Albert Demello I honestly can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t be a good call. So, I concur! (Side note: concur is an under appreciated and underused word!)
Hank is freaking adorable. "I thought it was really good. I liked it!" 😂 I love it when people are proud and enthusiastic about what they do. It makes my heart happy.
Dialogue in my brain.. Hank says "They just jump around" ... my brain ... "well, there is a missed opportunity... Hank, "They just listened to House of Pain too much"... me.... "Give your writers a sweet ass Christmas bonus".
As a genetic epidemiologist (and biologist) I thank you for making this information approachable to the general pubic. As time goes on we actually find more and more function for DNA sequences we previously called 'junk'. How much is actually functional may never be known though. Humans are complicated.
The idea I was going with is DNA is a hoarder; for onions it's like the house full o' papers and junk; for pufferfish their DNA was decluttered and for us, we're at the drawer stage in the kitchen or room stage in the house where there's lots we might need and we've kept. Some of it is the inevitable plastic bag drawer, the old screw jars, the lego box the kids had when they were young, some of it is the copper wiring that could be used to put up the fairy lights in the patio we just have not got round to, or the sound system that's to go with them. I'm really impressed with all the coding analogies; you guys just rock.
@@anotherks7297 I see it as good evidence but alot of people(all from the evolutionary side) attack it savagely. Why? Because evolution needs alot of junk dna. So little to no junk dna = no evolution. Clearly you see why they have a problem? It mainly boils down to what "functional means". You can get up to 80% of the dna if you use functional loosely. Or you can get a very small amount if you use function specificly. Another thing why people are angry is because if it is proven that most or all of our dna is useful then creationists get a big score and evolution gets a big hit.
The existence of junk DNA happens in Genetic Algorithms as well. As genomes are mutated and bred, some very successful genomes (organisms) carry 'code' that isn't used or has no effect on the functional result when there are a limited set of input parameters. These typically will weed themselves out over time if the evolutionary engine places value on shorter genomes and more efficient code. But throwing around 'junk' in the evolutionary process is part of what makes it work. An organism in nature might have 'junk' that isn't functional for 'today', but might have been useful in the past and may be useful in the future. It's even possible that an organism has experienced cyclic reactivation of portions of the genome as conditions in the environment change.
Holy damn, there was so much informations in the episode. I'll need to watch this one multiple times to even start understanding some of it. Great video!
This sort of presentation is _exactly_ why I love SciShow. A lot of work went into this presentation and it shows. I am constantly proud to support this channel and Complexly in general.
I know you joke (or do you?), but it's pretty common to have an expansive slew of dead genetic info stripped from the corpses of viruses that once attacked your body and planted into the sequence as a reference tool for future use. Basically, that section of your DNA is an encyclopedia your immune system and such can refer to whenever it meets a new viral infection and plan its attack accordingly. It's like with that one assassin bug that carries around the heads of its slain prey as an armor. Nature is scary.
Trendywendy10 haha! Please tell me you got additional marks for your title? My dissertations (2!) titles were suuuuuuper boring, especially compared to yours!
More papers need to have this kind of tittles. A bit playful? Sure, by still gets the point across and man, English papers (aka most papers) have a tendency to be very stoic.
Raven, posting a comment on TH-cam is less formal than a dissertation. A few minor mistakes aren't the end of the world. Why did you capitalize "Stupidity" if it isn't a proper noun? That's a minor mistake, so you're both not 100% perfect.
Some "junk" genes can also produce small, noncoding RNAs that work to break down mRNAs as a method for controlling gene expression through a process called RNA interference, which is an interesting mechanism. Speaking of which, could you do an episode about RNAi? I may be biased, since I've done some undergrad research into it, but I think it could be a very interesting topic.
A concept I picked up from "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins, was the evolvibility of a species can be a trait that natural selection can work on. So all that junk DNA can lend variable traits to a species by copy/paste mistakes in the DNA. The more mistakes that junk DNA makes, the more variation in the species, the more apt a species is to evolve, therefore giving that species a leg-up in adaptability.
As a mathematical and computational biologist, I quite appreciate the honest coverage of this video (and the courage required to not shy away from the complexity of it all).
I remember hearing a thing in regards to certain plants having more genes than us: "can you survive having huge chunks of you removed and just grow them back? Can you live in the harsh elements with no protection? Can you last months without food or water? Etc." Like with an onion.... You can take the onion plant out of the ground, cut off all the shoots/leaves and roots so it's just the bulb, then store it in a cupboard or fridge for months (so no food or water for the onion)... And it'll still grow. Sometimes on its own, but otherwise just by sticking it in some soil. Humans can't lose most of our body and then be deprived of food and water for months and still remain alive. So like. I think it makes sense? Onions are more incredible than people give em credit for.
I wonder when or how many times certain plants and animals have evolved, when certain things branched off from each other, and how slowly or quickly they did it, and if that effects the amount of junk DNA they have, if at all. I'd love to hear an answer to those questions and if there's any correlation between the two.
I remember thinking as a student that junk DNA could simply serve as a statistical target for random mutations. If most of your genome was functional, then a random mutation would be more likely to change an important gene, likely leading to problems. However, like a game of battleship, if most of your genome is junk, then it is less likely that a valuable gene will be hit by a random mutation.
For that to be the case, there would need to be some mechanism that increases mutation rate in a larger genome (which may well be the case). Otherwise it would be like expecting your car to be less likely to break down when you park it in a car park with loads of other cars in it.
No matter how much DNA you have, the mutation rate of your genes will stay exactly the same. Not to mention that the prime way of developing new traits, is not random mutation, but gene duplication and modification, for which some junk DNA to be embedded in indeed helps.
I wonder if a use may be found for the non-"functional" DNA. Hard to believe a system would long support that much excess. And might it not be some kind of insulation, superstructure, energy supply? As Hank points out, it's still early; there's much yet to be decoded, many more processes yet to be understood.
The mechanism of DNA is very sophisticated. The non coding regions might have a role in controling the molecular machines that work on DNA itself. There might even contain a second code that decide which gene should be avtivated.
Thank you so much for this information... I'm sure tons of people would be disappointed without a definitive answer, but I care more about my personal growth in understanding the evidence.
Nice article but you left out one of the coolest things junk dna can do. It may be a bad copy of another gene and not work now, but as mutations stack in it, it can suddenly become active again and change everything!
8:30 describes my grandparents pretty closely: they had 12 children. All of them survived to adulthood and lived to their 90’s and 3 of them lived past 100. My Aunt passed away at 107 years old and she was sharp & spry right to the end. (Same with all my aunts & uncles) Their parents, my grandpa & grandma, were born at the end of the 1800’s. They lived to 97 and 94, respectively. I’m the daughter of their youngest child (my dad) He was born when my g’ma was in her late 40’s and my g’pa was in his early 50’s. Even crazier, I’m the youngest kid in my family... I wasn’t born until my dad was 46 & my mom was 44...
I think one thing you left out is that some of the "junk DNA" may be structural. The base pairs are slightly different and some repeated sequences could affect the folding of the DNA chains which in turn affects other factors like stability and gene expression.
Fascinating. So it sounds like perhaps the large regions of “junk” DNA might be an evolutionary survival tool against the natural processes of random mutation? Mutation of course, along with natural selection form the engine that drive evolution. Although actually I think the majority of evolution doesn’t come from natural selection operating on mutation rather natural variation of “normal” traits. But mutations will be random and the vast majority bad, so it sounds like perhaps junk DNA might be a survival tactic in the same way as building a spacecraft that’s 80% nonfunctional would be protection against micrometeorites ?
Hi guys. Nice video. Just a feedback. I had problems with the subtitles. It is appearing something like a “ghost subtitle” behind the captions. I don’t know if it’s a TH-cam or my iPad problem. Thank you.
From where I am from -as far as I know- back then (some 50 years) those industrial birth rates of ~15 kids, required for a population to be able to maintain some 80% of its genome functionally active, were not that rare to find. My core family is small in number, particularly. However, many of my closest relatives are almost right there, near the mentioned rate. In one family, there are 11 cousins. Others have around 8 or 7 kids. Moreover, my father equally grew up in a house of 10 brothers and sisters. Knowing of many other families that, back there, were big numbered, too, I wonder how far back this tendency goes on. Also, how this could affect, if at all, the genetic relationship inside the society I live on? Any idea, anyone?
