Now we change "our" tunes, I see.
This is how you have your cake and eat it too.
Prior to the discovery that "junk" DNA had a purpose(IOW it had no use), the situation made sense in light of evolution. Now that the "junk" DNA has been discovered to have a purpose(IOW it has a use), the situation makes sense in light of evolution. LOL. Talk about falsifiability.
"Nothing about introns makes sense except in the light of evolution!"After all these years I still don't know what the evolutionary argument for the existence of junk DNA was supposed to have been.Now we change "our" tunes, I see.
This is how you have your cake and eat it too.
I do remember reading an article that said that bacteria don't have exons, and another reference that said that exons tend to roughly correspond to functional areas of a protein. I hypothesized that if nothing else, the presence of introns increased the odds that when a section of a chromosome gets duplicated such that only a portion of a gene was duplicated, it would at least be a whole functional subunit that got duplicated. This would increase the chances that something functional would result from the duplication.
This has always been a creationist/ID strawman. Just like "evolution can't explain the eye so evolution is false". This has been repeated in these threads forever. I'm sure you were in on some of these threads AndrewC.
Speculate all you want, but junk DNA is still junk DNA. Until someone finds out what it does and why it isn't conserved - and someone might - it's still junk.
Ouch!