Experimental Data Force Researchers to Admit There’s “No Such Thing As Junk RNA”

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 23, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[ElectricStrawberry]

They figured that evolution is an untidy, trial and error process that generates lots of functionless DNA that accumulates in the genome like junk.

Spoken like someone who has all the "experience" of reading "science" writers like Brian Thomas MS*

Very plainly, you don't know WTF you're talking about and making it up as you go to your flock in your echo chamber is what you're limited to.

Junk DNA was labelled as junk DNA very simply because it had no known direct function. Not that it had no function.....that it had no KNOWN function....and ever since it was dubbed "junk DNA" in the early 70s.....ever since it was shown that there was DNA with no KNOWN function, that there was non-coding DNA....REAL scientists have been trying to find its function while your "science" writers have been "writing"...

[metmom]

What’s ludicrous is the intemperate labeling of things that we don’t understand.

Scientists have ended up with egg on their faces more times than they can count because of rash pronouncements of *This is the way IT IS, PERIOD.* only to find out later that it wasn’t.

If they’d stop acting as if everything they conclude was written in stone, they’d gain a whole lot more credibility. People would be more inclined to believe them when they state something then. As it is, why should anyone trust them at this point with their track record?