tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2185604079027208722..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Reddit: We are the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium.Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28501582921668736972012-10-07T17:31:29.530-04:002012-10-07T17:31:29.530-04:00CB: Does my comment above answer some of your poi...CB: <i>Does my comment above answer some of your points?</i><br /><br />It's a good try, but not really. Can you cite evidence that endogenous transposable elements are important for cancer?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82754961511899766222012-10-06T00:34:08.857-04:002012-10-06T00:34:08.857-04:00Oh no, the DNA worldmag displays in that article i...Oh no, the DNA worldmag displays in that article is left-handed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40947466641112214082012-10-05T18:43:25.423-04:002012-10-05T18:43:25.423-04:00From the page linked by Denny: Researchers are sho...From the page linked by Denny: <i>Researchers are showing that the old Darwinian ideas about 'junk' DNA were simplistic.</i><br /><br />Yeah, Ol' Charlie Darwin was completely wrong about junk DNA.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2684589783769060212012-10-05T17:37:58.079-04:002012-10-05T17:37:58.079-04:00Larry, your pic looks great in "Debunking jun...Larry, your pic looks great in "Debunking junk" by Daniel James Devine in World Magazine at http://www.worldmag.com/2012/09/debunking_junk/page1 .Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16738602411049674892012-10-05T13:07:16.587-04:002012-10-05T13:07:16.587-04:00In my comment above, I said that the evidence that...In my comment above, I said that the evidence that ‘junk’ DNA (jDNA) is not under evolutionary constrains in regard to its sequence is supported by many lines of evolutionary, genetic, and biochemical evidence.<br /><br />One of the strongest recent evidence is a study by Lindblad-Toh et al., entitled “A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals” slowing that <b>4.2% of the genome is evolutionary constrained</b> (<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993624" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993624</a>).<br /> <br />I’m surprised that the ENCODE’s messengers (managers) did not know that: <b>“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”</b><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74455136053742681502012-10-05T11:52:20.137-04:002012-10-05T11:52:20.137-04:00Anonymous: I don't find the "junk DNA is ...Anonymous: <i>I don't find the "junk DNA is protective" vs. cancer to be convincing, because…</i><br /><br />Does my comment above answer some of your points?<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24894005547522795372012-10-05T11:46:51.642-04:002012-10-05T11:46:51.642-04:00Metaphorically, I can also say that that the ‘Good...Metaphorically, I can also say that that the ‘Good Junk DNA’ is protecting us from the ‘Bad Junk DNA.’<br /><br />The worst of all ‘Bad Junk DNA’ might be retroviruses, such as murine leukemia viruses or HIV, which can bombard our cells with an extraordinary large number of insertional mutagenesis events. Without strong protective mechanisms such as ‘Good Junk DNA’ to defend us from these events, we would be evolutionarily drowning.<br /><br />In my previous comments, I pointed out that the data supporting the model already exists. This data was generated in context of hundreds of different studies; however, these studies were not designed to address this model, and therefore the results were not interpreted in context of this model.<br /><br />For example, there are hundreds of studies showing that insertional mutagenesis by endogenous transposable elements and exogenous viruses, such as retroviruses, cause cancer.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, insertional mutagenesis has been one of the most productive experimental approaches used for mapping the genes and regulatory sequences that have oncogenic potential, as well as for studying the paths to neoplastic transformations (e.g. reviewed in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844553" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844553</a><br /><br />Moreover, there is very strong data provided by several gene therapy studies demonstrating the oncogenic activity associated with insertion mutagenesis of viral vectors used in these studies. For example, 4 out of the 9 infants enrolled in a X-linked SCID gene therapy study developed leukemia within 3 to 6 years after therapy as a result of gammaretroviral vector mediated oncogenesis (see: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12529469" rel="nofollow"> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12529469</a>, and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688285" rel="nofollow"> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688285</a>)<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6467679607099208832012-10-05T10:42:10.883-04:002012-10-05T10:42:10.883-04:00Matt G: Short version of the 1990 Bandea paper: Ju...Matt G: <i>Short version of the 1990 Bandea paper: <b>Junk DNA exists to protect genomes from other junk DNA.