Mathematical evidence for the necessity of organisms correcting their own genomes.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Martin J Sallberg, May 21, 2013.

  1. Standard neo-Darwinian theory holds that most of the human genome must be junk or else there would be several lethal mutations per individual (they have apparently calculated the risk of spontaneously emerging dominant alleles with pre-reproductive age lethality). And yet the ENCODE project shows that most of the human genome is chemically active. There are attempts to explain it away by dismissing the bulk of that activity as "noise", but that away-explanation has several flaws:

    #The activity consumes energy. Moving the mobile reading proteins along the chromosomes, opening and closing the DNA spiral, actually making RNA...

    #There is plenty of "missing heredity", i.e. twin studies show lots of heredity but only a minor fraction of it can be accounted for by the part of the genome that neo-Darwinian theory considers to be functional.

    #Even if most of the human genome really was junk or protogenes, the fact that most of it is already translated into RNA makes it very easy for it to mutate into something coding for a lethal poison.

    This means that there is no way to explain away the mathematical inevitability of everybody having mutations, including dominant ones, that according to conventional medicine should be fatal. Obviously there must be some function-sensitive self-correction at play.
  2. lively_girl

    lively_girl Member

    There must be and so there is.

    There are enzymes, that correct mistakes made during transcription, chaperones (repairing damage, caused by protein misfolding,...), etc.
  3. The fact that mainstream geneticists persists in claiming that most DNA must be junk despite the known existence of such shows that simple restoration of specific mutations (whether generally or concentrated to a few important parts) to the original sequence is not enough. It is not difficult to understand why, since a fixed template for determining what is the right code would only move the mutation risk from the genome to the template (and of course consume energy). It takes function-sensitive correction, which means that cells somehow notice that something is wrong and must be corrected, cells "feeling bad". This explains the existence of lots of "orphan genes" with vital functions by organisms correcting their genomes into something that works.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice