this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
248 points (98.4% liked)

science

26849 readers
280 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That's not exactly true. A lot of DNA is redundant, and a lot of DNA is dead code that doesn't do anything.

[–] Staff@piefed.world 17 points 1 week ago

Is it really dead code, or we haven't found out what it does?

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Since you’ve only been told that you’re wrong, and I was also under the impression that there was a lot of junk DNA in our genome, I did a little digging and found this article that explains the progression of our understanding pretty well: https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/human-dna-98-of-your-genetic-code-is-junk-or-is-it

The TLDR is that the original junk DNA hypothesis is based on the fact that only ~2% of DNA is actually used in mapping out protein-construction. That was generally supported by the science from the 70’s to the early 2000’s. What scientists have found in the decades since then is that a lot of what DNA does involves regulating activity in the cell and responding to changing circumstances.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

That's a very outdated idea.