New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
11–20 of 132 posts
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#12How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them?
/end venting
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#13[deleted]
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#14How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them? /end venting
How is that naive or arrogant?
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#15How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them? /end venting
How is that naive or arrogant?
[deleted]
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#16How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them? /end venting
How is that naive or arrogant?
[deleted]
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#17How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them? /end venting
Junk DNA means non coding and without benifit. Due to the random nature of mutation such sequences are expected. However, verifying any specific sequence is useless is difficult.
One important consideration is sequence length may have value even if the content is meaningless. Another is random sequences may aid long term adaptation even if they don’t currently do anything. So, if anything Junk is a fairly descriptive term as you may eventually use stuff from a Junk Drawer even if it’s not currently useful.
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#18How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them? /end venting
As far as I can tell, the preferred scientific term is "non-coding DNA," with "junk DNA" being a sensational term that gets more traction in the media.
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#19Stupid question from a noob: does gene location on a chromosome matter? If I swap gene A from chromosome 1 with gene B from chromosome 2, will this in general keep the cell viable and working the same way?
Yes, but it's dependent on a lot of things. Some chromosomal areas are more important than others. In humans and other mammals, it also matters from which parent the DNA came from (paternal DNA is different from maternal DNA, but a woman will 'rewrite' her father's chromosomes when passing it on to her child and a man his mother's, etc). Any variation in these things could cause developmental disabilities. However, t…
Sorry this isn't accurate at all. We don't 'rewrite' any chromosomes. Sometimes during errors in replication changes occur, but these are random. They presumably happen approximately equally in both parents contribution to your DNA (though I don't know this to be 100% confirmed empirically).
Re: New Causes of Autism Found in Noncoding DNA
#20How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them? /end venting
How is that naive or arrogant?
As it seems to imply that this area of our DNA has no significant value. It seems highly unlikely to me that there is a large mass of DNA in our body that doesn’t affect our overall system. I relate this to people believing for long periods of time that animals cannot tell time or remember things for long periods of time and then later realizing that they can do both.
If we were given an explanation of "this type of DNA used to do X but since Y happens, it is no longer used", I'd be more apt to believe in "junk DNA". Without explanation for what it is for or what it was for, saying it is junk seems naive.