Non-Coding DNA

Reading David Suzuki's latest article on evolution and DNA:

www.davidsuzuki.org...

Can anyone explain to me how *non-coding* DNA (i.e. doesn't make proteins etc) is the 'biggest difference' between chimps and man, or gives certain 'physical traits' to drosophila.

Doesn't make sense. I was much happier when it was called 'junk DNA' and regarded as being useless.

TD

Non-coding DNA is that which does not (as far as we know to date) make protien. To quote from David Suzuki's article:

This DNA does not contain instructions needed to make proteins and had no known function, so it was often labeled "junk."

The interesting thing is that

research into fruit flies has found that physical traits unique to certain fruit fly species can be produced in others by selectively swapping noncoding DNA.

This shows that it has a function; it's just that Science has yet to discover how it operates.

Over 98 percent of the genome appears to be inactive, consisting of "non-coding regions," and some dismiss it as "junk DNA."

Genome Map

Much "junk DNA" has subsequently been found to have a function.

many neo-Darwinists expected or predicted that the large non-coding regions of the genome--so-called “junk DNA”--would lack function altogether (Orgel & Crick 1980)
...
Even so, as new studies reveal more about the functions performed by the non-coding regions of the genome (Gibbs 2003)...

Evolutionary Inefficiency
Gibbs, W. W. 2003. The unseen genome: gems among the junk.--Scientific American. 289:46-53.

Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through along, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development."

Growing Scientific Knowledge

So, to return to the question:

Can anyone explain to me how *non-coding* DNA (i.e. doesn't make proteins etc) is the 'biggest difference' between chimps and man, or gives certain 'physical traits' to drosophila.

Science does not yet understand the meaning of the sections of DNA code that make the huge, undeniable difference between chimps and man; much of the physical structure is similar and the proteins used are much the same. Somehow, something is encoded in this "non-coded" DNA; perhaps they'll come up with a more helpful name for it soon. The hope is that someday we will understand more. In the meantime we remain in ignorance on this one.

Non-Coding DNA is more important than Coded DNA. As previous discussed below, the junk DNA has what appears to be considered usless by scientists is misinformation.

This is the DNA the Aliens are worried about. It is the DNA that has not been used for quite some time and lost during our evolution. The junk DNA issue with protiens is very important as our non aurial or behind the hear neuro pathway secrets a protien which makes biocommunication with Aliens possible. Like when we as humans used to communicate ultrasonically with other MAMMELS, like monkeys, at the beginning of creation. Another junk DNA, no. Cordially, Ravenmock1

Originally posted by Ravenmock1Non-Coding DNA is more important than Coded DNA. As previous discussed below, the junk DNA has what appears to be considered usless by scientists is misinformation.

This is the DNA the Aliens are worried about. It is the DNA that has not been used for quite some time and lost during our evolution. The junk DNA issue with protiens is very important as our non aurial or behind the hear neuro pathway secrets a protien which makes biocommunication with Aliens possible. Like when we as humans used to communicate ultrasonically with other MAMMELS, like monkeys, at the beginning of creation. Another junk DNA, no. Cordially, Ravenmock1

Oh, they are afraid of our mind-controlling abilities.. This was the most hilarious post I've read for months!

Science does not yet understand the meaning of the sections of DNA code that make the huge, undeniable difference between chimps and man

That is not true. Some of it is just not been found to produce something important YET, and the other half is just introns and transposons.

Nice reverse spin move Ninjamood. Its not OUR mind controlling abilities, because we have none. It is their's I am afraid of. Cordially, Ravenmock1

Nice reverse spin move Ninjamood. Its not OUR mind controlling abilities, because we have none. It is their's I am afraid of. Cordially, Ravenmock1