For those who want to see a really fascinating argument that has lasted for a while, about junk DNA, functional selection, data, and models of evolution, start

For those who want to see a really fascinating argument that has lasted for a while, about junk DNA, functional selection, data, and models of evolution, start at http://cryptogenomicon.org/encode-says-what.html http://cryptogenomicon.org/encode-says-what.html and then https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2817%2930622-X https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%281... and https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00575-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00575-x (unfortunately paywalled). From what I can tell, ENCODE project collected a ton of data suggesting that large regions of DNA which are not under functional selection (to the extent that we can measure that) are actively transcribed. They released some press and papers suggesting this meant that "junk DNA was not actually junk", which led Eddy to have a rage fit and propose an experiment to support his beliefs. From what I can tell, we still don't have a great explanation for why large regions of DNA that are not under apparent functional selection are constantly being transcribed and what evolutionary impact that has on organisms. Personally I think Eddy greatly overplayed his claims, depending on some historical details in genome analysis that probably are dated and missing critical new biology, but honestly, these are areas where the theories and data are so ambigious, you can construct any number of narratives explaining the observed results.