I’ve recently come across two articles on junk DNA. The first one, from New Scientist, includes a pretty thorough coverage of recent studies that have identified functions for non-protein-coding regions of the human genome (“Why ‘junk DNA’ may be useful after all”). The article is set up as if it will present the demise of junk DNA, but it paints the accurate picture that a large portion of the human genome is non-functional. And TR Gregory like the article too.
The second article tries to do that, but fails. It’s from The Scientist and entitled Junk Worth Keeping: Is it time to retire provocative descriptors such as “junk DNA”?. This editorial starts out by presenting the evidence for the demise of junk DNA, including a nod to Francis Collins’s belief that there is no junk in the human genome (providing further evidence that Frank knows nothing about evolution). From here, the author attempts to defend the term “junk DNA”, but does so in a very poor manner. While I agree with his conclusion (at least I think I do — it’s hard to parse from stuff on framing and intelligent design), the entire article is just a mess suggesting the author really doesn’t understand what he’s writing about.