Dear SciShow Team. First of all, thanks for all your interesting and informative videos which I believe take a lot of time and effort to be researched and created. I found, in comparison to many other "Science" Channels, that you don't jump to conclusions easily but keep it straight to information and facts. Great job on that. I follow your channel for quite some time now as I am teaching fundamental science and it gives me an opportunity to update my own knowledge to provide only the latest facts for my students as textbooks often fail to stay on top of certain topics as they are updated way too fast. As you know, it is quite a difficult and time consuming job to keep ourselves updated about science by roaming through journals and websites, which in some cases, are not very trustworthy either. So a very big Thank You guys for doing this. Now my question. As I understand it out of your video, you consider the left-over DNA from evolution, as part of Junk DNA. As far as I have learned and also teach, it is called 'Ancestral' DNA, isn't it? Am I mistaken here? Please shed some light into my dilemma. Thank you a lot in advance.
I would suggest looking at evolutionary development and genetic switches. I would postulate that much of the "junk" is utilized in various switches. We may have sequenced the entire human genome, but we really don't know every single switch in our genome or what they are specific for. Many switches are only used during embryonic development and once their function is done, they turn off.
Hypothesis: A natural selection of being less likely to be effected genetically by ionizing radiation, so the genome parts that serve a function are hit less and changed less.
I grew up as a hypoglycemic child and at age 20 it was discovered that I have zero working insulin receptors which caused the multitude of problems including putting me in a wheelchair! The technology is there now to either splice this Gene out or fix it but my research team in Boston seems to have been ignoring me since 1994. Disgraceful!
According to current data there are some families/subfamilies of transposons that are still moving in the human genome (Alu) not to mention that transposons play a huge role in gene evolution and speciation
Might be handing having partly coded dna ready to be made into something useful, in case we need it. Could be part of the development process of new useful stuff. Partly completed job that didnt go anywhere at the time, but may be ready to go quickly when conditions change...
Nothing more frustrating than pyrosequencing what you're sure is an oncogene only to find out it was in a noncoding region. Thank gourd for adaptive Informatics and next-gen
My class just finished our functional genomics discussion on ENCODE and Graur's sassy pushback paper. Lol this video would have been a great review for our exam.
As Hank states around min 7, the system is heck-a-random and doesn't really make sense. I've recently studied this from a nanotech perspective, and can relate with this feeling so much.
Clearly the quantity of DNA is more reflective of the coders leetness - Puffer-fishes were directly written in assembly by some 1337 coder making the most of every single sequence but impossible for anyone else to understand, while Humans are coded in the middleground language of C. Lungfish are written in Java (their appearance is also a dead give-away of this fact), and finally Onions are written in Javascript where the bloat is a combination of copy & paste coders and massive libraries that make up for the languages inherent deficiencies.
God I love how math can be used in biology to make reasonable estimates like this. There's just... so many different variables you can base your calculations on when other - perhaps more favourable - data is still out of reach.
A "Shrek" reference is always a good call.
Albert Demello I honestly can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t be a good call. So, I concur! (Side note: concur is an under appreciated and underused word!)
I also concur with your comment on the word, “concur.”
i'm not so shrek about this.
Tom, have you seen the movie Catch Me If You Can? There's a funny scene in that involving the use of the word concur 😛
I was only 9 years old
I loved Shrek so much...
Damn, even most of my DNA is useless.
Pixx it’s alright pixx. The rest of your DNA is vital.
@@TommoCarroll Dang u rite
it is all useless, since the rest made you. jk. i love u?
Pixx there you go buddy! See! It’s not all bad 😄
We are all useless.
Hank is freaking adorable. "I thought it was really good. I liked it!" 😂 I love it when people are proud and enthusiastic about what they do. It makes my heart happy.
Dialogue in my brain.. Hank says "They just jump around" ... my brain ... "well, there is a missed opportunity... Hank, "They just listened to House of Pain too much"... me.... "Give your writers a sweet ass Christmas bonus".
As a genetic epidemiologist (and biologist) I thank you for making this information approachable to the general pubic. As time goes on we actually find more and more function for DNA sequences we previously called 'junk'. How much is actually functional may never be known though. Humans are complicated.
Not to the Annunaki
5:31
Even if they are very tasty, and have all those layers. *_Like ogres._*
Electroflame 618 yeah, can someone please explain this for me?
