(1) Non-biologists, often ideologically based such as the Stephen Jay "Gouldians", gave the popular media writers the greatly mistaken impression that natural selection was a weak force and there was considerable randomness, "junk", in the genome. Due to the astonishingly massive influence of the Gouldians most evolutionary biologists just plain gave up even trying to communicate with journalists. Hence in the popular media the idea of junk DNA has persisted long, long after many evolutionary biologists have considered the term a joke. (An interesting read in this context is the Ridley chapter on "mutational meltdown"- If there aren't very powerful forces (i.e. selection pressures) maintaining adaptations then the high mutation rates would rapidly devolve them.)
(2) It was written in one of these threads that stretches with more junk are more likely to be translated. As one of the principal theoretician-mathematicians of evolutionary biology once spoke for the sake of discussion (John Maynard-Smith)...selection at the level of the gene is say about 50 times that of selection at the level of the organisms, which in turn is about 50 times that at the level of the (gene pool). (I would say now perhaps more than 300 times that at the level of the gene pool, but it gets definitional.) Some thirty years ago JMS used that to argue for trying out hypotheses at the level of the organism in preference to hypotheses about group level selection. This points in the direction of considering hypotheses such as - perhaps the reason stretches with more junk DNA are more likely to be translated is because the junk DNA is "sopping up" genetic elements (RNA etcetera) that are trying to inhibit the protein-level expression of those stretches of genes. By the way, as with all metaphors they ultimately break down because ultimately you're comparing to different things. I generally like computer metaphors, but I find that at the abstract level I try to communicate with people about the subtleties of evolution computer metaphors often can be more of a hindrance than help. Such as with respect to effects of selection at the genic level as one example.
(3) How expensive is DNA? I read somewhere ages ago that in organisms such as humans approximately 1% of the total metabolic budget is expended in replication DNA molecules. As a total, that is appreciated by evolutionary biologists and physical anthropologists as being a very powerful selection pressure. (Note again the seriously deleterious effect of those who argued natural selection was a weak force in evolution.)
(4) Grym wrote- As an aside, I suspect we'll start to see a more integrated approach to genomics once the relatively low-hanging fruit of the one-gene --> one-protein research lines are throughly covered. However, I wouldn't expect such things to happen in our lifetimes given the difficulty of that aforementioned task and the sheer profitability of more conventional approaches. But what do I know? I'm "just a biologist." =P
It has turned out that I've been correctly highly sceptical of the "bio-technology revolution" in terms of application. (...Because of a deep appreciation of the ability of selection pressures to shape and maintain massive amounts of biological complexity.) Still, I've been amazed at how rapidly genetic technologies have advanced in since 1992. So I'm much more optimistic on this point about covering all research associated with "one-protein research lines". In fact, I think in about another five years...
Perhaps the main person who has been pushing this idea is Leif Ekblad. His extensive website is- http://www.rdos.net/eng/ (Click on left "Neanderthal Theory"). John Sokol wrote "...it's just a theory.." but as theories become more and more developed then more and more testable hypotheses (and affordably testable hypotheses!) begin to emerge. That seems to me anway to be the stage where things are at now (see Ekblad's site). - inkwiztor (aka harpersnotes).
Actually- Testosterone declines with marriage. One of the more interesting researchers out there has written several papers on why scientific productivity declines with age. One of the hypotheses which is looking pretty good is that with marriage there is a decline in testosterone, and in keeping with Geoffrey Miller's "The Mating Mind" ideas that testosterone leads to various displays such as technical virtuosity- there is then a corresponding decrease in scientific production (at the topmost levels). This raises another question- isn't marraige becoming less common?
Dune...
Frank Herbert was in part writing Dune in response to Foundation.
Huxley/Orwell dystopias to HG Wells (the early) utopian engineering utopian tendencies.
Just so, Dune to Foundation.
Chance, Chaos, Uncertainty, The Grandfather who died fighting in the Bullring, the head of the Bull with the Grandfathers dried blood still on it placed high up in the Bankquet Hall on Arrakis. Gambling everything on a die roll. On a knife fight with Feyd-Rautha... and diving a thopter among the spice-worm, or (1984 now) taking jet down to the storm-waves, Bernard Marx scaring the BG-zuss out of Lenina Crowne...
Now-Old argument of chaos theory / quantum stuff as opposed to Newtonian/Engineering Utopians via social -engineering.
Organisms have in them technology (created by evolution) most bizarre and beyond our imaginations than any episode of X-Files.
Old argument: History makes individuals, or individuals make history. Yes, No, both, neither, maybe, hahahahah.
"Utopias" ("..a boot heel smashing down onto a human face, forever...") and corruption of Fremen riligion when people put social-engineering above appreciation of chaos. Condemn Plato to Hades!!!
"Above all, a leader needs a sense of the sardonic.." - Irulan
(Recommended google "timothy oreilly frank herbert online" -- he put his definitive work on Dune up on the web just recently.)
