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…
We've discussed the incompetence of cranks in their critical reasoning skills, and their inability to think about science in a lucid or productive fashion. But have we tried to help them? Have we moved beyond caddy criticisms and actually bothered to extend a hand to our fellow man? Clearly not…
No.
It's the same tired junk DNA argument from the ID creationists. But I find this one particularly funny - you'll see why. Luskin says:
It's beyond dispute that the false "junk"-DNA mindset was born, bred, and sustained long beyond its reasonable lifetime by the neo-Darwinian paradigm. As one…
Casey Luskin is also celebrating the death of the "junk" DNA hypothesis over at Evolution News and Views. You see, a Wired magazine article has breathlessly reported what we've known for decades. And guess what? Just like Sal Cordova, Luskin has a really interesting view of the history of…
Cheers!