I don’t know... it’s like they say that we only use 5 is just 15% f the brain. Well I think we use 100% but the other 85% is operating system.
imagine how much programming would be involved to have a sensor with as many connections as the nerves in your body, that would instantly take over and focus attention on any one specific one (like if you got poked in the arm)
Heck, it’s 2015. There probably a new scientific “conclusion”(or two) on the subject by now.
"Junk DNA Not Junk After All"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php
Also, a Christian site "icr.org" refutes this finding saying it is based upon circular reasoning with a base of needing to start with an evolutionary perspective, which they are afraid a lack of junk DNA refutes.
"The Resurrection of 'Junk DNA'?"
http://www.icr.org/article/resurrection-junk-dna/
Also interestingly, according to this article, Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analysis coordinator is himself an evolutionist.
"Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise"
http://www.icr.org/article/junk-dna-myth-continues-its-demise/
(Excerpt with underline added.)......
The second phase of ENCODE has been no less spectacular in its discoveries. In the lead research paper, published in the journal Nature, the authors wrote, “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.”1
And what about the remaining 20 percent of the genome—is it functional too? According to Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analysis coordinator, it is probably not meaningless junk either. Birney said, “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent” and “we don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”4
Despite being an evolutionist himself, Birney expects that many critics will argue about the 80 percent figure and the definition of what is “functional.” Birney added, “[That figure] best [conveys] the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity” and “no matter how you cut it, we’ve got to get used to the fact that there’s a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.”4