Re:RNA-targeting CRISPR reveals that noncoding RNAs are not ...
by moralestapia on Friday December 06, 2024 @12:02PM
(#42341601)
>the onus is on you to show that it was somehow important
What? Like ... not at all? Onus does not come "by default" on things, lol. The onus falls on whoever proposes an hypothesis.
In this case that hypothesis is "all other DNA/RNA is junk", well, then "prove that thing is true", which is unfeasible and hence why one could not assert such thing.
Re:RNA-targeting CRISPR reveals that noncoding RNAs are not ...
by searine on Friday December 06, 2024 @02:31PM
(#42343355)
>In this case that hypothesis is "all other DNA/RNA is junk",
Strawman.
It is not as black and white as you think it is. Some non-coding DNA/RNA is functional. Some is not. Selection/conservation is often used as quick way to tell whether something is functional or not.
Nobody actually in the field of genetics would say "all other DNA/RNA is junk". You'd get laughed out of the room, kind of in the same way if you said "all non-coding DNA is functional because 'epigenetics' ".
The single most common sin in all of science is to misrepresent the null hypothesis because it makes getting positive results easy. In article form, this translates to when you see a title "Everyone thought X but actually Y," 99% of the time nobody thought X and Y is otherwise unremarkable. They wanted to remark on Y, though, so they cooked up "Everyone Thought X" to facilitate the presentation.