Junk DNA

What is junk DNA? And how can I cleanse society of this impurity?

I must ensure that all green and brown eyed dog breeds disappear. I'm always afraid my dog might evolve into a jew.

>What is junk DNA?
give us a blood sample and we'll tell you

DNA that doesn't serve a purpose and isn't evolutionarily conserved
but it turns out most DNA serves some purpose as lncRNA, structural elements, transposable elements, etc, so nothing is really junk

Most of DNA isn't used and is essentially relics of living things ancestry.

For example, the genes for scales and gills still exist in our DNA but are not utilized.

It's not junk, just difficult to understand. Genetic memory bro, you're deleting your past if you remove it. Literally don't touch dna unless you've found cures for childhood cancer.

Because we used to have scales and gills, in fact fingernails are descendent from scales.

Don't touch dna.

Junk DNA doesn't exist. Already been debunked.

Isn't junk DNA recessive genes?

;^)

Remove the whole concept of "junk" DNA. When they say that, they mean it serves absolutely no use at all. Which is not the case.

junk = useful code that geneticists haven't cracked yet. Simple as that really. It's pure hubris to call it junk at this point.

Not junk, DNA isn't just coding information, that other stuff is useful for other things like transcription regulation.

we don't have the genes for gills on our DNA

Think of it like your computer's BIOS and firmware. You have syntax and code. Introns are the syntax: they are the frames that separate and give context to your DNA, Exons are the code, they get turned into RNA and then eventually proteins.

Recessive genes are just a subset of phenotypic variations. the disappearance of recessive genes is a myth. Unless they're selected against, assuming hardy-weinberg, recessive genes are never lost from a population. Recessive just means selectively unexpressed, not inferior.
most of the "junk" they talk about is actually just intron code, too


t. DsiRNA and transfection research specialist

Having blue eyes fucking suck. Damn summer sun practically turns me into a blind man.

>>Literally don't touch dna unless you've found cures for childhood cancer.
Yes! This cancer must not spread...

I want only the most blonde, blue eyed, cancer free DNA to be active in my breed of dogs.

I don't like seeing sick kids. Do you?

Cool, so if Jimmy halfbrain the Neo Nazi decides to fiddle, suddenly all the AND opcodes become OR and everything he creates is fucking retarded. Great.

Or worse, it creates a recessive trait that Jimmy thinks is a winner... Until down the line half of its descendents are pure autism.

Yeah don't fuck with dna.

YOU may study it, because you seem to know what you're doing, but just be very careful when you realise the paper labelled "mega awesome great gene found, let's edit it into all our children, wouldn't want you child left out, would you?"

I disagree. Pseudogenes are junk DNA. They literally serve no purpose because they've been mutated beyond functionality.

I have a HUGE urge to reply to this in a certain way right now. But fuck, I can't risk another ban.

But then what the fuck does "recessive genes" mean? That they are recessive, hence junk DNA.

we're still 20-25 years away from doing anything vaguely related to whole genome editing working humans. Even then, it''s relatively benign. Disadvantageous genes are still naturally removed from populations. The CRISPR/CAS9 stuff is still in its extreme infancy. Dicer substrate siRNA's are an excellent tool for research though. Most of the things being done now are just simple GWAS studies though and just use the NCBI GWAS database to look at disease related SNPs. genome research is way overstated in the media.
Rest assured Jimmy halfbrain is way too stupid to do any of this.
Germ line alterations are still pretty spooky stuff, though.
not true. there are millions of SNPs we previously thought were unrelated to diseases or traits and we're now learning that the single nucleotide polymorphisms can be evolutionarily conserved advantageous traits. everything in the genome is either part of an intron or an exon.
recessive alleles aren't junk, they just aren't preferentially expressed in the presence of a dominant allele. again, recessive does not imply "bad" or "disadvantageous." it's just a term used to describe its phenotypic behavior

Thanks for dropping the red pills.

With further scientific knowledge, could we activate these genes and make Aquaman real?

If we could speed up the process they claim gives rise to these traits and genetic ancestry.

It would take several millions of years, if not billions according to them.

virii

You have a fundamental ignorance of cellular biology. Recessive isn't interchangeable with "junk."

Well that's no good is it? I'll be dead by then.