Junk DNA and Gaia
ce12.htm Junk DNA
"Among many examples of genetic homologies, the most interesting are
in what is frequently termed junk DNA. Junk DNA are basically pieces
of DNA that have no function (or in some cases, such as introns, they
produce no protein but may be involved in regulation of the gene).
When the DNA is transcribed, these pieces of DNA either do not get
transcribed at all or are only partially transcribed, with no final
result (i.e., a functional protein) being produced. You can cut out
or modify most of this junk DNA without affecting the organism.
There are several varieties of junk DNA including pseudogenes,
introns, transposons and retroposons. In many organisms (such as
human beings) the vast majority of their DNA is of the junk variety.
As an example, in humans there is one particular family of junk DNA
called Alu sequences that are repeated some million times or so, and
this one family alone accounts for about 5% of our DNA. There are
numerous other examples.
What's more, with much of this junk DNA we can make pretty good
guesses as to how it came to be. A lot of it (such as pseudogenes)
appears to be copies of other pieces of DNA that have mutated such
that they are no longer functional. There are a variety of mutations
that can result in non-functional genetic code, so junk DNA
essentially represents errors in our DNA.
Why is junk DNA so interesting? An analogy from the courts may prove
useful here. Proving that someone has copied copyrighted material can
sometimes be difficult, as in some cases you would expect the
material to be similar since it covers the same topic or comes from
the same sources. For example, phone number databases would be
expected to be very similar since they contain the same basic
However, one excellent way to determine whether something has been
copied is if the errors in the source have been copied as well. While
you could argue that, even if highly unlikely, the material is
similar because it has similar function, it is very hard to explain
why some material would have exactly the same errors as some other
material if it were not copied. Companies that sell products such as
phone lists or maps routinely insert fake listings to protect
themselves from copyright violations.
The same can be said of DNA. It is hard enough to explain (if you
don't accept evolution) why some functional pieces of DNA show great
similarities. It is pretty much impossible to rationally explain why
nonfunctional DNA, erroneous DNA, would be very similar between
different species. Why would genetic code that doesn't do anything
and which clearly appears to be the result of mutations be similar,
or in many cases identical, between different organisms? The only
explanation that makes any sense is if this DNA was inherited from a
common ancestor. Homologies between junk DNA are probably the most
powerful of the homology evidence for common descent, as common
descent is the only rational explanation for them.
There are many examples of homologies between junk DNA, a number of
which can be found in Zeus Thibault's Proof of Macroevolution series.
We will address but a few of them here.
Pseudogene equivalents are genes which are identifiable as some
functional gene in another organism but which have a mutation which
has rendered them nonfunctional. There are three sets of genes found
in many species that have pseudogene equivalents in primates,
including humans. They are:
several odorant receptor genes,
the RT6 protein gene, and
the galatosyl transferase gene.
The mutations which made these genes inoperable are shared among the
primates. It is important to keep firmly in mind that there are
numerous mutations that can render a gene nonfunctional. Yet not only
do primates have pseudogene versions of these genes that are
functional in other creatures, but these pseudogenes have been made
nonfunctional by the same mutations - they have the exact same errors
in the genes. This makes perfect sense if this genetic material was
inherited from a common ancestor. Creationists have yet to come up
with a rational alternative explanation.
Summary of Biochemical Homologies
The biochemical homologies offer some of the strongest homology
evidence for common descent. This is due the universal existence of
some homologies across all life forms, as well as the large number of
possible biochemical alternatives that life forms could have used,
but didn't. While all homologies support the idea of common descent,
some biochemical homologies such as those in junk DNA provide
especially strong evidence, since their very nature makes it
exceedingly unlikely that they would exist for any functional reason.
Common descent offers a meaningful explanation for these homologies."
