W. B. Langdon and R. Poli
> ...This might suggest that the evolutionary burden of the 'excess' DNA
> of plants and animals is small. Most eukaryotic species are therefore
> probably not at a particular neutral point of length v cost. It is
> interesting to speculate as to how much of the differences in the
> selection pressures on genome size are due to differences in rates
> of reproduction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
I suspect that there is still a great deal to learn from natural
evolution.
For example, *why* do some creatures have far greater quantities of DNA
and greater redundancy in that DNA than others? Is it completely
random, or has it happened because of a particular evolutionary history?
Do entities (like viruses) that must constantly keep changing and
updating
their DNA over few generations *require* shorter DNA? Whouldn't they
benefit from 'storing previous solutions' as redundant code, or 'bloat'?
Do entities (like the lungfish) have large quantites of bloat because
over millions of years they have had to oscillate between a number of
forms to allow them to survive in a number of changing environments?
Certainly if there is so little bloat in viruses (which are marvels of
rapid evolution), perhaps there is a real advantage in minimising bloat.
If so, then our GAS would probably benefit from it.
Peter.
Dr P J Bentley
University College London