From: dwagon	Date: February 25th, 2007 12:28 pm (UTC)		(Link)

One interesting to note regarding 'junk' genes is that they're great material for evolution to work on. The random, useless genes are effectively free from selection (as they don't do anything) meaning that evolution can take free rein and all kinds of useful things can result.

For example, modern mammals have several versions of haemoglobin (all with *slightly* different properties tailor for slightly different jobs), but our distant ancestors only had one. Mistakes and cock-ups in DNA replication lead to the creation of several copies of the original gene, which were then all free to evolve slightly different properties. If our genomes were more efficiently organised then that never could have happened. In fact, the organisms with the most organised and efficient genomes are bacteria, because they can't spare the energy to maintain stupid wasteful genomes like ours ;). This does end up limiting the 'tricks' they can pull though, from an evolutionary/biochemical point of view.

	From: vexen	Date: February 25th, 2007 01:12 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Thankyou for your informed comments! I remember when I first done genetics, I found all the possible duplication-errors and their results to be fascinating!

Another very useful (for us, now) result of 'junk' DNA is that we can track genohistory with them by tracing the history of mutations - as they reign, as you say, freely in junk DNA because they are from selection pressures, they serve as brilliant beacons for speciation events and historical markers of population shifts. (I know you know this, but:)

A main point of this page is to contribute to the ID lobby debates; by pointing out the lack of efficiency, I am highlighting the fact that evolution runs 'blind', without knowing what the future might hold. The advantage you point out only 'works' if you admit that evolution occurrs in the first place. For those who don't even believe in it (read: American and African fundie Christians), there is no reason for junk DNA! But, it is still there...


And...

I didn't know that about bacteria! I guess they make up for it by having rapid lifecycles!


I don't have many books simply about evolution (Dawkins' Selfish Gene is probably the most specific), do you recommend or own any? I might pick your brain later when I expand this page (the first section is going to be a monumental 'Evidence for Evolution').

	From: dwagon	Date: February 27th, 2007 03:02 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Oh yes, I was arguing more from the 'evolution is cool and crazy' point of view, rather than the 'does evolution exist?' question. On a side note, I've never really understood why so many Christians get fussed about evolution - it answers the question of *how* organisms change, but doesn't answer the more metaphysical questions like "why?" and "how did it all start?". But I suppose I've never seen why science is meant to be inherantly opposed to religion, as they focus on entirely different aspects of our lives IMO.

Reagrding other books on evolution - I don't own many myself (I have a few by Dawkins alongside another few general biology popular science books), and mainly relied on my university library. I normally picked the books out pretty much by random from the evolution section, but I can try and find the titles for some of the better ones if you want. Most of the rest of my knowledge regarding evolution comes from the various lectures I've had - ironically, most of those weren't on evolution per se, but it's so fundamental to understanding biology that it creeps in all over the place :).

I'd be happy to give a read over to any expanded stuff you put up about evolution as well.

	From: tangyapple	Date: March 1st, 2007 07:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)

http://www.toptenmyths.com/

Good page. :)

	From: arifg	Date: May 2nd, 2007 06:55 am (UTC)		(Link)

Hi,

Aggression, neatness, social closeness, and intellectual achievement depends primarily on upbringing (only 33 to 48 percent is contributed by inheritance).

It seems strange to me what aggression is mostly upbringind rather than inherited. K. Lorenz in his "On Agression" book has defined aggression as "the fighting instinct in beast and man which is directed against members of the same species" and it's playing major role in evolution. Logically, based on nature of istincts it must be mostly inherited rather than otherwise...

Regards,
Arif