CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE

Is It Really "Junk"? 

Biologists have long held that DNA is a recipe for the manufacture of proteins and nothing else. However, in time, it became evident that only 2 percent of the genome consists of code for proteins. What is the purpose of the other 98 percent of DNA?  This mystery DNA was "immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk," observed John S. Mattick, professor of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

The scientist who is credited with coining the term " 'Junk' DNA" was evolutionist  Susumu Ohno.  In his paper "So Much 'Junk' DNA in Our Genome," he wrote that the remaining sequences  of DNA "are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. the earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?"

How did the concept of "junk"DNA affect the study genetics?  Molecular biologist Wojciech Makalowski says that such thinking "repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding [junk] DNA," with the exception of a small number of scientists, who, "at the risk of being ridiculed, explore  unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA . . . began to change in the early 1990's." Now, he adds, biologists generally regard what was called junk "as genome treasure." 

In Mattick's opinion, the junk-DNA theory is a classic example of scientific tradition "derailing objective analysis of the facts."  The failure  to recognize the full implications of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." Clearly, truth in science needs  to be determined on the basis of evidence, not by popular vote. That being the case what does recent evidence reveal about the role of "junk" DNA?

Next time:  CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE - What the "Junk" Does

From the AWAKE! magazine, 2011