Most of the Human Genome is useless junk

Thank you. I want to take a bit of time to point out what the position of con can really do to defeat this resolution. My opponent has presented many rebuttals and all of them attack the resolution in a different way. He can make his case to prove one of the following: 1. Some of the Human Genome is useless junk 2. Most of the Genome is useful junk 3. Most of the Genome is useful stuff I will now proceed with the rebuttals. My gracious opponent says, " Indeed, many of our traits reflect a blend of the chromosomes contributed by each of our parents." This is correct the expression of brown eyes or blue eyes is not one gene. It is actually at best guess to be 6 genes near a gene known near the OCA2 gene site. OCA2 controls coloring for hair, skin and eyes as well. More than likely these genes do not even code for eye color in the traditional sense. They control for how long OCA2 is to be producing pigment. The system is in reality even more complicated. Here is a good link that covers the basics: http://genetics.thetech.org... You can see that genes still have a recessive quality and a dominance quality. We get different colors because instead of one straight forward Brown eye dominant, blue eye recessive, We have more like A, C, E, genes are dominant and B, D, F are recessive. My original premise still holds. My example was a simple expression from one gene. There are no one gene yes or no expressions. Many require other genes to be of a certain SNP to cause their desired effect. My example was simple but can be applied to all the 6 genes in eye color. You can still have a mom with the genes A,C,E and the Dad with the recessive genes. My goal was simple illustration not an education in the particulars of eye, hair, and skin color. My opponent attempt to establish number 2 from the list above. He identifies useless as completely ineffectual. But other words for useless can be garbage. He attempts to assert that the contribution of all recessive genes still has use because it takes 46 chromosomes to produce a human. But I say those recessive genes are just place holders. The human cell needs 46 chromosomes. But in real life you won't have one line of all recessive genes. For the sake of diversity the cell will accept both contributions in calculating a result. But in the illustration the recessive father's genes are useless. In real life the cell wants 46 chromosomes so it has the information of 23 chromosome lengths for genes expression. 23 chromosomes worth, ie amount of, information will be used to express the human being's properties. We have heard it before with religious institutions distorting science to propagate their religious text. Here my opponent reverses this process. Where it would normally be "God of the gaps", my opponent uses "materialism of the gaps". The problem is materialism has to be the religion of science. Every experiment completed has to be repeatable and peer reviewed. If there was a chance that the results were played with by some devil, then why not all the results? Why not all the experiments trying to discern the same value? With that none of us could trust any result from any scientific method and the whole discussion of what was out there or in our bodies or in outer pace would be mute. Luckily we do not have supernatural forces interfering with verifiable tests. If the tests done by different groups return the same result we call this evidence. My opponent is stating that because we don't know what the rest of the DNA does it is useful. Given a more logical answer would have been "We don't know" but the evidence at the time Jerry Coyne said that, it was the best theory presented. Science changes all the time. It is completely capable of doing so. But it assumes the safest bet and works from there. It assumes the safest bet and changes when evidence approaches. Currently the evidence is incomplete. Now my opponent moves to the meat of things that have been truly deemed the graveyard of genetic code. This are area of the genetic code filled with the remnants of different genome evasions. They are known as Long Intergenic Non Coding RNA's or lincRNAs. It is better to describe these areas as battle fields. The fragments of were virus tried to iplant genetic information and these areas were like safety nets to catch the other trash. I think my opponent may have skipped a few points in his quote. I urge the readers to read the article it makes a few things clearer. lincRNAs and they're smaller cousins ncRNAs used to have an important job. In the simplest of creatures, the earliest bacteria the lincRNA were a kind of genetic defense system. They responded to chemical and outside transfers of genetic material. In the early anaerobic waters of early earth cells did not have good defenses. They were attacked by marauding virus and other bacteria. The cells own coding DNA was a precious gold, it was the next generation of cells. It had to be protected. Mechanisms arose to check and recheck the core protein coding DNA segments for intrusions and errors. This is why in the coding parts of the DNA fewer ERV's are found. Viruses try to inject their own DNA and take over the cells machinery. By surround the coding DNA in fake bits of DNA the viral DNA would be snared. In addition to this the network of fake DNA also became a kind of genetic antenna that picked up signals from the outside and released chemical signals that reacted the core DNA. These signals were how the bacteria knew "Danger, go left" or "Food, go right". It's not surprising they still attempt to send signals and contain a high amount of TEs and ERV's. Some of the signals of the ERV's in lincRNAs do get interpreted. Sometimes with really bad results to the human host. There can be one mutation at one loci of a particular lincRNA that causes brain stem atrophy. Because this is a strong site for genetic disease scientist are naturally curious about it's formation and functioning. What has been found is that these chains get turned on differently depending on the tissue the cell turns into. That is what this article really talks about. It talks about how the Transposable Elements hi jack and spread through more and more of the ncRNA. From that same article we read "Conversely, lincRNAs devoid of TEs are expressed at greater levels than lincRNAs with TEs in all tissues and cell lines, particularly in the testis" That's correct. lincRNA that are healthy unravaged by the intruding TE's are expressed more often. ((side note to my opponent who I think intends to make a case for ID. In that article you should research this "Collectively, these studies suggest that while many species have numerous lncRNAs, they rapidly evolved in a species-specific manner or exhibit other mechanisms of evolutionary constraints"))