Junk DNA Dead
John Edser
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53280/
JE:-
Here is a comment on the above website by Dr Andras. J. Pellionisz
entitled: "Life after Junk DNA" posted on 2007-06-15
--------------------------- Pellionisz comment ------------------
"Junk" DNA as a scientific term is dead.
Important questions arise:
(1) after close to $50 M spent on the project how much taxpayer money
should be allocated to beat a dead horse even more to death? (Spending
is not necessarily linear, but if 1% cost $50 M, $5 Billion would be
needed, and since ENCODE pilot took 4 years, linear extrapolation yields
a run-time of close to a Milleneum...)
(2) rather than pretending "Junk DNA is dead, so let's continue Genetics
as usual", what is the new paradigm-shift science and technology, that
re-thinks, in a disruptive manner, "Genomics beyond Genes"? (see LINK
(3) science is the synthesis of gathering data according to theoretical
predictions, and if data do not support the prevailing theory,
disruptive theoretical advances are needed ("atom is the smallest
integer of element - but when the atom splits, quantum mechanics and
nuclear industry is born"). ENCODE effectively dispelled the dogma of
"Genes versus Junk". With $50 M spent on data discarding a dogma, the
next $50 M is to be spent on re-thinking (mostly, in algorithmic
approaches and in silico modeling) "PostGenetics" (Genomics beyond Genes).
(4) While ENCODE stuck to data analysis on a grand scale, finally
deciding in 4 years that "Junk" DNA was anything, but junk - e.g.
FractoGene (LINK in a massively underfunded manner used the same 4 years
to develop an algorithmic approach to what it actually may be.
FractoGene built a new synthesis, to be ready when the "genes vs. junk"
dogma melted down (See quantitative prediction and its experimental
support at LINK .
P.S. It is essential to be focused on the Agenda, under whatever"
nomenclature.
----------------------------- end Pellionisz comment ----------------
JE:-
Since coding DNA is regulated by "junk" DNA then coding DNA must be a
nested fitness subset of "junk" DNA. This means that coding DNA remains
100% fitness dependent on "junk" DNA disallowing Hamilton's independent
coding gene fitnesses and therefore, Dawkins "selfish genes" (which were
and remain incorrectly employed to promote organism fitness altruism in
nature).
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher