this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
166 points (99.4% liked)
Asklemmy
47600 readers
663 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Previously it was thought that non-coding sequences were junk, and enormous numbers like 99% were thrown around at the time. Later, we found out that more and more of the non-coding regions actually do various other things, and the scope of junk DNA got narrower as years went by. Nowadays, you don’t really hear that term much, because future scientists have a tendency of discovering new functions for sequences that were previously thought of as non-functional. There’s also debate as to where do we draw the line.
As usual, biochemistry is a fast moving target, and people have gotten cautious about these things. As more and more is discovered, older notions are updated or even thrown away.