I’m bothered by the description of the history of “junk” dna. Going by this article dna, researchers labeled it junk just because they couldn’t analyze it well and prioritized the easier 92% and thus didn’t understand it. Calling it junk just seems like trying to compensate for not understanding it like “I don’t understand it but that’s fine because it’s junk anyway”
And the scientist quote seems so wrong. if missing almost 10% of something when that ~10% is not like the other 90% then it seems like a very bad assumption to assume that it doesn’t show a lot of important features.
The quote: “ You would think that, with 92 percent of the genome completed long ago, another eight percent wouldn’t contribute much“
And the scientist quote seems so wrong. if missing almost 10% of something when that ~10% is not like the other 90% then it seems like a very bad assumption to assume that it doesn’t show a lot of important features.
The quote: “ You would think that, with 92 percent of the genome completed long ago, another eight percent wouldn’t contribute much“