</b></i><br /><br />Thanks Matt for reducing my already short paper to one sentence! Leaving humor aside, your abbreviation is excellent; metaphorically, I said: <b>fighting fire with fire!</b><br /><br />For those who want to read the one-page version, it is posted here at Sandwalk: <br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/06/tributre-to-stephen-jay-gould.html" rel="nofollow"> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/06/tributre-to-stephen-jay-gould.html</a><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72543464695392566212012-10-05T08:11:55.822-04:002012-10-05T08:11:55.822-04:00Short version of the 1990 Bandea paper: Junk DNA e...Short version of the 1990 Bandea paper: Junk DNA exists to protect genomes from other junk DNA.Matt Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745943486966305844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70021212008204535392012-10-05T03:09:12.038-04:002012-10-05T03:09:12.038-04:00Wow, that's hypocritical. You wouldn't tel...<i>Wow, that's hypocritical. You wouldn't tell me your ID at Mike White's blog</i><br /><br />Yes I did, on the Ewan blog here, I provided a link with my ID, Friday 9/28. If you mean directly on White's blog, you never asked for one. <br /><br /><i>I don't owe you a damn thing. You say you followed me here, that's your damage.</i><br /><br />Then my suspicions are 100% Confirmed. <br /><br /><i>The people here do care about genetics. We come here to talk about science and use technical jargon freely</i><br /><br />Oh really, is that why there is 'Rationalism v Superstition' where bashing people of faith is a regular occurrence. I suggest you look around, there is much more being said than a simple discussion on science using 'technical jargon'.<br /><br /><i>Don't order me around.</i><br /><br />'Order' you around, I don't think so. Perhaps you are confusing me with the little voices in your head. And who wrote this: <b>"In my previous post I gave you a direct order"</b> and <b>"This was a direct order"</b> YOU did, on Ewans blog here. <br /><br /><i>You say you have kids</i><br /><br />Now in order for you to know this, you would have had to go back to the Axe blog in where I was responding to NE, but you said nothing there today. Were you stalking me? If you can accuse me of doing so, I can do the same. <br /><br /><i>I will not respond to any comments nor questions from you AT ALL unless they are limited to SCIENTIFIC, not PERSONAL, content</i><br /><br />You mean like making scientific statements such as Shapiro is 'terrified' and 'scared to death' of you. You mean scientific statements such as:<br /><br />"Go tell your cowardly wuss Shapiro"<br /><br />"Gutless Shapiro will never return"<br /><br />"like your cowardly Ken doll, that ignorant gutless Shapiro"<br /><br />There are many more like these..<br /> <br /><i>In fact, I'm not going to be back here for several days.</i><br /><br />Good, why don't you make it forever. And make sure you put CP on that list where you continually berate, ridicule, and hound almost every single person there, while telling them you're a theist and believe in one God. If I catch doing this I will be back. You are one demented low life. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61562667410096645752012-10-04T23:47:42.222-04:002012-10-04T23:47:42.222-04:00In fact, I'm not going to be back here for sev...In fact, I'm not going to be back here for several days.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10876122185929385522012-10-04T23:45:49.962-04:002012-10-04T23:45:49.962-04:00Anonymous:
What this tells me and any logical pe...Anonymous: <br /><br /><i>What this tells me and any logical person is you are hiding something and most of all shows just how disingenuous you are.</i><br /><br />Wow, that's hypocritical. You wouldn't tell me your ID at Mike White's blog and wanted me to deduce it like Sherlock Holmes. That's OK when you do it. Now it's your turn, now you're Sherlock, you deduce my ID. <br /><br />I don't owe you a damn thing. You say you followed me here, that's your damage.<br /><br />You don't give a shit about genetics. The people here do care about genetics. We come here to talk about science and use technical jargon freely. You haven't made a single scientific point here or at any other blog-- and no, blathering about how science should be free of "ideology" is not a scientific point. That's armchair psychoanalysis.<br /><br /><i>You also have some questions waiting on UD, are you going to answer them?</i> <br /><br />Don't ever tell me that again-- I don't owe anyone at UD a damn thing. I've never once said you have to answer questions on some other blog. You do this more than once a day. Don't order me around. <br /><br />Why are you here? We like science. You don't. You say you have kids? How can someone with kids be on the internet 24/7? Go give your kids a cookie and leave us alone.<br /><br />From now on, I will not respond to any comments nor questions from you AT ALL unless they are limited to SCIENTIFIC, not PERSONAL, content. Allegations about "ideology" are not science. I will NOT let you order me to go to any other blogs anywhere else on the internet.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36089700105072388432012-10-04T23:17:38.669-04:002012-10-04T23:17:38.669-04:00I don't find the "junk DNA is protective&...I don't find the "junk DNA is protective" vs. cancer to be convincing, because: <br /><br />1) The junk DNA is largely caused by retrotransposons, so it might be reasonable to suppose the the number of active retrotransposons will scale with the amount of junk DNA. In other words, even if the junk DNA is protective through mass action effects, the additional burden of having more active parasitic sequences balances out any such effects.<br /><br />2) Cancer caused by insertional mutagenesis is almost never observed. If the junk DNA were functionally adaptive as a cancer preventive measure, I would expect there would be a sufficient amount to reduce the cancer burden to levels at which pre-reproductive age cancer caused by insertional mutagenesis was reduced, but not eliminated, with an increasing frequency of occurrence related to chronological age of the individual. We don't see this. If selection has resulted in the protective junk DNA, then selection has done its job too well.<br /><br />Look at it this way: we know that errors in DNA replication can cause cancer. So, how well does the DNA replication/repair machinery work? Well enough to keep levels of pre-reproductive age cancer at low levels <i>but not any better than that</i>. In other words, if defense against insertional mutation really were subject to selection, I would expect the incidence of post-reproductive age cancer caused by insertional mutation to not be at the essentially negligible levels that we observe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14398296875303101842012-10-04T21:26:34.209-04:002012-10-04T21:26:34.209-04:00Many contributors to this blog support the hypothe...Many contributors to this blog support the hypothesis that jDNA, which represents 90% or more of the human genome, is not under evolutionary constrains in regard to its sequence. Accordingly, jDNA does not code for proteins or functional RNAs, and it does not have gene regulatory functions. In other words, replacing the jDNA with arbitrary sequences would have no phenotypic defect. I fully agree with this paradigm, which is supported by many lines of evolutionary, genetic, and biochemical evidence.<br /><br />However, I have been advocating a model on the evolution of genome size, which I think solves two of the major enigmatic issues in genome biology, the C-value paradox and the evolution of ‘junk DNA’ (see comments above). According to this model, jDNA which has originated from the activity of transposable elements and endogenous viruses has been used by their hosts as a defense mechanism against insertional mutagenesis, which in humans is “…just a fancy way of saying CANCER.”<br /><br />Leaving aside the issues of how this jDNA originated, or whether it has been ‘adaptive’ or ‘functional,’ <b>does jDNA protect against insertional mutagenesis by transposable elements and retroviruses?</b><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42598750826074810442012-10-04T20:06:25.649-04:002012-10-04T20:06:25.649-04:00Anonymous writes:
both sides should hold more of ...Anonymous writes:<br /><br /><i>both sides should hold more of an agnostic view at this point, regarding 'Junk DNA', which like I pointed out above from a neutral source: "junk DNA” has never been a major part of modern science. It is a fictitious construct by the media and some eccentric scientists of the past"</i><br /><br />I think you would find from an objective review of the research of the past 40 or so years that Shapiro's ideas are almost uniformly the outliers, the ones that would be considered "eccentric," to quote your source. I think you would also find a tremendous amount of research showing <i>affirmatively</i> that a very high percentage of the genome - 60+% - is not functional; and finally, that how much of the genome is functional (and thus how much is non-functional) has indeed been a major topic of scientific inquiry during those 40-odd years.<br /><br />Some good tips in terms of getting started looking at the research are in the following excerpt of a comment from T. Ryan Gregory, who as someone active in research and publishing on this topic is in a good position to know:<br /><br /><i>First, there was never a time when non-coding DNA was *all* dismissed as “useless junk” such that functions were not considered. Quite the opposite — functions were seriously considered for every new type of non-coding DNA when discovered. The early authors of the “junk DNA” concept explicitly mentioned possible functions for *some* non-coding DNA. Comings (1972) suggested 20% of the genome is actively used, for example.</i><br /><br /><i>Second, the concept of non-functional, non-coding DNA was not based on ignorance or giving up and just calling it “junk”. There were (and still are) positive arguments for expecting much of the genome to be of little or no relevance to fitness. Mutational loads, variability in genome size, neutral evolution at the sequence level, 2/3 of the genome being transposable elements, etc. Several of these arguments have been around since the 1970s and they remain valid today.</i><br /><br /><i>Third, there is no evidence that a majority of the human genome is “functional” in any meaningful sense of that word. Of course some non-coding DNA is functional (regulatory regions, centromeres and telomeres, ribosomal RNA, etc.), but no one ever said otherwise. There are more examples coming up all the time, which is very interesting. But the total still hasn’t even approached Comings’s (1972) original figure of 20%. And even if some people are willing to interpret the current evidence as indicating that most DNA in the human genome will turn out to be functional, they still have to explain why a pufferfish does fine with only 1/10 as much whereas even the smallest salamander genome is 5x larger. This suggests that, even if 100% of the human genome is functional, a lot of eukaryotic DNA out there is not. That is, that the notion of non-functional, non-coding DNA remains valid. Claiming that humans are complex and so need more DNA is an expectation that was refuted in the 1950s. And, in any case, the human exceptionalism required to maintain the view that 100% is functional in people but the amount of non-coding DNA is irrelevant in pufferfishes and salamanders is biologically nonsensical.</i>Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68177283544756061872012-10-04T17:35:37.477-04:002012-10-04T17:35:37.477-04:00Anonymous, rjop, Misc,
How much CSI or FSCO/I or...Anonymous, rjop, Misc, <br /><br />How much CSI or FSCO/I or dFSCO/I is there in a banana? Show your calculations. <br /><br />How much semiotic information is there in a banana, what is the content of that information, and what symbols does a banana use to process that information? Show your calculations and evidence. <br /><br /> The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84208843735566332382012-10-04T17:20:33.014-04:002012-10-04T17:20:33.014-04:00@ TWT
Got it, and no I am not Joe or Mung, I am a...@ TWT<br /><br />Got it, and no I am not Joe or Mung, I am a female. Will look into your claims about Joe G. When I said it goes both ways, there are other examples such as BA77, whom was banned a while back from UD and then reinstated, and if I'm not mistaken, Joe was also banned from UD and then reinstated. I really don't see what the issue is, it is their blog and they should be able to 'ban' if they see it as warranted. As for Joe being abusive, I suggest you look at some of your own stuff, as you seem to think you are pure as the driven snow.. Also, Diogenes is still posting there with quite an opposing view, wonder why he hasn't been banned yet? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34925090891487127562012-10-04T17:07:01.921-04:002012-10-04T17:07:01.921-04:00Anonymous, rjop, Misc said:
Did you not say this:...Anonymous, rjop, Misc said:<br /><br />Did you not say this: <br /><br />"Join in means participate, but the hypocritical, cowardly dictators at UD won't allow "anyone" to participate"<br /><br />Yes, I did say that. You obviously need another lesson in reading comprehension. The word "anyone" in that sentence is meant in the same way as you originally meant it, and that's why I put quote marks around it. You said "anyone is invited to join in" and the obvious meaning in that is that everyone is invited to join in, which of course is not true at UD. <br /><br />Another way to look at what you said is 'any one is invited to join in', or 'any person is invited to join in', or 'every person is invited to join in', but not just any one or every one or every person is invited to join in (participate/comment) at UD. Many people are blocked and/or banned for no good reason.<br /><br />The words any and every are interchangeable at times and this is one of those times, and that's due to the way YOU used the word anyone. <br /><br />Now, go back and read what I said and this time maybe you'll get it. I doubt it though. <br /><br /><br />You also said:<br /><br />"Also, the banning goes both ways, I know Joe has been banned from of several 'your sides' blogs. But I guess in your book that doesn't count."<br /><br />Do you mean joey g? The deranged IDiotic coward who threatens people, and who posted a picture of a woman's crotch on TSZ just to be an asshole and called it "tunie", and who goes on massive, spamming tirades filled with over the top abuse, and who is one of the most disruptive and arrogant trouble makers on the internet? Yeah, he gets banned from some sites for GOOD reasons. He should be banned from planet Earth. <br /><br />UD only allows a few people at any one time to question or challenge their bullshit, and the only reason they allow anyone at all to do that is because UD was DEAD without it. If the UD gang were actually interested in open and honest discussion, as they claim to be, they wouldn't block and/or ban 'anyone' simply because they question or challenge the lies and arrogant, ignorant crap the IDiots spew. <br /><br />I'm beginning to wonder if you're joey g. Or maybe mung. Are you?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51329975064978770802012-10-04T16:06:55.521-04:002012-10-04T16:06:55.521-04:00Why don't you post this on Shapiro's blog ...<i>Why don't you post this on Shapiro's blog at Huff Post and see what his thoughts are?