>> The premise is that total DNA is the same for all cells in the same
>> animal and from one mammal to the other. Lower forms of life have less
>> DNA. As some mammals become more complex than others in one area or
>> another, the % of DNA devoted to that specialization is greater. This
>> leaves a deficit of DNA for other tasks (because total DNA is
>> constant). Nutrient synthesis is the expression of one of DNA's tasks.
>> If nutrients can be obtained from food and not synthsized, then
>> valuable DNA space is saved.

>That's interesting, but I wonder if there is any evidence that there is
>a lack of space in our DNA. Isn't it possible that our DNA, like our
>brain, can still store much more information? [We also know that
>some genes are repeated thousands of times]

>And the fact that the animals don't synthetize such or such nutrient
>doesn't mean that the gene is lost. In fact, many genes still exist
>but are not expressed anymore [hens still have genes to build teeth!]

I agree. Genetic change doesn't seem to be a zero-sum type thing at all. We
seem to carry all sorts of unexpressed genes, kinda like baggage for future
evolution. ;)

What was more to me interesting were the ideas in the rest of the post
about omega3 vs omega6, brain size, etc.

Cheers,
Kirt