Junk DNA, a term that was introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno,[25] was a provisional label for the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function had been identified. According to a 1980 review in Nature by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, junk DNA has "little specificity and conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism".[26] The term is currently, however, a somewhat outdated concept, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and may have slowed research into the biological functions of noncoding DNA.[27] Several lines of evidence indicate that many "junk DNA" sequences have likely but unidentified functional activity, and other sequences may have had functions in the past.[28]
Still, a large amount of sequence in these genomes falls under no existing classification other than "junk". For example, one experiment removed 1% of the mouse genome with no detectable effect on the phenotype.[29] This result suggests that the removed DNA was largely nonfunctional. In addition, these sequences are enriched for the heterochromatic histone modification H3K9me3 [30]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#Junk_DNA
and the term isn't even really used in science. it was indeed a misnomer from the beginning. go look at pubmed. only 104! references with the term "junk DNA".
and then it's even used as a colloquial term.
you've been arguing against a strawman from the beginning mikey.
"But no funding for that junk dna, no no no."
you mind backing up that statement? because quite a bit of research has already been done on how all that non coding DNA is relevent for the mechanics of the cell.
"hey think they need to lie to we ignoramuses for our own good. "The ends justifies the means". After all, they know there is no god even if they can't prove it, so lying is ok and not immoral. You have the same mentality that is why I hate atheism it gives you power that you gain from perceived inlightenment so you will remain loyal until it's too late to realize you have been fooled, and are but a useful idiot in the great human struggle to kill God. With no proof. You believe who you want. Are you a liar? I believe what is in the Bible is what jesus said because I think those people were more honest than any Atheist that has ever lived. It's not what you know, it's what you think you know that corrupts you. But at least I see that. But when it comes to Jesus I am a lot closer to who you are then he. "
and more barely consistant ranting.
"as for the youtube thing. I meant knuckle to bone like in an underground fight. Not a debate. There are dozens of statements I would punch you guys in the jaw for if said to me in real life."
violence is not a form of argument.
"by saying things to people that you would never say if you had to back it up."
and yet I do try to back it up, even when i say it here.
"I'm a coward? Now I know you are a liar! "
you are a coward because you resort to petty threats instead of taking part in an easily arrangable civil discussion. Why does that make you a coward? because you think that if you smash my mouth in, all the arguments i amke will magically "go away".
"You are the bitter little human acting like an authority on everything with a quick google search"
having a better understanding of certain things then you does not make me a "bitter little human acting like an authority". it just makes you sound ignorant in respect to the things i know more about.
"Don't come on christian sites disrespecting us"
no, you don't get to keep your little E-echochamber. because this is the kind of BS that needs to be adresses at every point it tries to spread itself.
"Oh you guys don't fight unless you have the numbers to attempt
extermination. You folks need to get the Atheists out of power soon or
it's over for europe this time round. Watch and see. At least we still
have a chance to vote Obama out. I hope. hehe."
ya....that "hehe" really makes you sound serious when handling such strong statements.