Percy posted
But, as prof. John Mattick said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy then wrote;
As rebuttal to what the evidence currently indicates to be true you're offering someone's opinion about what might someday be discovered to be true. What do you think about maybe basing your arguments upon what the evidence currently in hand indicates?
--Percy
Just to clarify, Mattick wrote the above quote in 2004. He has since written in 2010 the following;
The central role of RNA regulation in human development and cognition - John Mattick
Professor John Mattick
It appears that the genetic programming of humans and other complex organisms has been fundamentally misunderstood for the past 50 years, because of the assumption that most genetic information is transacted by proteins. The human genome contains about 20,000 conventional protein-coding genes, surprisingly about the same number and with largely similar functions as those in tiny worms that have only 1000 cells. On the other hand, the extent of non-protein-coding DNA, traditionally thought to be junk, increases with increasing complexity, reaching over 98.8 percent in humans. 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.
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?
™ Version 4.2
