Junk Reporting on Junk DNA

Share

The bladderwort plant has a diminutive genome, with less or no "junk" DNA

The bladderwort plant has a diminutive genome, with less or no “junk” DNA


A week and a day ago we returned from a month long trip to Turkey and Greece. The tour in Turkey, called Magical Hideaways, run by OAT, was fantastic. Given the quality of the hotels, plus all the other amenities, including a guide 24/7, the price for a single person sharing a room is less than you could do the trip on your own. If you want to travel outside of the US and Europe, I recommend OAT. More about the trip when I get my pictures sorted out.

Finally, I feel like writing again. With Scott Wolter gone, I started looking for something interesting and hit on this article titled: ‘Junk DNA Mystery Solved: It’s Not Needed’.

I thought, Wow, genetic science sure is moving fast. Only six months ago, I read that they had found a purpose of some of the junk DNA, and I wrote about it here.

I hope you’re thinking what I’m thinking: One of these articles, at least one, has misinformed us.

Which? I’m not a genetic science, so how can I find the truth? The same way you would, using the skills of reading comprehension, something many journalists seem to be devoid of, and logic, something most humans lack, but not my readers. My readers are sharp, alert, and highly intelligent.

Back to the article, the writer starts off with a qualified statement:
“So-called junk DNA, the vast majority of the genome that doesn’t code for proteins, really isn’t needed for a healthy organism, according to new research.”
Maybe she should have said, “A specific plant, an anomaly, functions fine without junk DNA,” because her next entire section is dedicated to describing how this plant, the bladderwort, differs from every other plant. I.e, all the others have lots of junk DNA.

May I remind you that “junk” means that we don’t yet know how it works. For instance you might call all science “junk science” if you were a journalist who never was trained in science and hence don’t understand scientific principles. You might also call your car engine, “junk mechanics”, or the stock market, “junk equities”. You would probably be right in at least one case. My point: Genetic science is young, we’ve just started uncovering the genome. Should we call something “junk” simply because we don’t know what it does?

Back to her article. It quickly finishes with the broad statement that since the bladderwort can survive without the junk, then maybe everything on Earth can too. This is called a hypothesis. It is not a scientifically substantiated conclusion, or fact, or principle. It has to be tested and even if a few tests support the concept, it will still not be proven. It will take huge strides forward in knowledge before this can become a scientific principle, like the theory of evolution, for instance.

A current theory is that a part of the junk DNA is there to promote mutation when the organism is threatened by a change in its environment. Right away, one might ask: “Does the bladderwort only survive within a narrow band of environmental conditions? Can it be forced to mutate and survive under differ conditions? Does it do this as readily as plants that have great supplies of junk DNA?”
The list goes on and the science is far, far from the conclusion suggested in the title. I hold science reporting to a higher standard.

I was going to stop there, but my science fiction bent, an uncontrollable urge, causes me to suggest that the bladderwort was stripped of its junk DNA by our alien forbearers and left here as evidence of their intervention in our biosphere. Having said that, I have to forgive the reporter, she may have the same urge.

5 Inhabited Planets

Gallery

This gallery contains 1 photo.

This article, says 700 planets have been found outside our solar system, and five, were within the habitable zone of their stars and are candidates for life. Projected across the galaxy, there are a huge number of such habitable planets, … Continue reading

Junk the Junk DNA, Maybe

Gallery

Recent press releases show the Junk Theory of excess DNA to be wrong, with one swipe eliminating a rich lode of sci-fi speculative material. It seems that excess DNA has a regulatory function, therefore cannot be the encoded library of … Continue reading

Curiosity—What Will Be Found

Gallery

The Have no doubt about it, we are seeing the science equivalent of a massive battle flotilla forming off the shores of Normandy. NASA is about to claim the field in “Origin of Life” theories. Their Allan Hills foray, the … Continue reading

Are We All Martians?

Share

An ancient Martian riverbed. It may be the birth place of your genetic ancestors.

solar system is a dangerous place with erratic missiles; comets, meteors, and wayward asteroids, flying around, anarchist bombs hell bent on genocidal destruction, like the one that blew the dinosaurs into extinction. It was even theorized that one massive projectile hit Earth, splitting off the Moon, a grand scale version of a subatomic particle targeting a nucleus and blowing it to smithereens, splattering innocent bystanders with fragments.

The public is generally aware of the collision issues. Didn’t they see Armageddon with Bruce Willis saving the world from an asteroid? As a digression, who in their right mind would NOT support a missile to missile defense system given that the incoming may be capable of smashing the entire planet back to microbes, or worse? Are you really interested in a world where life has to spontaneously regenerate from chemicals?
Given the general knowledge of the astro-collision issue, I’m surprised that most people, including scientists never considered the splattering aspect, particularly the epidemic spreading of living organisms. You would think they would have learned that from The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
In the 1980’s scientists first deduced that we had been splattered by Mars long ago, maybe before there was life on Earth. At first, all the Martian meteorites that were found were just chunks of once molten sterile lifeless stuff. Meteorite ALH84001 changed that. This meteorite has chemical signatures, PAHs (don’t ask), other minerals, and sausage-like objects that are similar to some bacteria.
Of course NASA was delighted and published an interesting paper that came to an earth shaking conclusion:
“Although there are alternative explanations for each of these phenomena taken individually, when they are considered collectively, particularly in view of their spatial association, we conclude that they are evidence for primitive life on early Mars.”
It had long been believed that Mars, being smaller than Earth and also being in the habitable zone of our sun, may have cooled to a life nurturing environment before Earth. It’s a small jump to the idea that Mars splattered Earth with microbes from which all life on Earth evolved. That is, we are all Martian invaders.
This, of course, put NASA in the driver’s seat for further “origins of life” funding, and sent all the other origins researchers, those vested in other theories–the cesspool hit by lightening theory, the deep water volcanic vent percolating life theory, the deep crust pressing out cupcakes of life theory—they all went into berserker rage.
NASA’s report was shredded with criticism, the most damning of which was the age old boogeyman of science, contamination. In this case, not Mars contaminating Earth, but Earth bacteria contaminating the meteorite after it got here. Most scientists now are unconvinced that Mars seeded life on Earth, or even that there is/was life on Mars.
NASA must be laughing up their sleeve. They still hold the strongest hand in the origins of life investigation. Mars still needs to be checked for current and past life. Heck maybe we splattered life to Mars. The more we learn about life in the volcanic vents and the depths of Earth’s crust, the more we need samples of other planets and moons that have liquid water to see if they got splattered, or did the contaminating.
More next time.