Junk DNA necessary for life? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, May 13, 2013, 18:47 (4213 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Since their evolutionary split 87 million years ago, both plants have experienced episodes of genetic duplication where the plants' DNA doubled in size. But while the tomato has held onto a lot of those duplicates, the bladderwort has thrown out anything it doesn't need, and now has a genome only a tenth as long as the tomato's. The finding, published online today in Nature, overturns the notion that this repetitive, non-coding DNA, popularly called "junk" DNA, is necessary for life. [/i]
> 
> @Assumption from hell, unless they have genetic samples all along the way that prove it. 
> 
> I am wondering how long it is before they find out they were dead wrong about this, as they have been with so many other 'remarkable discoveries' lately.-What is overlooked is the 3-d arrangement of DNA on the histone spools which generally puts modifying segments of DNA next to genes to control specific expressions of genes. This is what ENCODE tended to show. For very complex DNA, some 3-d spacing arangments are necessary, and so the so-called junk really is useful, but not in a coding way. I think Nature is not clear in their thinking My conclousion is: 'it depends' on which DNA is at work for which organism. One snowball doesn't make a snow storm.