Back to Junk DNA (Evolution)
DAVID: The gene is changed to an earlier form in the code.
Oh gosh, so the human genome existed in or even before the bacterial genome.
Under “Plant bloom”:
QUOTE: "Earlier this year, as reported in Cosmos, a US-led team suggested the answer lies in the ability of these plants to downsize their genomes, giving them the infrastructure and energy to spread rapidly. (David's bold)
DAVID’s comment: Note my bold: downsizing DNA is devolution of DNA to advance plants. This research was noted in the previous entry here describing the genome shrinking in order to advance the flowering form.
dhw: Assuming common descent, I don’t see any problem in species discarding whatever parts of the inherited genome are not suitable or needed for their survival and/or improved chances of survival (= my idea of “junk”). (Yes, yes, I agree with Darwin and many others that survival is one key element in the advance of evolution.) And I still don’t buy the argument that a more complex genome (e.g. human compared to bacteria) entails subtraction and devolution.
The only reason this discussion has gone on is your refusal to follow what is described: All that happens is the DNA gene is made shorter or reverted to a previous form perhaps with modification. Note the plant flowering article supports this. Taht can be described as devolution. And as far as I am concerned evolution does not enhance survival. the idea is a tautology.
Complete thread:
- Back to Junk DNA -
dhw,
2018-11-21, 09:38
- Back to Junk DNA -
David Turell,
2018-11-21, 22:23
- Back to Junk DNA - David Turell, 2018-11-22, 00:26
- Back to Junk DNA -
dhw,
2018-11-22, 08:44
- Back to Junk DNA - David Turell, 2018-11-22, 22:42
- Back to Junk DNA -
David Turell,
2018-11-21, 22:23