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Non-biologists, often ideologically based such as the Stephen Jay "Gouldians", gave the popular media writers the greatly mistaken impression that natural selection was a weak force and there was considerable randomness, "junk", in the genome. Due to the astonishingly massive influence of the Gouldians most evolutionary biologists just plain gave up even trying to communicate with journalists. Hence in the popular media the idea of junk DNA has persisted long, long after many evolutionary biologists have considered the term a joke. (An interesting read in this context is the Ridley chapter on "mutational meltdown"- If there aren't very powerful forces (i.e. selection pressures) maintaining adaptations then the high mutation rates would rapidly devolve them.)
...selection at the level of the gene is say about 50 times that of selection at the level of the organisms, which in turn is about 50 times that at the level of the (gene pool). (I would say now perhaps more than 300 times that at the level of the gene pool, but it gets definitional.) Some thirty years ago JMS used that to argue for trying out hypotheses at the level of the organism in preference to hypotheses about group level selection. This points in the direction of considering hypotheses such as - perhaps the reason stretches with more junk DNA are more likely to be translated is because the junk DNA is "sopping up" genetic elements (RNA etcetera) that are trying to inhibit the protein-level expression of those stretches of genes. By the way, as with all metaphors they ultimately break down because ultimately you're comparing to different things. I generally like computer metaphors, but I find that at the abstract level I try to communicate with people about the subtleties of evolution computer metaphors often can be more of a hindrance than help. Such as with respect to effects of selection at the genic level as one example.
(2) It was written in one of these threads that stretches with more junk are more likely to be translated. As one of the principal theoretician-mathematicians of evolutionary biology once spoke for the sake of discussion (John Maynard-Smith)
(3) How expensive is DNA? I read somewhere ages ago that in organisms such as humans approximately 1% of the total metabolic budget is expended in replication DNA molecules. As a total, that is appreciated by evolutionary biologists and physical anthropologists as being a very powerful selection pressure. (Note again the seriously deleterious effect of those who argued natural selection was a weak force in evolution.)
(4) Grym wrote-
As an aside, I suspect we'll start to see a more integrated approach to genomics once the relatively low-hanging fruit of the one-gene --> one-protein research lines are throughly covered. However, I wouldn't expect such things to happen in our lifetimes given the difficulty of that aforementioned task and the sheer profitability of more conventional approaches. But what do I know? I'm "just a biologist." =P
It has turned out that I've been correctly highly sceptical of the "bio-technology revolution" in terms of application. (...Because of a deep appreciation of the ability of selection pressures to shape and maintain massive amounts of biological complexity.) Still, I've been amazed at how rapidly genetic technologies have advanced in since 1992. So I'm much more optimistic on this point about covering all research associated with "one-protein research lines". In fact, I think in about another five years...
inkwiztor, aka harpersnotes
Perhaps the main person who has been pushing this idea is Leif Ekblad.
His extensive website is- http://www.rdos.net/eng/ (Click on left "Neanderthal Theory").
John Sokol wrote "...it's just a theory.." but as theories become more and more
developed then more and more testable hypotheses (and affordably testable hypotheses!)
begin to emerge. That seems to me anway to be the stage where things are at now (see
Ekblad's site). - inkwiztor (aka harpersnotes).
Actually- Testosterone declines with marriage. One of the more interesting researchers
t ute/pdf/SKanazawa/EHB2000b.pdft ute/pdf/SKanazawa/JRP2003.pdf
t ute/whosWho/profiles/s.kanazawa@lse.ac.uk.htm
out there has written several papers on why scientific productivity declines
with age. One of the hypotheses which is looking pretty good is that with
marriage there is a decline in testosterone, and in keeping with Geoffrey Miller's
"The Mating Mind" ideas that testosterone leads to various displays such
as technical virtuosity- there is then a corresponding decrease in scientific
production (at the topmost levels). This raises another question- isn't marraige
becoming less common?
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInsti
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInsti
Some of his other publications-
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInsti
Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa
Dune...
Frank Herbert was in part writing Dune in response to Foundation.
Huxley/Orwell dystopias to HG Wells (the early) utopian engineering utopian tendencies.
Just so, Dune to Foundation.
Chance, Chaos, Uncertainty, The Grandfather who died fighting in the Bullring, the head of the Bull with the Grandfathers dried blood still on it placed high up in the Bankquet Hall on Arrakis. Gambling everything on a die roll. On a knife fight with Feyd-Rautha... and diving a thopter among the spice-worm, or (1984 now) taking jet down to the storm-waves, Bernard Marx scaring the BG-zuss out of Lenina Crowne...
Now-Old argument of chaos theory / quantum stuff as opposed to Newtonian/Engineering Utopians via social -engineering.
Organisms have in them technology (created by evolution) most bizarre and beyond our imaginations than any episode of X-Files.
Old argument: History makes individuals, or individuals make history. Yes, No, both, neither, maybe, hahahahah.
"Utopias" ("..a boot heel smashing down onto a human face, forever...") and corruption of Fremen riligion when people put social-engineering above appreciation of chaos. Condemn Plato to Hades!!!
"Above all, a leader needs a sense of the sardonic.." - Irulan
(Recommended google "timothy oreilly frank herbert online" -- he put his definitive work on Dune up on the web just recently.)
(very first posting to slashdot)