Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#41

Post by jacquesm »

nextos wrote: post #5

Most genetic variants associated with common diseases fall in non-coding DNA areas, previously thought to be junk DNA. Many of these non-coding areas are actually enhancer elements. These elements produce enhancer RNA, previously thought to be noise, and regulate distant genes thanks to chromosome conformation. Chromosome conformation means DNA folds in complex 3D patterns. The interplay between chromosome conformati…

I should update this:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/junk-dna-no-way/

with the newly found insights. Still: No Way. Just not-yet-understood-DNA.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#42

Post by andrewflnr »

ijidak wrote: post #33
nextos wrote: post #5

Most genetic variants associated with common diseases fall in non-coding DNA areas, previously thought to be junk DNA. Many of these non-coding areas are actually enhancer elements. These elements produce enhancer RNA, previously thought to be noise, and regulate distant genes thanks to chromosome conformation. Chromosome conformation means DNA folds in complex 3D patterns. The interplay between chromosome conformati…

The idea of junk DNA never made sense to me. Having a list of proteins (coding DNA) does nothing to tell an organism how to combine those proteins to form working systems. It's like claiming that the parts list in an assembly manual is the only information of importance. And the step-by-step instructions are junk, because they don't describe a useful part in the box. Did we think that the whole organism just self-ass…

Besides its DNA, every living thing has at least one whole functioning cell to use as a template, since they all start as dividing cells.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#43

Post by shakil »

Any time I read about how some part of the body has no function, I try to remember that our understanding of the body is superficial at best, it was only a 100 years ago when getting your blood sucked by leeches was the standard of care for many conditions. Mother's milk was supposed to contain useless and indigestble substances till it turns out they were important for developing the baby's gut microbiota. Entire organs such as the thymus were considered useless and then we began to understand the critical role they play in our immune systems. Once we consider that even critical muscles waste and atrophy unless used, we have to understand that whatever we retain in our bodies must be absolutely critical to its long-term survival, and there is no such thing as a "junk" component.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#44

Post by jostmey »

ijidak wrote: post #33
nextos wrote: post #5

Most genetic variants associated with common diseases fall in non-coding DNA areas, previously thought to be junk DNA. Many of these non-coding areas are actually enhancer elements. These elements produce enhancer RNA, previously thought to be noise, and regulate distant genes thanks to chromosome conformation. Chromosome conformation means DNA folds in complex 3D patterns. The interplay between chromosome conformati…

The idea of junk DNA never made sense to me. Having a list of proteins (coding DNA) does nothing to tell an organism how to combine those proteins to form working systems. It's like claiming that the parts list in an assembly manual is the only information of importance. And the step-by-step instructions are junk, because they don't describe a useful part in the box. Did we think that the whole organism just self-ass…

Natural selection doesn't care about what looks pretty, only that it works. A modern operating system is millions of lines of code. Do you think it is possible that some of the code are no longer used but nobody dares remove it?

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#45

Post by HPsquared »

jostmey wrote: post #44
ijidak wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of junk DNA never made sense to me. Having a list of proteins (coding DNA) does nothing to tell an organism how to combine those proteins to form working systems. It's like claiming that the parts list in an assembly manual is the only information of importance. And the step-by-step instructions are junk, because they don't describe a useful part in the box. Did we think that the whole organism just self-ass…

Natural selection doesn't care about what looks pretty, only that it works. A modern operating system is millions of lines of code. Do you think it is possible that some of the code are no longer used but nobody dares remove it?

That would presuppose an intelligent designer who doesn't dare to try and remove the code. (Unless that's what you are saying)

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#46

Post by speed_spread »

HPsquared wrote: post #45
jostmey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural selection doesn't care about what looks pretty, only that it works. A modern operating system is millions of lines of code. Do you think it is possible that some of the code are no longer used but nobody dares remove it?

That would presuppose an intelligent designer who doesn't dare to try and remove the code. (Unless that's what you are saying)

Are you saying god is working in two-week sprints and has no control over the backlog? That would explain a lot.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#47

Post by HPsquared »

speed_spread wrote: post #46
HPsquared wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would presuppose an intelligent designer who doesn't dare to try and remove the code. (Unless that's what you are saying)

Are you saying god is working in two-week sprints and has no control over the backlog? That would explain a lot.

That'd be the case if a conscious entity was not daring to remove code.

An evolutionary process, on the other hand, doesn't fear removing random sections so their continued presence indicates the "junk" must (somehow) be important to the organism's fitness.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#48

Post by JoeAltmaier »

HPsquared wrote: post #47
speed_spread wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying god is working in two-week sprints and has no control over the backlog? That would explain a lot.

That'd be the case if a conscious entity was not daring to remove code. An evolutionary process, on the other hand, doesn't fear removing random sections so their continued presence indicates the "junk" must (somehow) be important to the organism's fitness.

Or not. Since a random process doesn't care, its easy to carry around indefinitely. Like that closet you never bother to clean.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#49

Post by JoeAltmaier »

ijidak wrote: post #33
nextos wrote: post #5

Most genetic variants associated with common diseases fall in non-coding DNA areas, previously thought to be junk DNA. Many of these non-coding areas are actually enhancer elements. These elements produce enhancer RNA, previously thought to be noise, and regulate distant genes thanks to chromosome conformation. Chromosome conformation means DNA folds in complex 3D patterns. The interplay between chromosome conformati…

The idea of junk DNA never made sense to me. Having a list of proteins (coding DNA) does nothing to tell an organism how to combine those proteins to form working systems. It's like claiming that the parts list in an assembly manual is the only information of importance. And the step-by-step instructions are junk, because they don't describe a useful part in the box. Did we think that the whole organism just self-ass…

No creator necessary.

Imagine a big machine run by paper tape. On the tape are two possible holes. Punch one and feed it in, the machine makes a man. Punch the other, it makes a mouse.

Does the tape 'encode' the essence of 'human being'? (or even 'mouse'?) Of course not.

The machine is a vital part of the equation. Likewise, dna in a jar is just a molecule. It has to have a cell, evolved over a billion years, ready to make something of it.

So no self-assembly, no magic in the DNA.

Re: The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’

#50

Post by [deleted] »

shakil wrote: post #43

Any time I read about how some part of the body has no function, I try to remember that our understanding of the body is superficial at best, it was only a 100 years ago when getting your blood sucked by leeches was the standard of care for many conditions. Mother's milk was supposed to contain useless and indigestble substances till it turns out they were important for developing the baby's gut microbiota. Entire or…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN