Not exactly useless, right?:
Retrotransposons are DNA sequences that can move about the genome by copying themselves from their RNA transcripts and reinserting into new locations. Also known as jumping genes, these DNA elements, which may be the remnants of ancient viral infections, are generally thought to provide little or no benefit to the host and can even cause harmful mutations. However, blind mole rats (Spalax spp.) use these pieces of so-called junk DNA to protect itself from cancer, reports a study in Nature Immunology last week (September 23)—a discovery that experts say may have implications for human treatments.
“The paper describes an important new mechanistic insight into the way one can trigger inflammatory signals in cancer cells to either kill them directly or make them vulnerable to cancer-killing therapies,” says cancer biologist Stephen Baylin of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. “The importance of it is really quite profound.”
Ruth Williams, “Blind mole rats use junk dna to combat cancer” at The Scientist (September 30, 2021)
Just think of the amount of time the Darwinian notion of junk DNA has wasted. Don’t losse sight of that. They sure want to.
Note the book The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells.
The biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology (not!)
There’s a bit of an ironic twist here. If it were true that knowledgeable scientists in the 1970s actually believed that all noncoding DNA was junk then I’d have to agree that this would have been a big (biggest?) mistake. But they didn’t and it wasn’t a big mistake. As I’ve said many times, no knowledgeable scientist ever said that all noncoding DNA was junk since they (we) all knew about noncoding genes, regulatory sequences, centromeres, and origins of replication, all of which are functional noncoding DNA. We now know that about 1% of our genome is coding sequences and about 9% is functional noncoding DNA. The other 90% is junk.
Priceless, In one breath Seversky (falsely) claims that Darwinists never claimed that non-coding DNA was junk. In the next breath he (falsely) claims that, “We now know that about 1% of our genome is coding sequences and about 9% is functional noncoding DNA. The other 90% is junk.”
Simply priceless!