This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered

Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered - Comments

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 1 by Mitch Kahle

Can a Republican mate with an ass?

There seems to be plenty of evidence that they can.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:50:00 UTC | #410092

Rumraket80's Avatar Comment 2 by Rumraket80

Every time I read something about fruitflies and genetic research I am reminded of Sarah Palin and the potential catastrophe she would have made as vice president.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:17:00 UTC | #410098

caraz84's Avatar Comment 3 by caraz84

i'm confused does this mean a mongrel dog is infertile???

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:22:00 UTC | #410099

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 4 by Sally Luxmoore

Comment #428386 by caraz84

i'm confused does this mean a mongrel dog is infertile???

No, because pedigrees are not separate species. All dogs are still the same species and can therefore interbreed - though it would be inadvisable to try it with breeds at the extremes of size, for example.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:45:00 UTC | #410106

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 5 by Mitch Kahle

@caraz84
"i'm confused does this mean a mongrel dog is infertile???"

The mongrel is a mixed-breed dog. All dog breeds are the same species, and thus able to mate and reproduce.

As for Sarah Palin . . . I'm not sure, clearly she's not evolving.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:50:00 UTC | #410107

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 6 by TIKI AL

Mitch @ 1: "Can a Republican mate with an ass?"

Yes, and unfortunately their offspring are NOT sterile.

If you are looking for an interesting hybrid, may I suggest Bengal cats. (Asian leopard cat/siamese)

They are much more intelligent and make better pets than Asslicans.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:59:00 UTC | #410126

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 7 by mordacious1

Hmmm...if the definition of "junk" DNA is that it's DNA that now has no purpose, then if it's found that it keeps species from interbreeding, is that not a purpose? I suppose that it doesn't have the original purpose, but that can be said of a lot of DNA, no?

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:22:00 UTC | #410128

Shane McKee's Avatar Comment 8 by Shane McKee

Oh, how creationists/ID-iots love finding that "junk" DNA isn't useless! Of course we have known that "junk" DNA has lots of "function" (none of which was worked out by creationists, of course), but it's particularly sweet to see how its "function" ties in with evolution.

This is interesting stuff; it may have relevance to the fascinating phenomenon of sympatric speciation, where species diverge, even though they occupy the same geographic locale, and in theory should be able to interbreed OK. but they can't/don't. Lovely!

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:39:00 UTC | #410129

Quine's Avatar Comment 9 by Quine

<!-- -->Comment #428415 by mordacious1:

Hmmm...if the definition of "junk" DNA is that it's DNA that now has no purpose, then if it's found that it keeps species from interbreeding, is that not a purpose?
I would think of it more as a loss of capability rather than the gain of deficiency. While two populations are separated, there is no selection pressure to maintain the capability to interbreed (selection pressure which keeps sweeping out mutations deleterious to breeding within the separate populations). If interbreeding capability is lost, and some are thrown back together, those who spend energy attempting to interbreed may be at enough of a disadvantage to be subject to losing in competition with those who select mates that are genetically closer. That would select for those who don't try it. Once they all stop trying there is, again, no selection pressure to evolve back to interbreeding capability.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:07:00 UTC | #410139

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 10 by Sally Luxmoore

Comment #428394 by Mitch Kahle

As for Sarah Palin . . . I'm not sure, clearly she's not evolving.

She has, however, passed on more of her DNA to the next generation (and even a third generation already) than most of us have - and that is all that counts!
You want to beat her? You've got to outbreed her!

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:43:00 UTC | #410145

Branko's Avatar Comment 11 by Branko

I beat her by one.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:45:00 UTC | #410146

j.mills's Avatar Comment 12 by j.mills

Okay, further to Quine's point that something like this might arise as a difference between separated populations because no selection pressure resists it... But if that's so, it is not that a particular mechanism has been selected, only that an incompatibility has arisen. Therefore, is there any reason to suppose that the fertility impediment between species A and B would be the same as that between C and D? In other words, might the incompatibility between each pair of closely related species be unique to that pair, rather than the 'same difference' in each case? It would follow that this research is only an indicator of the kinds of difference that might arise, rather than a universal mechanism like a HOX gene. Thoughts?

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:02:00 UTC | #410162

Quine's Avatar Comment 13 by Quine

<!-- -->Comment #428451 by j.mills:

... only that an incompatibility has arisen.
I think of it as a capability that has been lost. The reason I make the distinction is that we are always pointing out to Creationists that mutation followed by Natural Selection can generate new design information, whereas in this case the loss of capability is, in fact, from the increase of entropy they so love to try to hold against us.

Therefore, is there any reason to suppose that the fertility impediment between species A and B would be the same as that between C and D?


No, I would not expect A and B to differ the same way that C and D differ except as the respective distributions of random mutations may overlap. However, I have not seen any data on this or even know if someone is looking at it.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:56:00 UTC | #410173

carbonman's Avatar Comment 14 by carbonman

This is interesting, focusing thought as it does upon loaded words like 'purpose' and 'junk' as applied to DNA. Bottom line is, DNA tends to pop up in whatever forms get copied most, and if that causes a fork in Eden's River then so be it.

The role of junk DNA in speciation came up in Science Daily about 4 years ago, linked on the same page as this story.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051020090946.htm

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:29:00 UTC | #410183

russkid's Avatar Comment 15 by russkid

Can a Republican mate with an ass?

There seems to be plenty of evidence that they can.



They can, and win because liberals have not yet figured out how reproduce homosexually.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:02:00 UTC | #410187

alexhouse's Avatar Comment 16 by alexhouse

It seems to me that posters aren't taking this very seriously; Isn't this a key finding on the mechanism of speciation?

