| > Transposons and pseudogenes may be nonfunctional for an individual organism, but aren't they useful for evolution to create new genes? Ok, but by that definition, nothing is really junk: Even our own junkyards are still home to all sorts of animals and microorganisms which feed on the junk. Not even starting with the recycling/upcycling movement. Doesn't change the fact that it's junk in the sense of its original purpose and immediate utility to us. In the same way, if junk DNA really has no effect on the body it's currently part of (like freed but uncleared memory in RAM), then I think the name is appropriate. What I'm really missing in popular reporting about genetics though is more focus on the "regulatory elements". The understanding of DNA as given by pop-science articles is mostly that DNA is either instructions for building proteins or "junk", nothing else. This completely leaves out the question how the cell decides when/if a particular protein should be built - which is of course integral for understanding how a number of protein building instructions can result in a complex organism. It's like describing a programming language as consisting only of instructions and comments but completely leaving out branches and loops. (even though gene regulation does not happen through branches and loops) |