🗑️ 🧵 I believe I figured out junk DNA
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:21:13 UTC No. 16579843
a bit sad I cant prove it
it concerns animals, not bacteria
"junk" is carried around in an event of natural catastrophe that changes the living conditions or in an event of a newly arrived predator that causes the same
"junk" protects from extinction level events
some groups of animals survived hundreds of millions of years...
this is what "junk" does:
>fish evolves into a frog
>frog evolves into a salamander
>salamander evolves into lizard
>lizard evolves to snake, a bird, a mammal
>snakes loses lot of junk DNA and is now what it is, unable to come back as a full lizard
>lizards that are still around today, lost their potential to become birds and mammals while their cousins didnt because they actually became birds and mammals
>birds are a bit of a dead end and cannot change into multiple forms we see in mammals
>mammals carry around biggest evolution potential, biggest amount of "junk"
of course I am only talking about deuterostomes here.. protostomes could be a completely different story, or not.
insects likely came from crabs and then became into incredibly amount of different forms we see today
while snails.. are still just snails, they have been like that for maybe 700 million years
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:26:08 UTC No. 16579847
You're just making shit up
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 01:12:40 UTC No. 16579873
>>16579843
Why are you looking for teleology on biology? "Junk" would accumulate whether it confers an advantage or not because there are more processes that add dna to a genome than those that remove it
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:13:21 UTC No. 16580016
>>16579873
its not junk according to me but it has been named junk so I must use the same name so everyone understands what part of DNA I am talking about
these non coding regions have a specific meaning, its meant for the future if the whole species needs to change or rather face extinction
probably the same stuff changed human brain forever, humans had chimp brain maybe 2 million years ago but no longer, now its unique in the animal kingdom
humans who have tens of thousands of genetic changes compared to chimpanzee, mostly have altered brain genes when comparing to chimpanzee, the overal body plan did not change a lot altough obviously human feet are very different from chimp
now that I thnk about it, most mammals seem to be especially good at altering their feet while very few birds have remarkable feet, all are same
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:17:56 UTC No. 16580023
>>16580016
>few birds have remarkable feet, all are same
What?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:19:48 UTC No. 16580024
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 07:11:10 UTC No. 16580047
>>16580023
>>16580024
these are like literal baby ducks, watch these mammals for a second:
>horse feet
>cow feet
>human feet
also, whales evolved back some proper swimmers like their fish ancestor did have 450 million years ago
I get it that penguins are good swimmers but their feet did not change, instead its their wings which evolved out of flight and more into swimming usage
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 07:21:29 UTC No. 16580059
if you only had mission critical dna, then any fuckups would fuck up your critical dna.
although you can solve this problem by having duplicates. some sort of raid array for chromosomes.
also op do you know about vaults? i found out about vaults the other day.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 08:57:30 UTC No. 16580096
>>16579873
>Why are you looking for teleology on biology?
What reason would you need to ignore it the first place?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:24:10 UTC No. 16580113
>>16579843
>snakes loses lot of junk DNA and is now what it is, unable to come back as a full lizard
Pythons and boas have spurs which are degenerated limbs, and those probably could become fully developed limbs if the right selective pressure was there. But they haven’t needed to
>lizards that are still around today, lost their potential to become birds and mammals while their cousins didnt because they actually became birds and mammals
You can’t evolve into something that already exists, just something similar to what already exists. A lizard could absolutely become mammal-like given a few hundred million years. Varanids already have some similarities in their circulatory and respiratory systems to mammals
>birds are a bit of a dead end and cannot change into multiple forms we see in mammals
Birds are arguably more diverse than mammals
>while snails.. are still just snails, they have been like that for maybe 700 million years
The oldest Gastropods are a couple hundred million years younger than that. Also snails could evolve into diverse forms if they had to, the ancestors of cephalopods were very similar in shape and lifestyle to limpets
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:43:58 UTC No. 16580129
>>16580047
>3 examples of walking, 2 used for swimming, all of which are only used for transport and occasionally defense
Genuinely can't tell if you're fucking with me, if so it's solid bait
>cassowary foot (stabbing and walking)
>secretarybird foot (stomping prey to death)
>woodpecker foot (has a rotating toe for gripping wood)
>loon foot (diving and incapable of walking)
>eagles (picking up food)
>mallards (paddling)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 11:23:05 UTC No. 16580186
>>16580016
>>16579843
dna can't think or logically predict the future on this level
junk dna is likely made up of semi-functional interdependencies and non-coding "buffer" regions
we think it is junk, but what happens if we remove it from an organism?
that organism would likely experience a myriad of disease and various conditions, as well as massively reduced fitness, if it lives at all
it's because one way or another the "junk" still interacts with the rest of the genome, even if it is only indirect
treating dna like computer code is wrong, its why GWAS are such bullshit and often find nothing interesting
think about it like this, just because we can't read it like code, or because its content only matters when a significant amount of it is altered, doesn't mean that it has no function, as it may be structural or a molecular quirk involved in dna replication, transcription or some other interaction with proteins, etc
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 11:27:31 UTC No. 16580190
>>16580059
looks a bit like a proteosome
what the fuck do they do??
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 11:49:34 UTC No. 16580207
>>16580186
>dna can't think or logically predict the future on this level
but it doesnt have to
it just that some species due to historical reasons carry more of it around
those deuterostomes closest to "original founding father on land" meaning the fish who first climbed up here, had loads of "non coding DNA"
snakes have smaller genomes than many other land vertebrates, why? because they just lost it for some reason and because they lost it all of them have remained snakes since forever and cannot change into something else
same is not true for ancestor of both birds and mammals, it carried around so much extra DNA it was able to mold it into both birds and mammals and from these 2 groups birds have lost more of if
therefore mammals carry now more DNA around than any other land vertebrate, except for those rare mammal groups who have discarded it later
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 11:55:53 UTC No. 16580217
>>16580207
anon that is reverse reasoning
the non-coding dna would be beneficial to genetic diversity by accident, not specifically to maximize diversity, which is what your OP implies
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 12:14:11 UTC No. 16580230
>>16580190
we don't know lol
fuckloads of eukaryotes have them tho
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 12:47:09 UTC No. 16580271
All life is created by self assembling protein, that which our cells cannot force to assemble, so they overproduce to make it faster and more reliable, brownian motion does the rest. When you realize that everything so far has been up to "chance", some variable fuckups aren't surprising.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:19:57 UTC No. 16580299
>>16580271
Retarded take. You can't even prove yesterday happened. Back to the drawing board.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:25:26 UTC No. 16580301
>>16580299
Your inability to conceptualize yesterday has nothing to do with me, nigger.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:53:50 UTC No. 16580312
>>16580301
Oh, yesterday is a concept? Because just one post ago you made a bunch of claims about non-conceptual things. I guess the last post was just a concept to.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:58:56 UTC No. 16580317
>>16580312
I guess you're a faggot but you don't see me making stupid posts about guesswork.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:24:10 UTC No. 16582358
>>16579843
>it concerns animals, not bacteria
You know I'd trust you a lot more if you didn't compare taxonomic groups on entirely different levels.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:25:14 UTC No. 16582391
>>16582358
it probably concerns plants as well, and plants have incredible amount of extra DNA but they are very poorly studied
we have only studied on how to use plants, not how the plants have evolved..
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:19:26 UTC No. 16582440
>>16582391
Plantae and bacteria are still on different taxonomic levels. You don't sound you like understand taxonomy very well. Why do you specify kingdoms within eukarya, what about fungi and protista/supergroups? What about archaea?