There are two main aspects of a living earth, the cirrus cloud part,
and the ocean part. The cirrus clouds in pre cellular earth would
have contained nucleotides in such manner as they would 1) replicate
and 2) have an electrcical to mass meaning. IOWs, if rain
feedbacks/convection feedbacks caused "nutrients" to be available on
the ocean surface below, such that the nucleotides could both
reproduce and reproduce with a meaningful mass and charge, you would
have a good feedback. Below in the oceans the nucleotides would
contain chemistry over chaotic diffusion of chemicals but that
containment was probably not all that significant on conductivities
like cellular life is today.
Junk DNA was anything but junk to cirrus cloud formations in pre
cellular earth. The function of the DNA was not to produce proteins
or regulate or translate them, but rather the nucleotide function was
simply to provide an electrical feedback to convection processes that
occur w/ cirrus clouds that can trap heat, compress air and cause
rain over ambiant, lifeless winds and climate inputs. The feedback is
quite powerful, additionally, because of phase change energies on the
DNA particles, forming or not, in cloud nucliation processes bring to
cloud dynamics signiicant forcings.
Dielectrics and cloud dynamics.
Most are familiar with the fact that thunder clouds tend to bring
negative voltages to ground and fair weather, a lower but positive
voltage to ground. The whole thing is powered by the charge
separations that bring positive voltages to the ionosphere from the
thunderstorm clouds and that positive voltage then makes the lower
ionsphere positively charged as a whole, and then this positive
voltage moves to ground in fair weather. However, what isn't wel
understood is how over tropical storms there is a large negative
voltage that impact the cirrus cloud behaviors. What isn't understood
is that the dielectric constant of water is about 80 times
stronger and with tropical storms, where there is a capacitive
coupling between ionosphere and ocean, the "eye" of the storm allows
the capacitive coupling to occur whereas over the cirrus disk around
the "eye" the high dielectric of water prevents an alternating
current to pass by capacitance. The result is few strikes in a
tropical storm and a pattern of EMFs and circuitry that favors the
formation of cirrus disks and convections that tropical storms are
The largest problem facing self replicating life, of course, is
keeping the chemistry (eg pH, nearby strikes and essential chemicals)
available. That is because without cell walls any kind of chemistry,
pH or temperature condition that would break down the nucleotides
would then stop the replications.
Gaia turns out to be local in that large scale low frequency ion
waves are connected by hydrology to larger water bodies and the
action takes place best along the idea that convective activity is
going to attract dust particles from fair weather zones nearby. Fair
and perhaps dry periods where the water dries up and leaves the
nucleotides to blow as dust in the wind, and gather fair weather
positive charges, and then be attracted to areas of convection.
These functions all have to fit in terms of modulating chemistry and
temperature and pH, such that what washes down the hydrology to where
the nucleotides are created matches with what happens to the
nucleotides in cirrus clouds and convection dynamics.
The cirrus cloud dynamic also helps explain how early life could have
covered the entire globe, moving quickly to places that had the
proper conditions to support replication, drying and reinsertion in
Later, as cellular life began to contain chemstries by themselves, a
more ocean based conductivity model could emerge and the
extremophiles or the archae could emerge with the junk DNA unloaded
for metabolic efficiency. Conductivity was then managed by the fact
that the cell itself was more conductive and the hydrates from the
methanogens was more electrcially insulative. Chemistry was further
maintained contained by location because unlike dust which can blow
great distances the large scale electricall fields associated with
hydrate formations and biogenic increases in conductivies were more
localized. Tectonic processes like subduction of an ocean plate
underneath a land plate, in so scrapping off sediments and building
coastal mountains, would cause further re-erosion by rivers right
back into the marine biosphere where the cellular life flourished,
and by maintained chemistry, could continue to flourish with minor
adjustments and movements. Soon this new, evolved efficiency did not
allow for simple nucleotide replication, and a modified
cirrus "electropheresis" movement occurred by sexual reproduction,
and things like greenery and pollen and so forth would have their
climate modulating impact on the clouds and living earth feedbacks.