A friend sends us a quote from the ENCODE Encyclopaedia
It has become apparent that, by virtually any metric, elements that govern transcription, chromatin organization, splicing, and other key aspects of genome control and function are densely encoded in many parts of the human genome sequence. However, most of these elements are actualized sparingly in a cell type or state selective manner, complicating assessment of the completeness of the ENCODE Encyclopedia, or what remains to be discovered.The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2020. Expanded encyclopaedias of DNA elements in the human and mouse genomes. Nature 583 July 30 pp. 699-710 see p. 709.
Another friend writes to ask, “I take it to mean that the null hypothesis is no longer ‘junk’ but ‘design’?”
Well, the shelves at Darwin’s junk shop are looking rather bare these days.
See also: “Junk DNA” can really matter says Rick Sternberg. If there were a prize for the Darwinian idea that has proven least helpful to Darwinism, would junk DNA be the winner?
And from the history:
Humans may have only 19,000 coding genes
“Junk DNA” regulates regeneration of tissues and organs
Note: One junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness anymore. Hmmm. In a less Darwinian science workplace, that could become more a problem for him than for his colleagues.
Junk DNA can actually change genitalia. Junk DNA played the same role in defending Darwinian evolution as claims that Neanderthal man was a subhuman. did: The vast library of junk genes and the missing link made Darwin’s story understandable to the average person and the missing link even became part of popular culture. With Darwinism so entrenched, the fact that these beliefs are not based on fact will be difficult to root out of the culture. Darwin-only school systems are part of the problem.
At Quanta: Cells need almost all of their genes, even the “junk DNA”
“Junk” RNA helps regulate metabolism
Junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness any more.
Anyone remember ENCODE? Not much junk DNA? Still not much. (Paper is open access.)
Yes, Darwin’s followers did use junk DNA as an argument for their position.
Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the “not-much-junk-DNA” ENCODE findings