Junk DNA not refuted.

[RufusAtticus]

Souljah started a thread over two weeks ago by reporting the comments from some creationist website that the following paper proved that Junk DNA does not exist.

Beaton & Cavilier-Simith (1999)

The creationist website was completely wrong as I pointed out in the original thread. I have asked Souljah to read the original paper for himself an provide us with hisown opinions of it. Here is the tread for him to respond.

I highly encourage everyone to read the above paper and respond in this thread.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

And this thread is different than the other, how? You are still approaching me in the same non-productive manner as the last thread. Why did you create this one? Why exactly are you so interested in my opinions on anything? You obviously only want a fight.

From your link:

Abstract: Genic DNA functions are commonplace: coding for proteins and specifying non-messenger RNA structure. Yet most DNA in the biosphere is non-genic, existing in nuclei as non-coding or secondary DNA. Why so much secondary DNA exists and why its amount per genome varies over orders of magnitude (correlating positively with cell volume) are central biological problems. A novel perspective on secondary DNA function comes from natural eukaryote—eukaryote chimaeras (cryptomonads and chlorarachneans) where two phylogenetically distinct nuclei have coevolved within one cell for hundreds of millions of years. By comparing cryptomonad species differing 13-fold in cell volume, we show that nuclear and nucleomorph genome sizes obey fundamentally different scaling laws. Following a more than 125-fold reduction in DNA content, nucleomorph genomes exhibit little variation in size. Furthermore, the present lack of significant amounts of nucleomorph secondary DNA confirms that selection can readily eliminate functionless nuclear DNA, refuting 'selfish' and 'junk' theories of secondary DNA. Cryptomonad nuclear DNA content varied 12-fold: as in other eukaryotes, larger cells have extra DNA, which is almost certainly secondary DNA positively selected for a volume-related function. The skeletal DNA theory explains why nuclear genome size increases with cell volume and, using new evidence on nucleomorph gene functions, why nucleomorph genomes do not.

 

[Morat]

  Souljah, you posted the original article. You started the conversation. What do you expect him to do? Take the article and topic you brought up and go discuss it with someone else?

  Why did you post the article (with a title indicative of a major misunderstanding of the paper) if you had no wish to discuss it?

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Souljah, you posted the original article. You started the conversation. What do you expect him to do? Take the article and topic you brought up and go discuss it with someone else?

  Why did you post the article (with a title indicative of a major misunderstanding of the paper) if you had no wish to discuss it?

 

How exactly is the title representative with a misunderstanding of the paper?  Did you read it yourself?  I clearly outlined above how the title matches the paper, look at the bolded sentence.

 

[Morat]

  And then an expert in the field points out how your title (and conclusions) are not supported by the paper.

   And that's when you start refusing to discuss the paper. Why is that, Souljah?

  He points out you're wrong. He explains why. He offers to lead you to more resources so you can better understand. But you refuse to learn, refuse to discuss, refuse to do anything more than repeat yourself (and later, complain of being attacked).

  Why is that? Why won't you discuss the article you posted?

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  And then an expert in the field points out how your title (and conclusions) are not supported by the paper.

   And that's when you start refusing to discuss the paper. Why is that, Souljah?

  He points out you're wrong. He explains why. He offers to lead you to more resources so you can better understand. But you refuse to learn, refuse to discuss, refuse to do anything more than repeat yourself (and later, complain of being attacked).

  Why is that? Why won't you discuss the article you posted?

 

Well, if you are correct, that would mean an expert in the field chased me off.  Who is this expert that I am running away from, just so that I know, thanks.

 

[Morat]

  Rufus. He is, after all, a population biologist. And he pointed out the severe flaws in your interpretation.

   Flaws you refused to discuss, an any attempt to do so you ultimately labelled an attack. He even started a new thread for you, and you won't discuss it.

   So why did you post the link? Did you not read it? Are you unwilling or unable to defend it? What's the deal?

   You posted a link, made a claim, and now refuse to discuss it. And you have the gall to claim that people trying to discuss the subject you brought up are 'attacking' you.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Rufus. He is, after all, a population biologist

Ah, well its good to know that. But since I had no idea of his background, I couldn't have been "running from the expert", could I?

So why did you post the link? Did you not read it? Are you unwilling or unable to defend it? What's the deal?

I can read english. The article clearly points out that "junk" DNA doesn't exist, period.

 

[Morat]

Ah, well its good to know that. But since I had no idea of his background, I couldn't have been "running from the expert", could I?

  Yes you could. I credit you with the ability to read his title (PopGen grad student) and the fact that he understands the paper better than you, the topic better than you, and has access to the original articles speaks clearly as to his competance.

 

I can read english. The article clearly points out that "junk" DNA doesn't exist, period

   Yet according to Rufus, it does not. But you refuse to address Rufus's comments, claiming it's an attack.

   Why is that, Souljah?

   You keep repeating yourself, and then refuse to discuss the topic. Why do you refuse to discuss Rufus' objections to your statement? What are you afraid of?

  In fact, in response to the portions of the abstract you bolded, Rufus had this to say:

To a person who hasn’t read the paper carefully or even at all, the quote looks like it is saying that the authors have shown that there is no such thing as selfish or junk DNA. However, this is not this case, and the above quote is actually referring to the two hypotheses of <B>why secondary DNA accumulates</B>, not hypotheses of whether it does something or not.

