[Texas_Jarhead]

I'm curious about something here. In the excerpt you posted the author states, "There are those who claim that we carry useless D.N.A., but they're wrong. If there is something in our genes, there's a reason for it."

Wouldn't evolution itself result in so-called junk DNA? I mean if in the process of evolution 'things', for lack of a better word, that do not presently serve a purpose are retained for future use or for further refinement then couldn't those 'things' be viewed as junk? Certainly some 'intermediate' forms of 'things' (eg DNA) are not useful. Have I missed something here?

[mewzilla]

Evolution doesn't dictate that all things be useful, just not harmful. Doesn't even need to be deemed useful for the future, though I'm not sure how a genome would determine that in any case :)

[EBUCK]

Wouldn't evolution itself result in so-called junk DNA? I mean if in the process of evolution 'things', for lack of a better word, that do not presently serve a purpose are retained for future use or for further refinement then couldn't those 'things' be viewed as junk? Do a search on psuedogenes. Which is the term for supposedly inactive, unused, "leftover" genetic material.

EBUCK