For anyone curious about complexity, genome size, and non-coding or "junk" DNA, there are a number of good posts on the topic at Genomicron.
See in particular Junk DNA: let me say it one more time fand Function, non-function, some function: a brief history of junk DNA for a discussion of what junk DNA is, what it means for biology, and why creationists that have made hay out of it are purposefully misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.
And What's wrong with this figure? for a discussion on a common mistake in assuming that genome size automatically means increasingly complex organisms.
Good stuff, should be required reading, and nice examples of corrections of popular misconceptions about biology.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I just knew it. The second I read this abstract I just knew that the Uncommon Descent cranks would dust off their old "Junk DNA" harangue and suggest that if it wasn't for them, no one would believe that all that non-coding DNA had a purpose. Sal Cordova obliged, and it's the usual embarrassing…
The human genome is one big, bloated motherfucker. It's almost all non-protein-coding DNA. The same is true for many other eukaryotic genomes. Sure, some of it has a function. But a whole lot of it (and maybe most of it) is just junk.
There are some who point to a relationship between genome size…
Well, it is a good thing that I have a thick skin and a good sense of humor, or I would be very put off by Larry Moran and probably T. Ryan Gregory as well.
Apparently, I stepped into an ongoing partially ad hominem debate over "Junk DNA" centering on the work of John Mattick and his research…
It's another day, and Casey "The Energizer Bunny" Luskin is at it again, claiming that ID successfully predicted that "junk DNA" would be found to have a function. He has yet to explain how and why he believes that "Darwinism" somehow stifled research into those areas of the genome, and ignores…
Cheers!