Shrek. God I'm getting old
@LowellMorgan Shrek 1, to be more precise
Hank eats ogres. Jesus Christ, the man is a savage.
someBODY once told me
The idea I was going with is DNA is a hoarder; for onions it's like the house full o' papers and junk; for pufferfish their DNA was decluttered and for us, we're at the drawer stage in the kitchen or room stage in the house where there's lots we might need and we've kept. Some of it is the inevitable plastic bag drawer, the old screw jars, the lego box the kids had when they were young, some of it is the copper wiring that could be used to put up the fairy lights in the patio we just have not got round to, or the sound system that's to go with them. I'm really impressed with all the coding analogies; you guys just rock.
So, basically, we're poorly coded and buggy... like a Bethesda game.
LOL true dat. Thank the nine for the unofficial patches.
@@alexthompson8977 Time to attempt a debunk, I'll be back in a couple minutes.
@@anotherks7297 ok I'll wait :)
@@alexthompson8977 Information seems good and Birney is well credited. I'd have to read a bit more from the actual published papers.
You pass.
@@anotherks7297 I see it as good evidence but alot of people(all from the evolutionary side) attack it savagely. Why? Because evolution needs alot of junk dna. So little to no junk dna = no evolution. Clearly you see why they have a problem?
It mainly boils down to what "functional means". You can get up to 80% of the dna if you use functional loosely. Or you can get a very small amount if you use function specificly. Another thing why people are angry is because if it is proven that most or all of our dna is useful then creationists get a big score and evolution gets a big hit.
The existence of junk DNA happens in Genetic Algorithms as well. As genomes are mutated and bred, some very successful genomes (organisms) carry 'code' that isn't used or has no effect on the functional result when there are a limited set of input parameters. These typically will weed themselves out over time if the evolutionary engine places value on shorter genomes and more efficient code. But throwing around 'junk' in the evolutionary process is part of what makes it work. An organism in nature might have 'junk' that isn't functional for 'today', but might have been useful in the past and may be useful in the future. It's even possible that an organism has experienced cyclic reactivation of portions of the genome as conditions in the environment change.
Holy damn, there was so much informations in the episode. I'll need to watch this one multiple times to even start understanding some of it. Great video!
My deoxyribonucleic acid brings all the boys to the yard...
HK hahaha this was a thing of beauty. Brought a happy tear to my eye
🎼And they're like, it codes more than yours, and they're like it codes more than yours, I could split you but I'd have to code
I get the reference, but I don't get why you made the reference.
@@maracachucho8701 so u dont get it then?
Maracachucho the “milkshake” in the song isnt a literal one it actually refers to the *Ahem* -junk in her trunk
As a molecular biologist I can say I enjoyed this episode immensely! Thanks!!
Great video! For me, this was the sweet spot in terms of depth and technical details. I hope the Complexely Team makes more videos like this!
This sort of presentation is _exactly_ why I love SciShow. A lot of work went into this presentation and it shows. I am constantly proud to support this channel and Complexly in general.
"How Much Junk Is in Your DNA Trunk?"
I'm 100% trash, fam.
Speak for yourself. 🤔🤔🤔
I love that you bring science to us in a way easily understood, but not treating us like we are dumb! Keep up the good work!
Wait, my DNA is like the trunk of my car? There's a dead body in my DNA?
Well, eventually...
Oof
FBI OPEN UP
I know you joke (or do you?), but it's pretty common to have an expansive slew of dead genetic info stripped from the corpses of viruses that once attacked your body and planted into the sequence as a reference tool for future use. Basically, that section of your DNA is an encyclopedia your immune system and such can refer to whenever it meets a new viral infection and plan its attack accordingly.
It's like with that one assassin bug that carries around the heads of its slain prey as an armor. Nature is scary.
Silly bugger, you're not gonna get far without a shovel =P
During my genetics degree I did an essay called " non coding DNA junk or func" 😂
How did you get a degree in genetics when you can't even string a sentence together?
Answer: your Stupidity gets USED against other humans.
Trendywendy10 haha! Please tell me you got additional marks for your title? My dissertations (2!) titles were suuuuuuper boring, especially compared to yours!
More papers need to have this kind of tittles. A bit playful? Sure, by still gets the point across and man, English papers (aka most papers) have a tendency to be very stoic.
@@catmagic2226 My optimistic nihilism says "they shouldn't care".
Raven, posting a comment on TH-cam is less formal than a dissertation. A few minor mistakes aren't the end of the world.
Why did you capitalize "Stupidity" if it isn't a proper noun? That's a minor mistake, so you're both not 100% perfect.
"They jump around, because they listen to House of Pain too much." Classic.
I love how Hank gets all envious over the amount of dna an onion has compared to himself. Lol
Some "junk" genes can also produce small, noncoding RNAs that work to break down mRNAs as a method for controlling gene expression through a process called RNA interference, which is an interesting mechanism. Speaking of which, could you do an episode about RNAi? I may be biased, since I've done some undergrad research into it, but I think it could be a very interesting topic.
A concept I picked up from "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins, was the evolvibility of a species can be a trait that natural selection can work on. So all that junk DNA can lend variable traits to a species by copy/paste mistakes in the DNA. The more mistakes that junk DNA makes, the more variation in the species, the more apt a species is to evolve, therefore giving that species a leg-up in adaptability.
That was amazing! You guys always do such good work!
The “House of Pain” reference was awesome!!🤣
As a mathematical and computational biologist, I quite appreciate the honest coverage of this video (and the courage required to not shy away from the complexity of it all).
Thank You and all who work on Scishow
That onion bit made me laugh. "It shouldn't take 5 times as much DNA to be an onion"
Hank Green is hilarious, i love this fella!
"...variants of protein from a single gene."
Sounds like something from computer architecture for some reason.
This was very nice, I appreciate the amount of background
wow! that was amazingly good! an epic amount of tricky information presented so succinctly and clearly... microbiologist Hank, shining!
Legit just had a seminar about this lol love your vids!
You guys are awesome. Thank you
DNA is like windows SW.. you have a lot of code that rarely gets used if at all and from time to time the SW crashes and you'll have cancer
I remember hearing a thing in regards to certain plants having more genes than us: "can you survive having huge chunks of you removed and just grow them back? Can you live in the harsh elements with no protection? Can you last months without food or water? Etc."
Like with an onion.... You can take the onion plant out of the ground, cut off all the shoots/leaves and roots so it's just the bulb, then store it in a cupboard or fridge for months (so no food or water for the onion)... And it'll still grow. Sometimes on its own, but otherwise just by sticking it in some soil.
Humans can't lose most of our body and then be deprived of food and water for months and still remain alive. So like. I think it makes sense? Onions are more incredible than people give em credit for.
I wonder when or how many times certain plants and animals have evolved, when certain things branched off from each other, and how slowly or quickly they did it, and if that effects the amount of junk DNA they have, if at all. I'd love to hear an answer to those questions and if there's any correlation between the two.
OMG I forgot I had this in my watch list, I learned about this is my Biology class 2 weeks ago LOL
I remember thinking as a student that junk DNA could simply serve as a statistical target for random mutations. If most of your genome was functional, then a random mutation would be more likely to change an important gene, likely leading to problems. However, like a game of battleship, if most of your genome is junk, then it is less likely that a valuable gene will be hit by a random mutation.
For that to be the case, there would need to be some mechanism that increases mutation rate in a larger genome (which may well be the case). Otherwise it would be like expecting your car to be less likely to break down when you park it in a car park with loads of other cars in it.
No matter how much DNA you have, the mutation rate of your genes will stay exactly the same. Not to mention that the prime way of developing new traits, is not random mutation, but gene duplication and modification, for which some junk DNA to be embedded in indeed helps.
LeonMustapha
whenever i park my car in a park car together with lots of other cars over night I expect some little matchbox cars to arise.
Great episode indeed!! I thoroughly enjoyed it!! Thanks!!👍🏻👍🏻😃
i loved this episode, the jokes were on fire : D
I wonder if a use may be found for the non-"functional" DNA. Hard to believe a system would long support that much excess. And might it not be some kind of insulation, superstructure, energy supply? As Hank points out, it's still early; there's much yet to be decoded, many more processes yet to be understood.
The mechanism of DNA is very sophisticated. The non coding regions might have a role in controling the molecular machines that work on DNA itself. There might even contain a second code that decide which gene should be avtivated.
