I feel like at this point I need a browser plugin which changes the phrase "junk DNA" to literally any other phrase
One of the worst names I've come across for a concept
Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
21–30 of 78 posts
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#22I feel like at this point I need a browser plugin which changes the phrase "junk DNA" to literally any other phrase One of the worst names I've come across for a concept
True enlightenment is when you realize that junk DNA is actually a great term, because evolution is great at building things out of junk and repurposing them.
The "junk" areas of repetitive DNA were actually identified as cauldrons of evolution in the early days of research, so we have known since the beginning that the junk was actually crucial.
Barbara McClintock's Nobel for this was awarded way back in 1983
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#23Not knowing much about DNA, it seems weird to me that it's assumed the primary purpose of DNA is to encode for proteins. Sure, that's one of its functions, but it would be just as misguided as assuming that bits only exist to encode text, and when they encode anything else, it's seen as some extraordinary exception to the norm.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#24If some part of DNA is classified as code DNA, why not classify this as data DNA instead of junk?
The problem isn't classification, as much as undoing the effect of a generation of academic and pop-sci publishing, which popularized the term "junk DNA" - and groups that perpetuate this term today, e.g. creationist/anti-evolution groups that use it to argue biologists are full of hubris (and thus wrong about evolution), and inadvertently keep the term itself alive.
Creationists only weaponize the term because it really is used by journalists and pop-scientists to argue against design.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't classification, as much as undoing the effect of a generation of academic and pop-sci publishing, which popularized the term "junk DNA" - and groups that perpetuate this term today, e.g. creationist/anti-evolution groups that use it to argue biologists are full of hubris (and thus wrong about evolution), and inadvertently keep the term itself alive.
Creationists only weaponize the term because it really is used by journalists and pop-scientists to argue against design.
Some journalists and pop-science writers are creationists themselves; the whole debate is still self-sustaining feedback loop, and one of its side effects is that the term "junk DNA" remains in use.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#26I feel like at this point I need a browser plugin which changes the phrase "junk DNA" to literally any other phrase One of the worst names I've come across for a concept
This is a pet peeve of mine - the common misconceptions that "junk DNA" is just DNA with an unknown function.
By far most junk DNA really is junk. We know this because we know its nonfunctional origin (transposons, pseudogenes and similar), because we can do studies of conservation between species, and because there is a huge range of junk DNA content in otherwise similar species.
The misconception come from media bias: You'll never hear a story about "junk DNA really is junk, researchers find"
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to stop using the term “junk” DNA - it’s an outmoded term based on the wrongheaded assumption that DNA directly encoding proteins was the be all end all.
Working Effectively with Legacy DNA
"DNA design patterns for maintainable organisms."
On your digital bookshelves in 2074.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#28I feel like at this point I need a browser plugin which changes the phrase "junk DNA" to literally any other phrase One of the worst names I've come across for a concept
This is a pet peeve of mine - the common misconceptions that "junk DNA" is just DNA with an unknown function. By far most junk DNA really is junk. We know this because we know its nonfunctional origin (transposons, pseudogenes and similar), because we can do studies of conservation between species, and because there is a huge range of junk DNA content in otherwise similar species. The misconception come from media bi…
Does it mean that mutations in the junk DNA are evenly distributed among the population because supposedly they don’t affect anything?
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#29It would've been nice if the article could have even shown a single image of how knocking out a certain sequence caused some wing pattern to disappear. But I guess that's hidden behind a paywall.
The first image, before the text of the article, has this caption: "Wings of the painted lady butterfly – Vanessa cardui, modified by deletion of non-coding DNA sequence."
(I'm definitely not paying for this content, and it is available in a fresh incognito browser session, so I suppose it should be available to all readers.)
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#30It would've been nice if the article could have even shown a single image of how knocking out a certain sequence caused some wing pattern to disappear. But I guess that's hidden behind a paywall.
The "materials and methods" attachment is free and includes some images: https://www.science.org/doi/suppl/10.1126/science.abi9407/su...
(paper is not yet available on scihub)