Talk:Junk DNA
MORE MORE MORE MORE[edit]
Junk DNA is actually fantastically important to a lot of interesting evolutionary theories, and I think that understanding these theories in monosyllabic terms is a good way to confuse creationists. I'd like to work on expanding this topic, and as such have created pages for neutral theory and Motō Kimura. Anyone else with expertise want to suggest more? ERK! | Complaints Hotline 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know all that much more than I've already written on the subject myself, but there might be more that can be salvaged from evowiki/people's brains. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of date[edit]
Shock news! It's not junk.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- "The international Encode project has found that about a fifth of the human genome regulates the 2% that makes proteins" — the point with junk DNA is that even though we find new functions all the time, there's still that, in this case, other 4 fifths that don't seem to have any function at all. Peter Subsisting on honey 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- "For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books."--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- From Discover magazine - looks like there should be some interesting controversy here. Encode claims that 80% has "meaningful activity" and that the other 20% probably does too. Others say it's activity but not meaningful. (It's life Jim, but not as ...) --Weirdstuff (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Science was wrong before, Film at 11. Though I'm sure sure how many biologists studying DNA have outright said "this DNA has no function". They may have said "no apparent function" or "unknown function" or "appears to be meaningless junk", so its really more a case of locating a use for something where we knew the use was hidden.
narchist
11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure science is constantly developing. If it wasn't it wouldn't be science. But this article starts off with:
- "Junk DNA" (properly, noncoding DNA) is any material within a lifeform's genome that is not used in cell processes. It makes up the vast majority of the genetic material in most organisms."
- It is possible that this needs to be toned down a bit in the light of these apparently new developments. Indeed, if Encode have got it right then the very term "junk DNA" may have to we ... well... junked.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Science was wrong before, Film at 11. Though I'm sure sure how many biologists studying DNA have outright said "this DNA has no function". They may have said "no apparent function" or "unknown function" or "appears to be meaningless junk", so its really more a case of locating a use for something where we knew the use was hidden.
- From Discover magazine - looks like there should be some interesting controversy here. Encode claims that 80% has "meaningful activity" and that the other 20% probably does too. Others say it's activity but not meaningful. (It's life Jim, but not as ...) --Weirdstuff (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- "For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books."--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the article definitely needs modification. The point is that the majority was labelled as 'junk' becuse we did not think it played any part in gene regulation. However, scientists have identified around four million gene "switches". These are sections of DNA that control when genes are switched on or off in cells. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141 . "Junk DNA" was a term coined by Susumu Ohno back in 1972. Let's give the guy a break - that's the paleolithic as far as DNA research is concerned. --CatWatcher (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it needs modification. It's simply out of date. But some people have problems with the paradigm shift.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- While it's certainly out of date, I do hope you don't intend to swallow the ENCODE announcement whole. Peter Subsisting on honey 07:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Expanded the intro[edit]
I added a lot to the intro because it wasn't very clear to define "junk DNA" apart from other types of DNA. I expanded this to explain the difference between non-coding DNA and true junk DNA because I think it's vital for the reader to understand the difference from the very beginning. I also added a great quote to the 'creationism' section that explains why the concept of junk DNA is important to us "evolutionists" (lol). If anyone wants to refine or remove these sections go ahead, I just want you to understand why I made these edits. After reading a bit on the topic, I have to say that the ENCODE project is pretty dogmatic in the fact that they seem to want to see function in every nucleotide Beatgroover (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)