</i><br /><br />I have seen the discussion there and know what his thoughts are.<br /><br /><i>My personal view is instead of 'function', 'activity' should have been used. However, since there is so much more to explore, this 'activity' suggests 'function'</i><br /><br />Non sequitur. Lots of things in this universe are "active" without being "functional".<br /><br /><i>It does seem however, you guys seem to white knuckle the Junk idea quite voraciously</i><br /><br />I don't think so. Some living things (prokaryotes) have got little or no junk DNA. We can live with it, can't we? We know why it doesn't accumulate in them, and we know why it accumulates in Eukaryota. An "extreme Darwinist" (meaning someone who sees selection at work everywhere) would probably be inclined to predict that all DNA should be functional (because it if it weren't, purifying selection would eliminate it), but apparently there are no hardline Darwinists on Sandwalk.<br /><br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38770057442272451672012-10-04T16:05:02.217-04:002012-10-04T16:05:02.217-04:00@ Claudia
I don't know why, perhaps many scie...@ Claudia<br /><br />I don't know why, perhaps many scientists do no believe the Junk idea is that important. Time will tell how it all pans out, as there is much more to investigate and research... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84499395336354956722012-10-04T15:47:56.328-04:002012-10-04T15:47:56.328-04:00Anonymous: My personal view is instead of 'fun...Anonymous: <i>My personal view is instead of 'function', 'activity' should have been used</i><br /><br />I don’t think <i>‘activity’</i> will do it, either.<br /><br />As, I said in my comment above (<b>*C-value paradox and ‘junk DNA’ enigma: case solved?*</b>):<br /> <br /><i>As previously pointed out (1), by its bare presence in the genome, jDNA has an effect on cellular physiology (e.g. nucleotide metabolism; division rate), structure (e.g. nuclear and cellular size), and genome ‘fluidity’ (e.g. increased recombination versatility and evolutionary co-option of jDNA).<br /><br />Also, by its bare presence in the genome, jDNA gets replicated and it can, for example, undergo transposition and transcription, or it becomes non-specific target for diverse DNA binding proteins, as shown in the ENCODE project. However, these features and correlates do not solve C-value paradox and ‘junk DNA’ enigma; on the contrary, they confuse these issues.</i><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17247177914623841552012-10-04T15:34:43.520-04:002012-10-04T15:34:43.520-04:00Anonymous: And lot's of scientists don't k...Anonymous: <i>And lot's of scientists don't know the definition of Junk DNA and have given many indications they don't care about it. Wonder why?</i><br /><br />Why?<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12995673812756513522012-10-04T15:32:08.531-04:002012-10-04T15:32:08.531-04:00Why don't you post this on Shapiro's blog ...Why don't you post this on Shapiro's blog at Huff Post and see what his thoughts are? My personal view is instead of 'function', 'activity' should have been used. However, since there is so much more to explore, this 'activity' suggests 'function', but of course this is yet to be determined. It does seem however, you guys seem to white knuckle the Junk idea quite voraciously.. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90142168265062343392012-10-04T15:22:55.113-04:002012-10-04T15:22:55.113-04:00Also Diogenes,
Notice how onlooker can have a rea...Also Diogenes,<br /><br />Notice how onlooker can have a reasoned debate by asking questions and sticking with the argument at hand, something you completely lack. <br /><br />And this little gem to Joe by you: <i>"Two sentences would be enough to prove me wrong– if I were wrong. So what was he afraid of?"</i><br /><br />Yet YOU cannot answer ONE simple question, which requires ONE word I have asked of you for days now. Such hypocrisy... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36526589351848962852012-10-04T15:13:48.041-04:002012-10-04T15:13:48.041-04:00Come on, Anonymous, even the ENCODE folks are back...Come on, Anonymous, even the ENCODE folks are backing away from the claim that most human DNA is somehow "functional". As far as is known, most of it is <b>nonfunctional</b> now, even if it <b>was</b> functional in the distant past and if on rare occasions some of it may be co-opted in a new function. The ENCODE data have not changed this picture. Some scientists may dislike the popular ring of the term "junk DNA". Call it more technically "nonfunctional DNA", then. Whatever name you give to it, it is there, and it <b>is</b> the historically accumulated decaying debris of broken genes, retroviruses, runaway repeats and what not. I do not understand why you must interpret the debate in ideological terms. It is not ideological, but the insistence that it is makes <b>you</b> sound like an agitprop activist. Even if the human genome were mostly or entirely functional, it would not constitute evidence of Intelligent Design -- only of purifying selection being sufficiently strong.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.com