DNA in blood of birds.

I have just learned that the red blood cells of birds contain DNA.

This suggests to me that the blood of all vertebrates including turtles,
amphibians, fish, sharks etc may include DNA.

Is this correct?

The only significant advantage of not having DNA in red blood cells I
can think of is size and therefore the ability to reach more locations
through smaller vessels.

No doubt there are other advantages I have not seen. Suggestions?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DNA in blood of birds.
    ... > I have just learned that the red blood cells of birds contain DNA. ... When you have one state in mammals and one state in birds, you don't have sufficient data to determine the polarity - that is which state is then ancestral state. ... the mammalian state is derived. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DNA in blood of birds.
    ... Their red blood cells have nuclei. ... amphibians, fish, sharks etc may include DNA. ... squid have copper based blood transport. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DNA in blood of birds.
    ... amphibians, fish, sharks etc may include DNA. ... evolutionary theory that all other non-mammalian vertebrates also have ... DNA in their red blood cells. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DNA in blood of birds.
    ... Their red blood cells have nuclei. ... amphibians, fish, sharks etc may include DNA. ... evolutionary theory that all other non-mammalian vertebrates also have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DNA in blood of birds.
    ... amphibians, fish, sharks etc may include DNA. ... evolutionary theory that all other non-mammalian vertebrates also have ... DNA in their red blood cells. ... anatomically divided ventricle. ...
    (talk.origins)