Here are the three hypotheses:

<OL type=1>

[*]Secondary DNA accumulates because it is junk and there is no strong selection pressure against it: the ‘junk’ hypothesis.

[*]Secondary DNA accumulates because it is parasitic: the ‘selfish’ hypothesis.

[*]Secondary DNA accumulates because the mass of DNA directly determines nuclear volume and the nuclear volume is under selection: the ‘skeletal’ hypothesis.

[/list]



Using cryptomonads, the authors looked at ratios of cell volume to the size of the nuclear genome and the nucleomorph genome. What they found is that the size of the nuclear genome scaled up with the volume of the cell, but the size of the nuclemorph genome stayed relatively constant. If in these organisms DNA accumulated because of the first or second hypotheses, then the nucleomorph’s genome should be affected just like the nucleus’s genome. Because this doesn’t happen, the authors argue (probably correctly) that the first and second hypotheses cannot account for the observations. The authors then showed how the third hypothesis accounted for both the scaling of the nuclear genome and the non-scaling of the nucleomorph genome. (Read the paper for more information.)

What the authors didn’t do is show that there is no such thing as selfish or junk DNA, only that selfish or junk attributes of secondary DNA aren’t enough to explain why it accumulates. Because the webpage posted by s0uljah is claiming that they did the former, it is fundamentally flawed by depending on an erroneous interpretation.

&nbsp;&nbsp; At that point, you started making excuses about how busy you were. You have yet to address this.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is that, Souljah?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Oh, your right, this isn't an attack, nor is it a pointless argument.

If Rufus tells you what you want to hear, then thats fine, more power to you. Personally, I can read the article for myself and see that it clearly states what I said it states.

And along that note, we are done here, think of my what you will Morat. Bye.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Apparantly disagreeing with you is an attack. Pointing out that you refuse to support your own claims is an attack.

&nbsp; Rufus dug up the original article, read it, and told you why you had misinterpreted it. He gave many reasons.

&nbsp;&nbsp; You refuse to address those reasons, and reiterate your initial post as if no one had addressed it.

&nbsp;&nbsp; My 5 year old step-son does that. Repeating yourself isn't an argument.

&nbsp; I'm not surprised you fled. I had hoped you had the maturity to either admit your error, or at least acknowledge that you lacked the education to assess the paper (and Rufus's comments) yourself.

&nbsp;&nbsp; The reason this thread is pointless, Souljah, has everything to do with you. You refuse to discuss your own post. You refuse to acknowledge other people's comments. You merely repeat yourself and act insulted when people disagree.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Pointing out that you were wrong, Souljah, isn't a personal attack. If you're that thin-skinned, I suggest you find somewhere else to post, because in the open forums, at least, people will continue to point out error where they see it. And further, they'll expect you to either defend your point or acknowledge the error.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

God Bless you Morat.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

"And this thread is different than the other, how?"

This one has the correct title.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Well, this reminds me of that lovely Hawking thread. *grin*. It appears Souljah has decided on a new tactic (or, rather, a&nbsp; less annoying version of an old). He's apparantly&nbsp;started responding to&nbsp;my posts with the God Bless you bit.

&nbsp; How nice. If I'm lucky, he'll stop posting on subjects he knows nothing about and doesn't plan to research.



&nbsp;

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
And this thread is different than the other, how?

In your opinion, the other one had degraded into personal attacks. This one is supposed to give a fresh start so you can discuss the paper how you want to.

You are still approaching me in the same non-productive manner as the last thread.

So, it is non-productive to actually ask you to read the paper you brought to my attention and discuss it? If you don't want to read it and discuss it, come out and say it. We will understand. Just don't keep making excuses as to why you aren't willing to do that.

Why did you create this one? Why exactly are you so interested in my opinions on anything? You obviously only want a fight.

Because I want to broaden your horizons. This is the science forum after all, people participating here shouldn't be afraid to read some actual science every once in a while. Primary literature is always better than relying on anyone's interpretation, including mine.

Okay I see you read the abstract. How about the rest of the paper?

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If Rufus tells you what you want to hear, then thats fine, more power to you. Personally, I can read the article for myself and see that it clearly states what I said it states.

Do you realize that just because somebody writes something down in an article, and you agree with them, doesn't necessarily mean it's true?

If the answer to the above question is "yes", then what do you think about Rufus' response?

If the answer to the above question is "no", you are hopelessly self-centered and I can see why people are so frustrated with you.

 

[Douglaangu]

Wearing the blinders today are we?

Why, pray tell, when you get informed of your incorrectness by an expert do you choose to go with your own incorrect interpretation?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Primary literature is always better than relying on anyone's interpretation, including mine.

Exactly my point.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Yeah, Souljah, but you don't seem to be able to read it correctly. It manifestly doesn't say what you want it to say, and the only reason you think it does is because you're pretty ignorant of higher-level biology.

&nbsp; You can't read the primary literature, because you lack the education to grasp it. Rufus made it painfully clear in his first post on the subject. He then, nicely, showed you were to go for more information (so that you could learn what you needed to read it), and offered to explain any bits you didn't grasp.

&nbsp; But, as far as I can tell, you never read anything more than the abstract. So you can't even have an interpretation, because you never read the primary literature. If you did, your unwillingness to discuss it is telling.

&nbsp;

 

[Sky]

Morat, not trying to be rude, but can you pleas stop blasting s0uljah and other posters because they might not have as much education as you do. Just because they don't have a PhD in science, doesn't mean that they're stupid and&nbsp;don't deserve respect.