I've always wondered how the facility to speciate evolved - what advantage does not being able to reproduce with a distant relative bring? This facility seems to be much reduced in domesticated species so that quite different varieties can interbreed - on the other hand, is this just because it is a direct result of time based deterioration in the junk DNA?

Cool stuff.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:38:00 UTC | #410216

j.mills's Avatar Comment 17 by j.mills

alexhouse:

this facility seems to be much reduced in domesticated species so that quite different varieties can interbreed
That's because the populations aren't really isolated - breeders keep cross-breeding and experimenting. If we destroyed all dogs except great danes and chihuahuas, then without artificial intervention they would be bound to become genetically incompatible eventually; but as things stand there are all kinds of intermediate mongrels that unite all dogs into one breeding population. Also, although domestication is (these days) directed, and thus probably more rapid than 'natural' selection, it's still taken place over a much shorter timescale than in natural speciation.

what advantage does not being able to reproduce with a distant relative bring?
It doesn't need to: it only has to bring no disadvantage not to have that facility. Mutations that cause divergence aren't selected against because the host organism is not disadvantaged in the local population.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:31:00 UTC | #410229

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 18 by TIKI AL

How surprising that a person who is on the record against liberals, gays, and health care reform can't string a complete sentence together:

"They can, and win because liberals have not yet figured out how reproduce homosexually." ...russkid @ 15.

If it talks like a troll, and hates like a troll...

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:29:00 UTC | #410242

RosaleneS's Avatar Comment 19 by RosaleneS

I would like to respond to Quine regarding “junk DNA.” I believe your definition is incorrect. Junk DNA would best be defined as that concerning which we are ignorant. Perhaps you should consider some of the positive exploration into the function of the DNA. I could recommend some reading material that does not arbitrarily eliminate lines of inquiry because of personal preference. Would you not agree that truth is truth and to defy laws of nature often produces fatal results?
I suggest that being an intellectually fulfilled atheist on the basis of Darwinian naturalism might have been possible in the 19th century, however to continue to hold on to this argument in the 21st century constitutes denial of the facts and refusal to explore research along productive lines of questioning. Countering with insult and innuendos only betrays the lack of a cogent argument.
I would challenge you to read Dr. Steven Meyer’s most recent book concerning the construction of the cell.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:50:00 UTC | #410274

dumbcountryhick's Avatar Comment 20 by dumbcountryhick

FORMAT ERROR: X CHROMOSOME D. MELANOGASTER

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:18:00 UTC | #410281

Quine's Avatar Comment 21 by Quine

<!-- -->Comment #428568 by RosaleneS:

I would like to respond to Quine regarding “junk DNA.” I believe your definition is incorrect. Junk DNA would best be defined as that concerning which we are ignorant. Perhaps you should consider some of the positive exploration into the function of the DNA.
?? I did not mention "junk DNA" so what exactly are you referring to?
I suggest that being an intellectually fulfilled atheist on the basis of Darwinian naturalism might have been possible in the 19th century, however to continue to hold on to this argument in the 21st century constitutes denial of the facts and refusal to explore research along productive lines of questioning.

?? What was that about and where did it come from?

P.S. See these notes of recent research by Eric Lander put up by PZ.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:47:00 UTC | #410287

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 22 by phil rimmer

Comment #428583 by Quine


?? What was that about and where did it come from?


Dunno. But we know where its headed....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:09:00 UTC | #410291

Quine's Avatar Comment 23 by Quine

Comment #428588 by phil rimmer:

Dunno. But we know where its headed....

(SSSSH! I wanted her to step into it deeper first.)

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:22:00 UTC | #410297

InfuriatedSciTeacher's Avatar Comment 24 by InfuriatedSciTeacher

15. Comment #428476 by russkid on October 31, 2009 at 7:02 am

Flagged as offensive... try to be less of a scumbag next time.

Would you not agree that truth is truth and to defy laws of nature often produces fatal results?


No, I wouldn't agree... you're insisting on a positivist ideal of truth that went out the window with Hume in the 18th century. And while it's nice to have alternate explanations, I/we don't need the science to demonstrate that your religious belief is inane... it does that all on its own. Truth is our best effort at understanding the world, and while things can be false it's not possible to definitively state something as true, merely very close to it. That's a nice case of projection you have there too, have you thought about getting that treated?

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:14:00 UTC | #410308

alexhouse's Avatar Comment 25 by alexhouse

I think a couple from the opposition have realised the importance of this finding. Proof of time based enforced speciation based on degradation of junk DNA is absolutely key. The argument for speciation by semi-permeable boundaries - or even just distance always seemed a bit weak. We had to assume it happened but.... Add this to the model and I think it is unassailable.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:04:00 UTC | #410312

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 26 by phil rimmer

Quine


Glutton!

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:46:00 UTC | #410317

Quine's Avatar Comment 27 by Quine

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:00 UTC | #410321

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 28 by phil rimmer

For punishment.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:03:00 UTC | #410330

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 29 by crookedshoes

the "junk" label is akin to the popular idea that 90% (or some high number) of the brain does nothing. I always think that if you analyzed electrical wires and telephone poles, you'd conclude that telephone poles do very little. But, they do a whole bunch. same with the "other percent of your brain" and all the "junk" DNA.

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:25:00 UTC | #410349

RPG070012's Avatar Comment 30 by RPG070012

Some humans beget starile children, is there something to this?

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:56:00 UTC | #410356