Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is something that some people has suspected in the field for a long time. I had terrible discussions as we made some software in the field and met people there.

The pure Darwinism evolution dogma has extended a lot because it was an easy answer, like the world being created in 6 days. But it was incomplete in lots of ways.

For example, considering all DNA we did not understand as "junk" DNA was incredible arrogant, when it seems like it is in fact software or other kinds of data.

You have comments on me on hacker news talking about that like 5 years ago or something.

Great job what those researchers have done.



> considering all DNA we did not understand as "junk" DNA was incredible arrogant

I never heard an actual biologist take that view, only popsci talking heads.


I seem to remember getting the impression that many "actual biologists" did refer to it and often think of it as "junk" DNA in the '80s. But that's just an impression since I never bought into the concept it was "junk" and to the extent I paid attention, it was to those trying to find why it was there and what it did.


I agree. Back in the '80s scientists claimed that a large proportion of DNA didn't encode for anything (introns) and therefore was "junk".

Now our understanding is that although DNA might not encode for anything, it still plays a role in DNA expression.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: