C-value paradox: Genesis in misconception that natural selection follows anthropocentric parameters of 'economy' and 'optimum'.

C-value paradox refers to the lack of correlation between biological complexity and the intuitively expected protein-coding genomic information or DNA content. Here I discuss five questions about this paradox: i) Do biologically complex organisms carry more protein-coding genes? ii) Does variable accumulation of selfish/ junk/ parasitic DNA underlie the c-value paradox? iii) Can nucleoskeletal or nucleotypic function of DNA explain the enigma of orders of magnitude high levels of DNA in some 'lower' taxa or in taxonomically related species? iv) Can the newly understood noncoding but functional DNA explain the c-value paradox? and, v) Does natural selection uniformly apply the anthropocentric parameters for 'optimum' and 'economy'? Answers to Q.1-5 are largely negative. Biology presents numerous 'anomalous' examples where the same end function/ phenotype is attained in different organisms through astoundingly diverse ways that appear 'illogical' in our perceptions. Such evolutionary oddities exist because natural selection, unlike a designer, exploits random and stochastic events to modulate the existing system. Consequently, persistence of the new-found 'solution/s' often appear bizarre, uneconomic, and therefore, paradoxical to human logic. The unexpectedly high c-values in diverse organisms are irreversible evolutionary accidents that persisted, and the additional DNA often got repurposed over the evolutionary time scale. Therefore, the c-value paradox is a redundant issue. Future integrative biological studies should address evolutionary mechanisms and processes underlying sporadic DNA expansions/ contractions, and how the newly acquired DNA content has been repurposed in diverse groups.