Junk DNA goodbye!: neutral DNA is shown as smaller (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:18 (2218 days ago) @ David Turell

“This suggests that while most of our genetic material is formed of non-functional sequences, the vast majority of it evolves indirectly under some type of selection."
https://elifesciences.org/articles/36317

DAVID: And who or what is doing the selecting?

dhw: Nature, as in natural selection? Whatever is useful will survive?

DAVID: Unless there are extinctions. We don't know what is natural and what is controlled.

dhw: Extinctions are the natural consequence of organisms not having the necessary equipment to cope with changing conditions. But we are talking about so-called “junk DNA”. Why do you find it so difficult to accept the idea that something useful is more likely to survive than something which is of no use?

DAVID: The point of the poorly thought out 'junk DNA' theory is that the junk was supposed to have survived despite being useless. It appears 80% of DNA has some form of function. Think about survival after Chixculub: the rat-like mammals that survived did it immediately because they had the existing ability to survive without any adaptations. Subsequent evolution produced more forms that were/could adapt to the new conditions on Earth. They were designed for it.

I know the junk theory, and I know that it is being increasingly discredited. You asked who are what is doing the selecting (i.e. of useful DNA). I suggested that it is natural for something useful to survive and for something that is not useful not to survive. What is your objection?