A friend asks, on reading this:
Far from being junk DNA, the pervasive retrotransposons that populate the genome have a powerful capacity to influence genes and chromatin. A new study demonstrates how the transcription of one such element, HERV-H, can modify the higher-order 3D structure of chromatin during early primate development.
– Michael I. Robson & Stefan Mundlos, “Jumping retroviruses nudge TADs apart” at Nature Genetics, volume 51, pages1304–1305 (2019)
Graur has been so convinced of junk DNA that he — last we heard — stopped even doing politeness on the subject any more.
Hmmm. Does someone have Miss Manners’ private e-mail or some other discreet means to get in touch with her, perhaps through a friend? Possibly Dr. Graur might wish to consider luncheon at some point. She is his guest, of course… 😉
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: 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.
Been a while since we’ve heard much about humans as the 98% or 99% chimpanzee. If the human genome is this fuzzy how would we know? And doubtless, things have gotten more complex.
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