He explains why he is a Christian and why he is "more than his genes" in Am I more than my genes? Faith, identity, and DNA.
Here's the opening paragraph ...
The word “genome” suggests to many that our DNA is simply a collection of genes from end-to-end, like books on a bookshelf. But it turns out that large regions of our DNA do not encode genes. Some once called these regions “junk DNA.” But this was a mistake. More recently, they have been referred to as the “dark matter” of our genome. But what was once dark is slowly coming to light, and what was once junk is being revealed as treasure. The genome is filled with what we call “control elements” that act like switches or rheostats, dialing the activation of nearby genes up and down based on whatever is needed in a particular cell. An increasing number of devastating complex diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, can often be traced back, in part, to these rheostats not working properly.Theme
& Junk DNASethupathy works on regulatory RNAs so, in theory, he should be in a position to know whether the best available evidence supports a genome full of junk DNA or bristling with control elements.
Apparently he has decided that "junk DNA" was a mistake.
In my opinion, he is wrong. I believe the evidence shows unequivocally that 90% of our genome is junk. There are lots and lots of regulatory elements in our genome (among other things) but, along with exons in genes, they make up less than 10% of our genome.
Five things you need to know about junk DNASethupathy is one of those confused researchers who think that all noncoding DNA used to be called junk [see Science journal blows it again]. Such a misconception doesn't necessarily mean that ALL noncoding DNA has to be functional but these two misconceptions ('all noncoding DNA was junk' and 'most of our genome is functional') seem to go together.
I don't understand why you would write about something in your area of expertise (e.g. junk DNA and genomes) without reading up on the literature. If scientists were to do their homework then the most you could say is that you choose to reject all the evidence in favor of junk DNA and concentrate instead on speculations that most of the genome is functional based on evidence that some small percentage of it is functional.