Is it agreed in the scientific biological community that Mattick is correct about "junk DNA" and their effect on the conrol of human development and brain function?
Mattick leaps to the conclusion, as seen in this sentence:
"Moreover, it is now evident that these non-coding sequences are transcribed in a dynamic manner, to produce tens, if not hundreds of thousands of noncoding RNAs, and that most complex genetic phenomena are RNA-directed, which suggests that there exists a vast hidden layer of regulatory RNAs that control human development and brain function."
Mattick leaps from "transcribed" to "has function" without ever showing that there is function. Also, if Mattick is relying on the ENCODE data sets I think most would agree that it is way to early to make any judgements. Some have even challenged the ENCODE data in that some of their data may be related to shorter products from known genes. Also, the number of transcripts from "junk DNA" is very low compared to RNA from known genes.
I would say that Mattick's conclusion is not supported by the evidence in hand.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.