"Junk" DNA must have a purpose, otherwise selection would have gotten rid of much of it. Why keep it around to serve as source of problems?
@JayMan471 @hbdchick 'Likely' meaning what? Junk DNA is the fact, the selective hypothesis the counter-factual, no?
-
-
@Outsideness@hbdchick Ultimately, it does depend on whether the rate junk is lost to deletions exceeds the rate new junk is generated. -
@JayMan471@hbdchick I'm not understanding. Doesn't the existence of (massive quantities of) junk DNA already answer this question? ... - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@JayMan471@hbdchick It's information-theoretically obvious that much junk DNA is functionless garbage (simple repeat sequences) ... -
@JayMan471@hbdchick ... so it's not as if we're going to discover some secret functionality just by looking harder at it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.