<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I have two comments. </DIV>
<DIV>1) I would not be so quick to bury the idea of “junk DNA.” There are
relevant scientists who are not buying into the conclusions of the ENCODE study
all be it, its appearance in respected journals with over 400 scientists
involved. Only time will tell who is right, or if the truth (as it often does)
lies somewhere in between.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2) I would imagine if up to 20-80% (depending upon who you listen to) is
now significant and mostly involved in regulation, versus the 3-4% or so that
was deemed to be significant before the ENCODE project (genes coding for
proteins), then this should make for a major change in the SIGNIFICANT mutation
rate in the past. If most of the genome, including all the new regulatory
sections that were previously considered junk, now are considered to have
mutations that are significant, whereas in the past the large majority of these
mutations had no consequence as they only happened in junk DNA that had no
consequences, then the effective mutation rate will be different than previously
assumed. This could also lead to a theory for a non-constant mutation rate
(creatively assumed by some in the past) depending on how much of the “junk DNA”
(using the old term) was present at the era in question ie., the ratio of truly
junk to the whole in any given era.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kol tuv</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>