Timeline for What´s the origin of junk DNA?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 23:22 | comment | added | iayork | @MattDMo which part don't you understand? Most of this is pretty basic stuff. As I say, it's just common sense. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 22:07 | comment | added | MattDMo | You know, for someone who so vociferously and adamantly claims to know what the "true scientists of junk DNA" are doing and saying, there is a rather obvious lack of citations in your answer. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 17:14 | comment | added | iayork | @Thrawn Agreed that the genomic dynamics change in different groups. The theoretical arguments are the same, but the "cost" even of non-functional DNA becomes higher. A trivial cost for multicellular organisms, that's not sufficient to select for genome shrinkage, may be a significant evolutionary cost for others. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 16:46 | comment | added | Thawn | This is a good explanation why evolution tends to favour "bloated" over "streamlined" genomes. However, this is only true for higher, multicellular organsims, where fast replication is not key to survival (in multicellular organisms, most of the cells are not replicating throughout large portions of the organism's life). For single celled organisms this is definitely not true and they quickly loose genes unless there is selective pressure to keep them. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 14:03 | history | answered | iayork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |