For anyone curious about complexity, genome size, and non-coding or "junk" DNA, there are a number of good posts on the topic at Genomicron.
See in particular Junk DNA: let me say it one more time fand Function, non-function, some function: a brief history of junk DNA for a discussion of what junk DNA is, what it means for biology, and why creationists that have made hay out of it are purposefully misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.
And What's wrong with this figure? for a discussion on a common mistake in assuming that genome size automatically means increasingly complex organisms.
Good stuff, should be required reading, and nice examples of corrections of popular misconceptions about biology.
More like this
Some bio-bloggers are atwitter over an article by Wojciech Makalowski on Scientific American's website about Junk DNA.
I've recently come across two articles on junk DNA.
The University of Michigan has put out a press release entitled:
Bits of 'junk' RNA aid master tumor-suppressor gene
My little screed on junk DNA elicited some good feedback, including a comment from Dan Graur.
Cheers!