Reading about nuclear organization i ran onto this quote, and felt it was so great i just had to repost it. I personally continue to marvel at the naming of cellular structures, processes, and stuff, and the term “junk DNA” always rubbed me the wrong way, as does “non-coding DNA”.  I marveled to myself when reading those terms “what gives individuals the ego to believe they know enough to call anything “junk DNA”. I am showing a diagram of a chromosome (vector file with thousands of loops, and highlighted edges, iridescent graphic from a failed cover submission trial, a decade or more ago).

Well, here is someone who actually got that into a reputable journal… good for him — quote—from Thoru Pederson. Half a Century of “The Nuclear Matrix”, Molecular Biology of the Cell Vol. 11, 799 – 805, March 2000: “These kinds of ideas have been generally ignored because the noncoding DNA is so “uninteresting” as sequence (as if we were at present clever enough to be able to detect all “interesting” DNA text, which we certainly are not). At our present state of knowledge (ignorance) we can only view the noncoding DNA’s information content on the basis of what is absent [e.g., promoters, cap sites, splice sites, terminators, and poly(A) sites].”