Maybe you can have a yard sale for the “junk DNA.”
Ay de mi, what miserable science reporting THAT was. And now, biologists will get to put up with YEARS more misunderstandings and myths.
FACT: The study in question defined “function” as being “any molecular interaction.” Utility, usefulness or biological action in the body never made it into the equation. The level of surprise that most DNA has some kind of molecular interaction, even if that interaction turns out to be coincidental and without effect, is actually nil.
FACT: That some junk DNA actually has utility and biological function has actually been known for at least 20 years now, and was hypothesised before that. Some junk DNA sequences are more highly conserved between species than protein-coding genes, which simply doesn’t happen if they’re not doing anything.
Or, in other words, the reporting is misleading in the extreme, and runs decades behind what’s already known.
It’s actually the fault of the brainless twit that the science team themselves designated to do the publicity, though. They really could have thought it through better, but they opted for hype over accuracy.
Er, you’re not even getting the name right. introns, not “interons.”
Also, I have no idea what you think you’re talking about anyway, since all of our DNA is “left over” from our evolution. Introns can simply be the results of mutations, sure, and can also be selected for as providing alternate splice sites. But overall, it might be best if you have a better idea of what the science is, before you try to discuss parts of it being incorrect. At least ask some questions. Like, of people who know what they’re talking about, not creationists.