There is 100% redundancy in the DNA code. Why such a wastage of resources?

Answer 1

Actually, it isn't 100% redundant -- remember the sex chromosomes. The redundancy gives the same result as redundancy in any information system: resistance to errors. If a cosmic ray zaps the blue fision dye gene on one chromosome, the one it is paired with can still cause the dye to be made. If the red or green dye chromosome (which are on the X sex chromosome) gets nailed, and you're a male, you're out of luck: you just lost the only one you had, and you'll wind up colorblind.

Answer 2

It is 100% redundant, the 3'-5' strand.

It would be technically possible to incorporate all of the information on to a single strand of DNA. Actually, this is not true of some viral genomes with overlapping reading frames in both directions, but you get the idea.

But single stranded DNA is much more susceptible to damage.

By the base pairing between the two strands, repair can be made should there be damage to one strand. Also the double helix is more stable.

Answer 3

I'm not certain what you're referring to in terms of redundancy; duplication of alleles in actual coding regions (genes that will "make" something) of chromosomes or simply high copy number of non coding regions but many of the mechanisms and reasons are essentially the same.

Genetic mutation is thought to be the primary means of generating diversity in the population of a species. Diversity is necessary to ensure that a species can readily adapt and therefore survive changes in environment, etc. Since our genes are responsible for our physical attributes, it makes sense that subtle mutations in our genes could lead to countless adaptations, some beneficial, some not.

In a nutshell, beneficial adaptations lead to increased "fitness" of a species that allow it to flourish. While these mutations are thought of as positive, the chance that a random mutation will end up becomming beneficial are pretty low. In fact, most mutations are detrimental or even lethal. Therefore, the best chance for a species to alter it's DNA without incurring a lethal mutation would be to duplicate a portion of its DNA and then mutate the copy so the original gene is still in tact. Over time, these redundancies and their subsequent mutations lead to physical traits that are superior to the original set of genes. Sometimes the original genes are deleted, sometimes they aren't. In effect, what you're referring to as "wastage" is less important than the adaptive advantage the duplicated DNA leads to.

Please keep in mind that the first step in mutation is simply duplication and it may take a lot of time, perhaps many generations, before the copied gene is actually mutated so it can appear as if there are many, many copies of a gene for no reason at all.

Answer 4

"Wastage of resources"? You are assuming there was a "god" that "created" life, aren't you?

DNA wasn't "designed", it is a kludge and an accidental form in nature. Think of it like an old computer that's ugly as hell with replaced parts all over that don't fit and need long cables, and it has gaps in the casing. If the computer works, then it doesn't matter how it look; function is more important than form, and that applies to DNA as well.

Answer 5

DNA can be redundant in terms of genetic expression. But, the presence of these so called 'redundant DNA' has some reasons. It offers resistance to occasional damage. They also offer variety to facilitate evolution. It may also be a product of some evolutionary change that rendered a part obsolete.

Answer 6

Redundancy is a cushion for the living system to absorb environmental shock. It is not a wastage.It is a very clever weapon in the armoury of the living system to tackle the mutagenic inanimate environment.