>It should be pointed out that the judgment that so much of a genome is
>"junk" is based on the phenotype's view of things, not the gene's. From the
>point of the "junk" genes themselves, they are not junk. They are
>evolutionarily successful in that they have found a way to survive by
>hitching rides along with productive or useful genes.
How do you know the gene has a view at all? Can you say what you
mean without anthropomorphizing base pairs? If genes do have views,
how do you know they aren't altruistically viewing themselves as junk?
The 'selfish gene' idea implies a dynamic that isn't there. We don't see
genes reproducing like viruses, we don't see fatal excess-DNA mutations,
caused by genes who got too ambitious for their own good.
Is an ineffective non-coding bit of DNA a gene at all? Might the term 'gene'
be reserved for something that affects the phenotype?
Isn't it possible that non-coding DNA serves some purpose, perhaps
as potential raw material for future genes?
Isn't it more sensible to say that junk DNA is just historical baggage, like
a vestigial structure in the phenotype? Could we say vesitigial structures
are junk anatomy?
>We already know that
>some genes are parasitical on other genes, so why might there not be genes
>that are not particularly harmful but not useful either?
Here you inferring something obvious and well-known from something
incomprehensible. Is a vestigial structure a parasite?
Samuel Butler said the chicken is simply the egg's means of insuring the
production of more eggs. He saw the funniness in turning things upside
down. Dawkins takes this confusion seriously, with his selfish gene concept.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com