https://www.theguardian.com/science /2014/jul/24/10-percent-

>>9128831
>Article from 2014
Opinions are not that bombastic. Also there is a lot we do not yet know. Just because we do not fully understand our genome does not mean it is garbage.

>>9128831
>>9129941

Actually, a possible explination is that we have extra DNA, because our cells can't replicate the entire genome before splitting, this means we have extra DNA to compensate the tiny bit that doesn't get replicated.

These have a name Telomeres, however telomeres don't make up 92% of your DNA.

>>9128831
They are comments and documentation. If you remove them the ribosomes can't figure out how to put together the proteins anymore.

>>9128831
Ask any software developer why their optimisation is shit.
Because memory is cheap.

It's beneficial to get genes that develop some properties, but there is little pressure to ditch bad genes altogether.
Instead, the genes can be turned off, and if they are later beneficial you don't have to start from zero.
The nucleotide cost (or whatever they're made up of) of some additional DNA is negligible.
Of course, I'm talking about evolutionary pressure, so the whole process is slow and involves random variables. I worded it like intelligent design for ease of explanation.

>>9128831
Because if it'd be 100 percent then every mutation would be potentially catastrophic.

92% of the genome is non-protein-coding, not garbage. The understanding the last few years is that large parts of that may have unknown function.

>>9128831
they are NOT garbage. they are needed as spacers and for binding protein and making nice loops and stuff.

>>9128831
>theguardian
>blogscience

This reminds me of that "you only use 10% of your brain!" thing.