I thought it was really good to see and I liked it too! Especially the Shrek reference. Great vid. Got my sub 👍
If a piece of gen doesn't make proteins or stick to anything but the space it occupies still need for other things to happen that means it's not junk.
Thank you so much for this information...
I'm sure tons of people would be disappointed without a definitive answer, but I care more about my personal growth in understanding the evidence.
Nice article but you left out one of the coolest things junk dna can do. It may be a bad copy of another gene and not work now, but as mutations stack in it, it can suddenly become active again and change everything!
"I thought it was really good, I liked it."
100% Right with ya there.
I love how he said it was a good episoode and he really liked it lol!
One of my best friends is a molecular biologist studying the proteins within mitochondria. She recently discovered some new ways to cause cancer.
8:30 describes my grandparents pretty closely: they had 12 children. All of them survived to adulthood and lived to their 90’s and 3 of them lived past 100. My Aunt passed away at 107 years old and she was sharp & spry right to the end. (Same with all my aunts & uncles)
Their parents, my grandpa & grandma, were born at the end of the 1800’s. They lived to 97 and 94, respectively.
I’m the daughter of their youngest child (my dad) He was born when my g’ma was in her late 40’s and my g’pa was in his early 50’s. Even crazier, I’m the youngest kid in my family... I wasn’t born until my dad was 46 & my mom was 44...
Creationists : we don't know therefore god
Atheists : we don't know therefore it's junk
At least our explanation doesn’t involve a magical being.
I think one thing you left out is that some of the "junk DNA" may be structural. The base pairs are slightly different and some repeated sequences could affect the folding of the DNA chains which in turn affects other factors like stability and gene expression.
might be one of your best videos
Fascinating. So it sounds like perhaps the large regions of “junk” DNA might be an evolutionary survival tool against the natural processes of random mutation? Mutation of course, along with natural selection form the engine that drive evolution. Although actually I think the majority of evolution doesn’t come from natural selection operating on mutation rather natural variation of “normal” traits. But mutations will be random and the vast majority bad, so it sounds like perhaps junk DNA might be a survival tactic in the same way as building a spacecraft that’s 80% nonfunctional would be protection against micrometeorites ?
I love this channel so much :)
Hi guys. Nice video.
Just a feedback. I had problems with the subtitles. It is appearing something like a “ghost subtitle” behind the captions. I don’t know if it’s a TH-cam or my iPad problem.
Thank you.
Genes thumping to House of Pain, I see what you did there Hank!
“It just doesn’t do anything “ aka “we just don’t know what it does yet.” but more arrogantly.
From where I am from -as far as I know- back then (some 50 years) those industrial birth rates of ~15 kids, required for a population to be able to maintain some 80% of its genome functionally active, were not that rare to find.
My core family is small in number, particularly. However, many of my closest relatives are almost right there, near the mentioned rate. In one family, there are 11 cousins. Others have around 8 or 7 kids. Moreover, my father equally grew up in a house of 10 brothers and sisters.
Knowing of many other families that, back there, were big numbered, too, I wonder how far back this tendency goes on. Also, how this could affect, if at all, the genetic relationship inside the society I live on? Any idea, anyone?
So much discussion over pairs of pants. Amazing.
Dear SciShow Team. First of all, thanks for all your interesting and informative videos which I believe take a lot of time and effort to be researched and created. I found, in comparison to many other "Science" Channels, that you don't jump to conclusions easily but keep it straight to information and facts. Great job on that.
I follow your channel for quite some time now as I am teaching fundamental science and it gives me an opportunity to update my own knowledge to provide only the latest facts for my students as textbooks often fail to stay on top of certain topics as they are updated way too fast. As you know, it is quite a difficult and time consuming job to keep ourselves updated about science by roaming through journals and websites, which in some cases, are not very trustworthy either. So a very big Thank You guys for doing this.
Now my question. As I understand it out of your video, you consider the left-over DNA from evolution, as part of Junk DNA. As far as I have learned and also teach, it is called 'Ancestral' DNA, isn't it? Am I mistaken here? Please shed some light into my dilemma.
Thank you a lot in advance.
Sh*t doesn't matter yo.I like 100 % of my DNA.
