<html>
<body>
<font face="arial" size=2>If the "junk" DNA is more highly
conserved than the usual DNA...<br>
that's important. It may suggest an interpretation a bit different from
what<br>
we have been drifting into.<br><br>
Two alternative views of what that datum implies --<br><br>
A conservative view might be that "what you see is what you get
after all,"<br>
and that the "junk DNA"... is like the glia cells in the brain,
which people<br>
think supply metabolic support to ALLOW neurons to play the decisive role
everyone assumes...<br>
could it be that the nonjunk DNA is as dominant as people have always
thought, and that<br>
the "junk DNA" is a kind of constant support system... evolved
long,long ago and then frozen?<br>
The paper you cited says the junk DNA is "highly conserved,"
but doesn't say<br>
whether it is constant across all types of earth life, or just major
groups.<br><br>
A totally different view... "high conserved" could just mean
slowly changing.<br>
In multilayer time-lagged recurrent neural networks... we know we need to
have slower<br>
learning rates for stuff which is further away from direct empirical
testing.<br>
New categories of perception evolve more slowly than ... the
formation<br>
of memories using EXISTING categories, which can be "one-trial
memories."<br><br>
<br><br>
</font></body>
</html>