Exactly what is being referenced as "junk" DNA? I ask specifically because, how would any rational scientist label any DNA as "junk" when all DNA has yet to be totally defined as to it's individual functions within the strands of?
For example, would the DNA of an onion be considered "junk", when it lends to science the ability to possibly witness the creation and mutation of bochulism, when handled incorrectly?
Seriously...and that's not "just more nothing but copy and paste hot air BS and question" question....
Exactly. It was a great surprise to most scientists after they thought they
had a handle on telling which parts of the DNA actually coded for proteins
and which didn't. It was hard to believe, but it was looking like most of
it did nothing. So some just decided to call it junk DNA, and then tried to
rationalize how that could possibly be explained. So naturally there has
been a lot of speculation about it.
I don't think it was so much the idea that there could be some parts that
were left behind by evolution as other parts of the genome changed, but what
was shocking was the possibility that maybe as much as 90% of the DNA for
some species could be non-coding.
Now it seems that parts of the previously inexplicable segments operate in a
kind of different way, and so it remains to be seen how much is really
essential. I believe most scientists in the field were expecting some sort
of explanation eventually, and were suspending judgement. Others preferred
to run with what what they saw, to see if they could make a theory that fit
that evidence. It's typical of the way science progresses, and no reason to
worry about who to criticise for leaping to conclusions. Some times those
who leap first are the pioneers, and sometimes they just arrive at the dead
end sooner, while someone else discovers the path that leads forward.
There is no cause to disparage the excitement for the pursuit of knowledge
in that way, or to take all the mistakes to blame science as a whole,
without crediting it for the progress that is eventually made.
Scientists are human, and probably a few percent never accept newer
theories. Then what happens is that ignorant people with political or
manipulative agendas try to inject politics or religious views into the
fray, pick and choose the from the results or personalities. They then make
a lot of irrational noise about it, to harness the non-scientists and the
gullible into some project they have in mind. I love fairy tales and
science fiction myself, but I keep them separate in my head, so that I know
what to depend on when reality smacks me in the face.