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

by David Turell , Monday, October 29, 2018, 21:07 (2217 days ago) @ dhw

“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.

dhw: 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?

The point is the reliance on 'survival of the fittest', which is what you just did, is a very minor unproven aspect of evolution. Your statement is correct if understood in the right context.