3 ms·
I thought that "junk DNA" was now a discarded misnomer, and that while there are sections that don't code for protein synthesis, it still has a biological funct
by GregBuchholz 12y ago
I thought that "junk DNA" was now a discarded misnomer, and that while there are sections that don't code for protein synthesis, it still has a biological function. It looks like it is still up in the air as to what percentage of non-coding DNA is biologically vital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
- philh 12y agoIf junk DNA doesn't exist, the limit applies to the whole genome. (I lean towards thinking that some non-junk DNA has been previously mistakenly classified as junk, but that junk DNA still exists in a meaningful sense. But I'm a layman, and I don't even have a strong idea of what the expert consensus is.)