Timeline for What´s the origin of junk DNA?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2020 at 8:34 | vote | accept | Deschele Schilder | ||
| Jun 17, 2016 at 17:17 | comment | added | iayork | Most scientists are virtually ignorant of the whole field of junk DNA. There are people who actually do study junk DNA, and they call it, yes, junk. The less people know about the field, the more absolutely confident they are in their claims about it; and that includes scientists in unrelated fields, who rarely other to read the literature of the specialists. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 15:32 | comment | added | Thawn | @iayork You are voicing very strong opinions here. Try to replace "junk" with "of unknown function" in your statements and you'll realize why the term junk DNA is so misleading and is very rarely used by scientists (as opposed to journalists). | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 14:46 | comment | added | Chris♦ | @iayork Not junk - non-coding. That's a big difference. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 14:03 | answer | added | iayork | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 13:56 | comment | added | iayork | @chris - You're flat-out wrong. Many functions have been ascribed to regions once believed to be "junk", that's true. But if you add up all those now-functional regions, you're still left with about 90% of the genome being junk, because each of those new functions is only a tiny fraction of the genome. Don't read media reports, and don't even read the press releases from the teams who find functions -- go and actually do the math, and it still turns out that 90% of genomes are junk | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 12:01 | answer | added | Thawn | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 11:41 | comment | added | David | You wrote that "all organisms...in their nuclei". Two of the three kingdoms of organisms do not have nuclei, so I have edited your question. I am also unsure whether all eukaryotes have junk DNA. I would advise you to think carefull before writeing "all" in relation to biology. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 11:38 | history | edited | David | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling mistake
|
| Jun 17, 2016 at 10:45 | comment | added | Chris♦ | There is nothing like junk DNA. Originally we thought this would make about 90% of our genome, but since then we learned a lot of functions for it: Regulatory, miRNA genes, etc. Carrying so much "junk" around would pose a massive evolutionary disadvantage. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 7:53 | history | asked | Deschele Schilder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |