Replies

ifinnegan: "And you have to admit, “something less” deserves some snark."

So now you want a serious answer to a snarky post?

OK, here it is:

"Junk DNA" is a term left over from the 1960s, studied since 1972 and referring originally to all non-coding DNA, more than 90% of our genome.

But over the years other non-coding functions have been found for alleged "junk" such that today only 65% is thought definitely not used and 26% as "likely junk", meaning suspected of actual functions.

"The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[2]
Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[5][6][7][8][9]
Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.

However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope.
Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology."

So, yet again depending on definitions, a certain amount of word-gaming involved here.

So no one really knows.

And the idea of junk DNA and all this junk DNA in eukaryotes as evolutionary insulators was all hand waving and ever supported.

My point is that there is inherent function in the structure itself beyond simply narrow definitions of function, eg coding, enzymatic, regulatory.

It was presumptuous to have thought otherwise, but it was fair enough.

I am reminded of the story of when Venter made the case to Watson to sequence the entire genome, Watson said no, just the gene coding regions, that’s all that matter.

Boy was he wrong.

Per your reference to 65%

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

That is not a scientific site and has no scientific references or merit at all.

It reflects the irrational obsession over the term junk DNA, though.

It has nothing to do with biology except in as much as it attempts to exploit it.

My advice- drop the crevo crud.