Highly Complex Genome

A recent set of articles have reported on the the newly published results of ENCODE, an extensive project to map uncharted areas of the human genome. (WSJ, Nature, Wired) Only a tiny fraction of cell DNA is actively used in manufacturing proteins (about 2%). The purpose of the rest of the genome wasn't known, and was sometimes thought to be useless "junk DNA".

The study results have shown these "useless" regions to actually be very active in switching and regulating the encoding genes. Function has been assigned to about 80% of the genome, and shows that these areas are highly complex, inter-related, and information-dense. The mountain of cell complexity gets higher the more we study how cells function!

However, I notice an unfortunate re-occurring attitude that if we can't assign function to something, then it has no function (thus the epithet "junk DNA"). Such a view of cells seems strange because it seems naive. The rest of our world is amazingly complex; why should we assume that cells are simplistic considering all they do?

I think the attitude connects to a person's world view about biology:

• If the cell is seen as designed, the world view assumes the designer wouldn't waste cell resources in junk.
• If the cell is seen as evolved through processes driven by efficiency, the view should assume useless material would be culled.
• If the cell is seen as evolved through the noise of random chance, the view could allow for "useless" DNA. This view might also be encouraged by a belief that the cell was simple (as Darwin thought it was).

We now know that the bulk of cell DNA is extremely involved in life. However, the older view of the cell as simple could help make an evolutionary origins story be more intuitive. Those that would continue to propagate such a view show an intent to mislead because they want to make their story more palatable.

Most scientists won't use the "junk DNA" term (anymore). However it still largely represents what they had been thinking. They were genuinely surprised that these newly studied areas of the genome have turned out to be so important. In that, their Darwinian origins world view does them a disservice because it suggests an inaccurate biological model to them.

Well-designed things encapsulate function, art, and planning for extended capability. We see this in exceptional human-designed products; and we see this in the biological world. In my opinion, the level of sophistication found so far in this partially completed study seems more compatible with origins by design than by chance.