8:32 People used to have on average 12 children...
I'm not sure if there are new writers or if Hank is just making more jokes, but I've noticed more levity in some recent episodes, and I like it!!
I like this cutting edge stuff.
I might have to watch this one a hundred times to get it all digested.
lets just make a bunch of clones with a control and some with "junk" removed and see if they work.
Just make clones LOL 4Head its so easy 4Head
...
I would suggest looking at evolutionary development and genetic switches. I would postulate that much of the "junk" is utilized in various switches. We may have sequenced the entire human genome, but we really don't know every single switch in our genome or what they are specific for. Many switches are only used during embryonic development and once their function is done, they turn off.
Some of those junk DNA need the bite of a radioactive spider to activate.
Hypothesis: A natural selection of being less likely to be effected genetically by ionizing radiation, so the genome parts that serve a function are hit less and changed less.
What if most of our DNA just needs the right environment to trigger it's usefulness?
I love how it is near universal that ogres have layers now ❤
I grew up as a hypoglycemic child and at age 20 it was discovered that I have zero working insulin receptors which caused the multitude of problems including putting me in a wheelchair! The technology is there now to either splice this Gene out or fix it but my research team in Boston seems to have been ignoring me since 1994. Disgraceful!
Most of what I got from this is we have a lot of R/W space and onions have way more than we do.
as a staff in a molecular biology lab, watching this is like hearing one of my colleagues explaining our work XD
My dna is the power to get money on steam or other games i have 40 euros on steam right now!
Great video. Tarts also have layers!
Great video!
Following the revelations of this video I now identify as a Vidalia onion.
According to current data there are some families/subfamilies of transposons that are still moving in the human genome (Alu) not to mention that transposons play a huge role in gene evolution and speciation
That would be all of my dna
I am so mesmerized by Hank’s ears.
I'm craving a Pop-tart right now. That must must be my junk food DNA kicking in...
This kind of explains why I can create sound with my ears?
Or maybe it’s INACTIVATED DNA.
Robyn I think that still falls under useless.
Robyn - Good insight.
An excellent TH-cam account nah. Still means it could be activated and also my have been activated in the past.
Robyn - Good point.
Might be handing having partly coded dna ready to be made into something useful, in case we need it. Could be part of the development process of new useful stuff. Partly completed job that didnt go anywhere at the time, but may be ready to go quickly when conditions change...
Nothing more frustrating than pyrosequencing what you're sure is an oncogene only to find out it was in a noncoding region. Thank gourd for adaptive Informatics and next-gen
Your mechanic looks under the hood of your car and tells you these black plastic boxes don't do anything. Don't believe him.
Maintaining legacy code is hard. Imagine messing with a 4.6 billion year old installation of Wordpress
My class just finished our functional genomics discussion on ENCODE and Graur's sassy pushback paper. Lol this video would have been a great review for our exam.
As Hank states around min 7, the system is heck-a-random and doesn't really make sense. I've recently studied this from a nanotech perspective, and can relate with this feeling so much.
ENCODE, evidence that scientists can come up with clever names that remain relevant.
Hank flips us off @ 6:30
The mental image of putting Hamlet in a blender. Because that's totally how word scrambles work.
"That doesn't mean anything is happening there aside from stickiness"
why is there a segment of a scishow about the sock under my bed
Thank you for the Shrek reference, Hank.
Clearly the quantity of DNA is more reflective of the coders leetness - Puffer-fishes were directly written in assembly by some 1337 coder making the most of every single sequence but impossible for anyone else to understand, while Humans are coded in the middleground language of C. Lungfish are written in Java (their appearance is also a dead give-away of this fact), and finally Onions are written in Javascript where the bloat is a combination of copy & paste coders and massive libraries that make up for the languages inherent deficiencies.
You win. Interwebs is yours all this day; great analogy. I like this! If I could I'd love this but ... youtubes, you know?
There's a lot of DNA coming out of my trunk I can tell you that.
Has anyone ever tried to "shorten" DNA and see what happens? No one should bat an eye if you mess with the DNA of an onion.
God I love how math can be used in biology to make reasonable estimates like this. There's just... so many different variables you can base your calculations on when other - perhaps more favourable - data is still out of reach.
Have an extra special thumbs up for that House of Pain reference! :)