Posted: May 19, 2014 12:49 pm
by DavidMcC
Look, I didn't invent this stuff - it was part of my "Basic Bio" course by my employer, which was active in the field of biotechnology (involving DNA amplification on electronic chips).
So, you two don't accept that portions of a chromosome untwist ("fluff up") during gene expression, to allow enzymes to access the gene? That was in my course, I didn't invent it. I was even shown a micrograph of a chromosome, showing fluffy portions, said to be the expressing regions. The theory was that multicellular animals exploit the extra protection of genes from enzymes, which are large molecules, except during expression.
I din't realise that it was all "piffle". Sorry.

Rumraket wrote:We don't have to engage in this kind of ad-hoc, adaptationist rationalization. A lot of evolution is neutral and random, not everything has a selective purpose or advantage. We don't have to postulate that it does to explain it's existence or to understand it's origin and evolutionary history.

That was not my argument. I was taught that a major difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes involved the latter having to keep most genes in any one cell completely silent all of the time, otherwise the wrong proteins and RNAs might be made in that cell, which could be fatal. That was part of the rationale given.