Scientists debunk 'junk DNA' theory....

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 06777.html

Scientists debunk 'junk DNA' theory to reveal vast majority of human genes perform a vital function

The genetic “control panel” of the human body that regulates the activity of our 23,000 genes has been revealed for the first time in a scientific tour de force that could revolutionise the understanding and treatment of hundreds of diseases.

Scientists have once and for all swept away any notion of “junk DNA” by showing that that the vast majority of the human genome does after all have a vital function by regulating the genes that build and maintain the body.

Junk DNA was a term coined 40 years ago to describe the part of the genome that does not contain any genes, the individual instructions for making the body’s vital proteins. Now, this vast genetic landscape could hold hidden clues to eradicating human disease, scientists said.

Hundreds of researchers from 32 institutes around the world collaborated on the immense effort to decipher the hidden messages within the 98 per cent of the human genome without any genes and was thought, therefore, to have no function.

They have concluded in a series of 30 research papers published simultaneously today, in Nature, Science and other journals, that this so-called junk DNA is in fact an elaborate patchwork of regulatory sequences that act as a huge operating system for controlling the genome.

(continued)

[Tero]

Cool. But there is still junk. We carry a lot of viral DNA.

[Gerald McGrew]

There's a bit more to this story than most media are reporting.

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... code-hype/

Basically, ENCODE's definition of "functional" is rather loose, and the 80% estimate was specifically put out to "generate interest" in their work.

[Svartalf]

Cool. But there is still junk. We carry a lot of viral DNA.

Junk is not the DNA, it's what we use to transmit it.

[Rum]

They said its time to junk the word junk as it refers to DNA!

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm not a expert but I don't like the term junk as it carries so many utilitarian meanings in common usage. And might even be used to imply some kind of 'design angle' with the parts of the genome that are not classed as junk.

[GenesForLife]

The way this has been reported in the popular science is one infested with utter balderdash.

[JimC]

We are a house built of driftwood, accumulated over eons, with no purpose but not falling down...

And yet it works...

[Graculus]

The way this has been reported in the popular science is one infested with utter balderdash.

So, business as usual?