5 ms·
If some part of DNA is classified as code DNA, why not classify this as data DNA instead of junk?
by zakki 4y ago
If some part of DNA is classified as code DNA, why not classify this as data DNA instead of junk?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- JohnJamesRambo 4y agoJournalists don’t understand data but they understand junk.
- pyinstallwoes 4y agoI’m a junk engineer to these journalists.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoThe problem isn't classification, as much as undoing the effect of a generation of academic and pop-sci publishing, which popularized the term "junk DNA" - and groups that perpetuate this term today, e.g. creationist/anti-evolution groups that use it to argue biologists are full of hubris (and thus wrong about evolution), and inadvertently keep the term itself alive.
- hsn915 4y agoCreationists only weaponize the term because it really is used by journalists and pop-scientists to argue against design.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoSome journalists and pop-science writers are creationists themselves; the whole debate is still self-sustaining feedback loop, and one of its side effects is that the term "junk DNA" remains in use.
- zeristor 4y agoDo you mean “Junk DNA” is a junk term? At least until it gets repurposed. Apologies for getting too meta.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> Do you mean “Junk DNA” is a junk term? Junk gene is a junk meme? Yeah, that's about right. > At least until it gets repurposed. Like all memes do. And genes, for that matter.