I've read that aging is due to damaged DNA in our cells among other things. So I was thinking maybe junk DNA does afterall have quite an important purpose: taking the hits for the genes that actually produce protein (forget what they're called.. exons?)
The oxidation of glucose supposedly damages our DNA in very small amounts and over time it results in the effects of old age. I've read about one experiment where control monkeys were fed a normal amount of food, whereas the monkeys being experimented on were fed 1/3 less. The ones fed less lived substantially longer. The logic: the less you eat, the lower your metabolism, the less food you break down, the lesser damage done to the DNA.
If we didn't have junk DNA, whatever it's composed of, it seems that we'd age a lot more quickly because whenever our DNA takes a hit, since the DNA wouldn't be junk, it would be DNA that's doing something important.
The oxidation of glucose supposedly damages our DNA in very small amounts and over time it results in the effects of old age. I've read about one experiment where control monkeys were fed a normal amount of food, whereas the monkeys being experimented on were fed 1/3 less. The ones fed less lived substantially longer. The logic: the less you eat, the lower your metabolism, the less food you break down, the lesser damage done to the DNA.
If we didn't have junk DNA, whatever it's composed of, it seems that we'd age a lot more quickly because whenever our DNA takes a hit, since the DNA wouldn't be junk, it would be DNA that's doing something important.