Our “Junk DNA” Is More Important Than We Once Thought 

Pretty accurate! Both are misguided commonly held “facts”

It just means they don't understand 90% of neuroscience and 90% of genetics.

@@SoulDelSol I think the day we finally understand neuroscience will be the start of when AI actually gets some I

​@@SoulDelSol the 10 % claim is more related to only having 10 % of the brain active at any time, not only understanding what 10 % does. When in reality all neurons firing at the same time would just be a major seizure

@@calsta619 Junk DNA is real, this video is extremely misleading. There are multiple lines of positive evidence that point to most of the genome being junk including lack of selection pressure against junk DNA in eukaryotes, mutational load and vastly different genome sizes among even closely-related organisms.

Interesting!

This is kinda akin to docstrings too. lol

Exactly!

It means we born to die?

Neat! Thanks for sharing!

Biology is getting exceedingly complex

​@@LuisSierra42 it always was. We were just innocent. "The more you know, the more you know you don't know."

In the early 90s I was in high school and in bio I thought, “junk DNA? No way. It’s got to have reasons for being there.”

@@burnte "junk" = "nonsense" = "science can't explain that...." I had a teacher (around 1970. It's been a year or two) who made extravagant mockery of me when I described tectonic plate theory to her. (It was a theory then.) I made the mistake of learning something outside class. One of the things I learned was that my teacher was a vile old baggage.

Now I understand that "non-coding DNA" is a short form of saying "non-protein-coding DNA". The sequences made from A, C, G, T are still code, but code unrelated to building proteins.

Would studying haploid cells save time?

It’s like you go to school for decades just to tell everyone what they already know…nothing. Sorry just tired of RU-vid commenters citing their credentials

@@geigercourtier Oh, if you wanted to talk about the thermal preferences of Redbacks and their impact on competition and trophic cascades, I could go on all day. My advisor and I probably know more about that than anyone else in the world (since we’re the first to experimentally study it in nature). Even then, there is still plenty of more work to be done. But their genome? It’s not a matter of education or credentials. These are things that simply haven’t been discovered yet. It’s an active work in progress no different from cancer research (literally when it comes to the regenerative abilities of axolotls).

@@geigercourtier Chill. His comment fits the topic very well and I think it's interesting. I can feel you though. There are so many out of place comments under certain videos ^^'

@@mikeycrackson your comment makes no sense. We were never ‘Monke’. Even if your thesis was conceptually viable, we would not ‘return’ to a ‘Monke’ state, we would just continue on into some NEW form, one that might be similar to ‘Monke.’

So by saying that, you mean that today it takes the whole book for just the basics whereas back then, there was enough space to cram in some of the messy stuff also? :) If so, that message was nicely hidden ;)

And yet the Supreme Court of the US wants to take you back 150 years! Go figure!

​@@levnzt6949 I don't think that's what was meant!

From your experience do you think intelligence, or the ability to learn, could partly be genetic? Is it a possibility?

We will soon began at last harness all these disconnected areas of Biology and began to steer our Evolution in the new direction that few if single contemporary mind can even imagine! He Jiankui, Robert Plomin, Svante Paabo, David Reich, George Church in truly amazing times we live! We also lack understanding of molecular biology from physical perspective. Jack Tuszyński has proven in 2020 that for example Tryptophan has hugely Quantum properties (Legget Effects) lasting in coherence up to milliseconds. Jim Al-Khalily didn't even scratch the surface when he wrote his grandiose book! The other thing we only began to appreciate is that GWAS are going to be eventually far more powerful than any painstakingly slow and only mediocrely accurate tries and errors to understand individual genes at molecular level! There's reason why they now call introns "Genomic Dark Matter " ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U4qhyiqbxiI.html Wherever "mind emerges from matter" is not so obvious but certainly Mind Does Emerge from Biology! And Numerous also neuropsychological studies prove now in paralel that indeed Introns are anything but "junk"(term coined by declared Marxist Lewontin. Our genes literally make our Minds! No reasonable scientist can deny it anymore! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Vc-egHHIEJo.html

This makes a lot of sense to me.

