[VadeRetro]

He thinks it is pretty clear that these sequences have no major role in growth and development. "There has been a circular argument that if it's conserved it has activity."

I thought it was creationists who didn't like the term "Junk DNA." This study vividly demonstrates that there's every bit as much slop and junk in the genome as we ever suspected.

[Virginia-American]

This study vividly demonstrates that there's every bit as much slop and junk in the genome as we ever suspected.

I thought that the fugu did that, since its genome is only about 10% the size of ours.

Although the Fugu genome contains essentially the same genes and regulatory sequences as the human genome, it carries those genes and regulatory sequences in approximately 365 million bases as compared to the 3 billion bases that make up human DNA. With far less so-called “junk DNA” to sort through....

Source

[frgoff]

This study vividly demonstrates that there's every bit as much slop and junk in the genome as we ever suspected.

Just because something doesn't work the way YOU would have designed it, doesn't mean it wasn't designed at all.

This chestnut is just the flip side of the creationist arguments on complexity.

The creationist says: It's too complex to have evolved.

The evolutionist says: It's too sloppy to have been designed.

Both suffer from subjectivism: the fallacy that your opinion is fact.