My point was, and I said it, there’s irony in the excerpt.
What is the irony? Please explain.
Yes. You posting about irony on the subject of junk DNA, is itself ironic.
Are you familiar with this literature?
Of course you aren’t.
You take up a subject of which you are evidently completely unfamiliar, claim that it is ironic presumably because some claimed piece of junk DNA has a biochemical effect(?), and through that reveal your ignorance of the concept, arguments, and evidence for junk DNA.
Now that is ironic.
Unsurprisingly, the actual published article does not even mention junk DNA. Nowhere in the article is ANY kind of evidence provided that the enhancer piece of DNA, or associated transcrition factor analyzed, was once thought to be junk DNA. They don’t even do any kind of comparative genetics to see how conserved it is between species. The word junk DNA is never used, no article or person is referenced as having claimed it was once thought to be junk, and nothing relating to the concept is discussed or mentioned.
So the grandiose press release article makes claims that NOTHING in the actual scientific article is capable of supporting. The published paper speaks only and exclusively about how enhancers and promoters can affect multicellular development.
That, too is, ironic.
If the irony is lost on you, it’s kind of like trying to explain a joke to to someone who didn’t get it: what’s the point?
But I’ll do my best: the irony is in the use of the terms in ‘re-engineer the programs’.
You seemed to have missed that I was referring to the excerpt, not junk DNA.
Go on. What’s the irony in that? Is it that you ironically don’t understand metaphors?
I will freely admit that I have failed.
True, in more ways than you realize. Most of your irony is unintended.
And you don’t get more than you know.
Aargh. And I just returned insult for insult. Again.
It’s your chief argument. Don’t throw it away now.
It’s a major strongpoint of yours, as well – don’t deny it.
See? It’s the “I know you are, but what am I?” defense.
At least we’re consistent. (…not a good thing, in context.)
Settle down, boys, or I’ll turn you into newts!
The press has often been guilty of misrepresenting all non-coding DNA as junk DNA, even though these are different concepts and not considered equivalent in the very studies they reference. All junk DNA is non-coding DNA, but not all non-coding DNA is junk DNA.
They’ll get better.
Who can best relate the topic of “codes” to the Joshua’s work?
Im having a problem seeing the connection.
A post was split to a new topic: The Linguistics of DNA