People take for granted just how much energy we can extract from our food just by cooking it, imagine if your body plan has for millions of years that relied on mostly raw foods, suddenly was able to get so much more calories just by heating it up, something that you would otherwise not satisfy your hunger suddenly does, its puts a pressure in terms of incentive to figure out how to replicate the process, so we get smarter further requiring more and more energy to fuel our intelligence until it plateaus, as our intelligence at that point have reduced the physiological need to specialize since we make up for it in terms of technological advancement. Why waste evolution points/energy on bigger stronger muscles when a sharp rock on a stick made using your intelligence can do so much more?

I had the exact same thought

Does cooking actually change the caloric content?

@@kekeke8988 No, you can't produce more energy out of nowhere. but it makes food, especially protein, more digestible, thereby increasing the AVAILABLE calories.

Now I'm curious what that "junk drawer DNA" is doing in other species, they probably don't have 90% of useless codes just sitting around if humanity's genome has so many other functions in that.

you don't need to make a guess, a lot of it is figured out to an extent. you just need to study it. but to share the little I know to get you started. every cell does have all the information necessary to create you, however that information is turned on and off in a pre-programmed manner, making the cells shape and differentiate in specific ways. its like a compacted digital file, it doesn't have all the information to create the complete file, but it has the information to unfold that file into the bigger file, and the compacted file and the information to unfold it are both much smaller than the complete file. meaning that with very little information and through the use of proteins to communicate when to turn specific genes on and off, its capable of creating extremely complex organisms. what is fascinating is that very little has changed in that process since the first multicellular organism. when the eggs is developing it basically goes through all the stages of development of its ancestors. because evolution works with what it has, so if a process works, it doesn't need to change it. like how a snake develops limbs buds in its early fetal state, but then it suddenly stops developing, and then the buds fuse together at the end and become part of their gonads instead. or how our vertebrae develops like the tail end of a fin, and then grows larger like a tail, but then it stops growing and the tail end fuse together and become internal, becoming the tailbone.

To borrow the house analogy, the people building the house are your chromosomes and some are plumbers and they tell certain stem cells to become digestive tissue. Some are electricians and tell others to become your nervous system. So on and so forth. That's why sometimes you get people who are genetically XY but have a fully functioning uterus and ovaries, the Y chromosome didn't turn on at the right time so the baby developed female organs instead of male. Unlike a house though, if a group of workers don't show up on time, or don't show up at all, development doesn't get halted till things are done in the right order. The rest of the workers still keep going, many times with tragic results.

You will probably find Evo Devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology) of interest, have a look at HOX genes/proteins. There was a good book written about all this called “Endless Forms Most Beautiful”, by Sean B Carroll

Some is definitely known. A lot has to do with positioning. Where a cell is in relation to neighbors is one cue used. Blastocoel is a cool phase you should look up! One fun fact is there's a big clade division between embryos that form the mouth first or the ...exit...first. (hehe guess which we vertebrates are 😮 or 🍑 lol) A dimple forms and cells fold in making 3 layers. The ectoderm makes skin/nerves/brain Mesoderm makes muscle and connective tissue. Endoderm makes the guts. Those are the basics I remember and hopefully all the technical terms are accurate. As far as internal signaling mechanisms, I don't know details :) Cytokines, DNA methylation, and receptors are involved and where they are helps determine what does what. One last thing, from a research lab project I was on in undergrad. The body reuses a lot of things. PAR-4 is protein apoptosis response 4, and it tells prostate cells to self terminate. We were studying it because in the brain (of men and women) the same protein is involved in depression related behavior through dopamine (and pain sensitivity when the gene is removed in mice). Basically, different cells can repurpose the same molecules, and even produce the same molecules under different circumstances : ) People directly studying your question could blow your mind. I'm just a warm up act 😜

​@@danilooliveira6580 can u give some references?

Shorts for life!

Dad jokes incoming

You’re not wearing jeans because you have nothing but _junk_ to fit one. Junk because DNA, get it? I’ll see myself off stage now.

Angry up vote

Not a huge fan of dad jokes, but funny is funny. And this comment *was* funny 🤣

Right, size doesn't matter as long as you know how to use it

That's what she said

IT guy as in working in an IT department or generally information technology?

👍🏻 I love what you did there. 😜

My jeans are all Wrangler, and on the outside I might add.

Monks, yogis and many spiritual leaders who've been privileged with the time to explore, investigate and study their own "inside" directly have known this for thousands of years. And I don't mean mythology and metaphor. . . these people were and are scientists of their own consciousness. We've had many answers for a long time that modern science is now confirming/catching up. Unfortunately that science gets clouded by faux "spiritual" teachings that are often inappropriately aligned with it. 🙏

Um, yeah, just like every piece of matter that ever existed and every living thing that ever did some living. It would really be astounding if we discovered the contrary.

only if you only look at nature and ignore nurture.

Yep. We've had the 'text' of our genetic code for decades. Learning to decipher it; looks like we've only started.

Re-watch it ... "Some experts think that", "Somehow they affect" ... it's unproven guess work.

Ditto. But do not forget the enemies, they also deserve a little spot in our heart, even if it's full of bile.

@@LuisAldamiz you have no enemies Thorfinn

@@LuisSierra42 - I, Loki, have many enemies in Valhalla.

Because they only encode for proteins, not for function, not for complexity. Also because grapes (grapevines) are still more complex than we like to admit.

Flowering plants are just as complex as us, maybe even more so.

as Luiz said, number of genes doesn't necessarily translate directly to function and complexity. simple structures for example can require big proteins to form, and those proteins require a lot of genetic material to create. but at the same time humans are not necessarily more complex than most organisms, remember that we lost a lot of "special powers" to focus on our brains. our varied diet also allowed us to have a simpler gut and not need to synthesize some essential nutrients, like Vit C.

@@danilooliveira6580 - Luis, Luiz is not a name in any language.

@@LuisAldamiz my mistake, Luiz is a name here in brazil.

That would be based on studies of hunter gatherers and the art of tracking. Hunter gatherers are the most ancient homo sapiens societies in exsistence. They have lived the way our ancestors did for hundreds of thousands of years. For reference look up the RU-vid video "The Intense 8 hour Hunt" by the British Broadcasting Corporation and read about Lois Liebenberg, a studier of hunter gatherers and tracking. His book "The Origin of Science" helps explain.

There are some things common across species. Some "junk" DNA as it was once called helps make sure chromosomes bundle properly in the nuclei of cells... and if that didn't happen, there'd be a dead cell... Then there's therir role in producing substances that enhance or inhibit other genes' expression/replication/etc. It's nto junk. It's just not coding for proteins. Those differences, btw, in "junk" are key to speciation is the more recent thinking. What's most fascinating, to me, anyway, is that generally, evolution tosses DNA that has no use. So what use is all that stuff we thought was "junk"?.... And that's the next 30 years of molecular biology!

Whom told you so ?? 🤔🙄

Intuitively it never really made sense for evolution to keep it around if it was actually 100% useless

Lmao.

You need actual evidence to back up that theory or it’s just a hypothesis. Not to discredit a hypothesis, but you’re need to take a step back lol

@@orishaeshu1084 That’s fair. There is some evidence for what I say- particularly how traumatic experiences in the mother can be passed on/imprinted onto their child. Still, we’ll just say “hypothesis” since we’re talking more of a scientific sense.

Many noncoding regions act as identification sites for different DNA polymerases that read the genes for processing. Some areas are mostly structural and used to manage the shape of the DNA in the cell. Certain regions called transposons are thought to be ancient viruses left in our DNA that can move freely within the genetic code. Some areas do code for mRNA and tRNA as well as ribozymes which are RNA molecules with enzymatic function. So most junk DNA has some purpose but that purpose is not necessarily just for making proteins.

@@TheRedKnight101 thanks you very much!

Basically, non-coding DNA regulates when and by how much some nearby gene(s) is transcribed to RNA by interacting with regulator proteins. Others may produce non-coding RNA molecules, like microRNA, that can either generate protein variants by controlling the splicing process of its messenger RNA (mRNA), or suppress the translation of specific mRNA, or even regulate other distant genomic regions.

Mysterious to what, to whom ?? 🤔🙄

When I'm struggling to follow, I play the video on 0.75x speed - could try that