known that some of it is very important, while other parts of it, beyond being "junk", are actively harmful.  Darryl summed up the situation nicely.


  • WellResearched x 1

#6 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2015 - 02:05 PM

From what I understand it acts as a funnel for subtle energies to enter and energize the strand structure like a quantum antena. Its presence helps to shape the hosts features through plasma morphogenics. It certainly not junk. The vortex geometry supports this theory and flux lines can be seen by observations. The DNA is just a liberary that the cell calls apon for chemical templates, the templates get effected by the environment in many ways!
  • Ill informed x 1

#7 YosefANaumovich

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 2
  • Location:aaaaaa
  • NO

Posted 21 April 2015 - 05:23 PM

Seems to me that "junk DNA" is another way to propagate the now old idea that we haven't been designed - which no mentally-functional person can seriously entertain. It's essentially a part of the political process to rid of fundamentalism, whether you believe it or not.

 

Even if it actually is "junk DNA," that says nothing about whether it is the product of design or simply chance.

Most importantly, it is impossible to detect with absolutely certainty whether a thing has a purpose or not. One may provide reasons to believe the one or the other but never reasons that make the one or the other absolutely certain.

 

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#8 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:06 PM

Seems to me that "junk DNA" is another way to propagate the now old idea that we haven't been designed - which no mentally-functional person can seriously entertain.

 

Nice ad hominem.

It's already been explained in this thread junk DNA is an old term almost 50 years old at this point. Now it's simply called non coding DNA, most of it is left overs from evolution and it really doesn't do anything besides mutating and creating new genetic variants - it's actually very solid proof of evolution, but that would be hard for you  to wrap your head around so I'll leave it at that.

And please keep your religious agendas out of the science forum. There are a number of subforums you can use for religious rants.


  • unsure x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#9 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 384
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 24 April 2015 - 09:38 AM

Instead of the term junk DNA, I prefer to think it's Conduit DNA.

#10 YosefANaumovich

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 2
  • Location:aaaaaa
  • NO

Posted 24 April 2015 - 12:35 PM

 

Seems to me that "junk DNA" is another way to propagate the now old idea that we haven't been designed - which no mentally-functional person can seriously entertain.

 

Nice ad hominem.

It's already been explained in this thread junk DNA is an old term almost 50 years old at this point. Now it's simply called non coding DNA, most of it is left overs from evolution and it really doesn't do anything besides mutating and creating new genetic variants - it's actually very solid proof of evolution, but that would be hard for you  to wrap your head around so I'll leave it at that.

And please keep your religious agendas out of the science forum. There are a number of subforums you can use for religious rants.

 

I wasn't going to respond because anyone who is a self-proclaimed atheist, and who seriously entertains the propagandist slogans mindlessly regurgitated to forward atheism to the masses, can never be reasoned with. Yet I think it would be wrong not to respond in this case because of the audience who may foolishly believe the nonsense that you've spewed.

 

Without all the social chit-chat, here are a set of facts that are very relevant:

1. The ad hominem fallacy does not occur when a person attacks another but when a person rejects a conclusion, or attempts to prove a conclusion, by the assertion that a person is ugly, stupid, or some other personal remark, which has no relevance to the conclusion. Fallacies are flaws in reasoning, not socially unacceptable actions or thoughts or what have you.

 

2. The term "junk DNA" was coined in relation to the creation-chance/science-religious doctrine debate and was coined and forwarded in order to prove that we are not the product of design since there exists in us purposeless things (and a something's purpose is necessarily the product of that something's having been designed).

 

3. Evolution does not necessarily mean chance. It is possible that evolution is a designed process and also vice versa; but it is more probable that evolution is a designed process.

 

4. "Junk DNA" is not solid proof of evolution when DNA itself is seen as having a purpose. It's like saying that because some mathematics is hard to comprehend for us then that is solid proof that the applicability of mathematics to the natural world is best accounted for by chance. Absolutely hilarious. The fact that DNA is at all structured and clearly has purposes--the fact that mathematics is found throughout human civilization and can at all be used to explain the natural world - implies design.

 

5. Design does not entail perfection. I may design a thing in a bad way such that many parts of the thing that I have designed appear to be useless in making the design function, yet very clearly the thing that I have designed is still designed.

 

6. I didn't rant anything.

 

7. You are espousing Humanist doctrines and Humanism is after all a recognized religion both by its members and by its opponents; and it is an atheist religion at that (to your surprise, though atheism is not a religion it is still a philosophical position and not a lack of it).

 

8. Evolution has unscientific components to it that entail religious doctrines.


  • Well Written x 1
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#11 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 25 April 2015 - 03:47 PM

2. The term "junk DNA" was coined in relation to the creation-chance/science-religious doctrine debate and was coined and forwarded in order to prove that we are not the product of design since there exists in us purposeless things (and a something's purpose is necessarily the product of that something's having been designed).
 

 

That's your perception based on an upbringing in a culture where every viewpoint you consider harmful to your culture is considered political propaganda. Which would have been ad hominem if it wasn't a fact. And I don't blame you for that, it's only understandable in your case.

 

 

3. Evolution does not necessarily mean chance. It is possible that evolution is a designed process and also vice versa; but it is more probable that evolution is a designed process.

 

And a "creator" doesn't guarantee design.

 

 

The fact that DNA is at all structured and clearly has purposes

 

Proves nothing. Randomness allows for structure and patterns to exist. Exactly because it's random.

 

 

Design does not entail perfection

 

"Perfection" doesn't entail design.

Perfection to begin with is based on perceptions, it's not a measurable quality like - size, shape, color and so on.

 

 

6. I didn't rant anything.

 

You're still doing it.

 

 

8. Evolution has unscientific components to it that entail religious doctrines.

 

No theory of evolution is written in stone. Unlike supposed religious texts sent by space grandfathers after hitting a bush with a lighting.

I find this discussion just as meaningless as you do, it has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with interpretation. A theist can interpret anything as a sign of creation, the same way an atheist can interpret anything as a sing of chance.

 

WHICH IS WHY THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION HAS NO PLACE ON THIS FORUM.


  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • dislike x 1

Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#12 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 1,840 posts
  • -56
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2021 - 10:47 AM

This artical says animals have way more active genes than humans but why? Becauae animals need it more to adapt to the enviroment and so the animal eventually can become a human. Humans dont need to become animals again or cant naturally so the dna is limited. Humans is the stop basically and the goal. But it takes like 100 million years so well be long gone before animala again become human.

Edited by kurdishfella, 05 August 2021 - 10:49 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: dna

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users