4 ms·
Yes, and I do too and you are wrong—-it is not misleading at all—despite what ENCODE has claimed. I suspect you have not had a recent course in population gene
by robwwilliams 5y ago
Yes, and I do too and you are wrong—-it is not misleading at all—despite what ENCODE has claimed.
I suspect you have not had a recent course in population genetics.
Read Michael Lynch’s “The Origins of Genome Architecture” before you make dubious pronouncements. The human genome is a jungle of code and under rather weak selection due to small effective population size. There is a tremendous amount of cruft in all human genomes due to mobile element insertions and spread.
- forgotpwd16 5y agoCannot follow your comment. Junk as noun refers to rubbish/garbage and therefore means something to be worthless. Parent comment says that it isn't worthless. My questions are: Are you saying this is wrong and so-called junk DNA is indeed worthless? Why you say to disregard ENCODE claims and are the functions mentioned in parent even related to them? Can you make a synopsis of what the book you're recommending talks about? Also note the book predates ENCODE project results and being 15 year old it doesn't consider any newer developments either.