Page 173 - If Darwin Had Known about DNA

Adnan Oktar

171

This
again shows
that there is
no direct corre-
lation between
DNA length and an or-
ganism's complexity. The bi-
ophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner refers
to this:
The chromosomes of some organisms may
have much more DNA than are in the chro-
mosomes of others. You might then think the
amount of DNA in the genome is a better way
to measure organ complexity, but that's not en-
tirely correct either. Although humans have 30
times the DNA of some insects, there are insects that
have more than double the DNA in humans. The amount of
DNA is not a reliable measure of complexity because not all the DNA
may have to do with complexity. . . . 120
It also emerged that previous estimates of the number of human

genes were also incorrect. When their research began, scientists esti-
mated that human beings had between 50,000 and 140,000 genes, but
the latest studies established only between 25,000 and 30,000. This
came as a considerable surprise to scientific circles. Francis S. Collins,
head of the Human Genome Project, explains:
Humans have more genes than expected. My definition of a gene here--
because different people use different terminology--is a stretch of DNA
that codes for a particular protein. There are probably stretches of DNA
that code for RNAs that do not go on to make proteins. That understand-
ing is only now beginning to emerge and may be fairly complicated. But
the standard definition of "a segment of DNA that codes for a protein"