tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7005113957329545245..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: What Obama is doing is what Progressivism ismregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75739602338297512182013-08-28T17:30:57.876-04:002013-08-28T17:30:57.876-04:00The Social Pathologist,
Agreed. Time will eventu...The Social Pathologist,<br /><br />Agreed. Time will eventually give the answer as to how much of the human genome is 'functional' - having a use necessary for the human to survive, and not just being transcribed.<br /><br />When I studied genetics at university in the early '70s it was assumed that almost all of the human genome was functional, mainly because bacteria such as E. coli had so little non- functional DNA.<br /><br />Junk DNA was an explanation of an observation. That species varied so much in the size of their genomes. It wasn't a prediction. <br /><br />That said - much of the human genome is still junk. The tens of thousands of broken pseudogenes and the 800,000 or so SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) for example. SNPs are useful in forensics in identifying individuals or as markers for nearby disease associated genes.<br /><br />ENCODE showed that between 20 and 80% of the human genome is functional, using a definition of functional so liberal that being transcribed at least once counts as being functional. I suspect the true figure will be around 20%.<br /><br />But you're not allowed to lie about it, as Stephen Meyer does in 'Darwin's Doubt' when he claimed that ENCODE showed that at least 80% of the human genome is functional.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70916645954906797232013-08-28T09:12:13.919-04:002013-08-28T09:12:13.919-04:00Uhmm no.
If it has a use, then it is not junk. Lo...Uhmm no.<br /><br />If it has a use, then it is not junk. Logic not opinion.<br /><br />Given the cell lines that they were using, I suspect that the 20 or so percent of regions that were found to be quiet probably coded for things such as morphogenesis, neural differentiation, taste preference, behavior, structural development and so on.<br /><br />You and me arguing about this isn't going to achieve much, but what will settle the question is time. If function cannot be ascribed to the "dark matter" then Mattick is wrong. If, on the other hand it can be found to be functional, then I suggest you bend your knee to the boss.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-166052694089549902013-08-28T06:50:41.034-04:002013-08-28T06:50:41.034-04:00The Social Pathologist',
'Basically, a lo...The Social Pathologist',<br /><br />'Basically, a lot of the junk isn't junk'.<br /><br />Actually, a lot of the junk is still junk DNA. Just because ciliates have been shown to use some of their transposons for a useful purpose doesn't disprove the junk nature of much of the genomes of eukaryotic species.<br /><br />Actually, the only species that don't contain much junk DNA are bacteria (eubacteria and Archaea). Everything else contains variable but significant amounts of junk DNA, as shown by the fact that the genome size across species, even similar ones, varies so much, and species with very large genomes aren't necessarily 'complex'.<br /><br />Junk isn't necessarily a derogatory term. 'Garbage DNA' would be. As an analogy, I have junk inside my house. Occasionally I find a use for it, not the use it was first intended. Garbage I discard immediately as being useless, now and in the future.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46141240038849247202013-08-27T21:22:55.845-04:002013-08-27T21:22:55.845-04:00Social:
Thanks for the link and the comments. I&#...Social:<br /><br />Thanks for the link and the comments. I'll take a look.<br /><br />Mikemregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1282306254437001262013-08-27T18:36:05.045-04:002013-08-27T18:36:05.045-04:00That first line makes me sound like a spambot.
Of...That first line makes me sound like a spambot.<br /><br /><i>Off Topic but I found your blog by through Larry Moran's.</i><br /><br />should be<br /><br />Off Topic, but I found your blog by going through Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73536641387129119182013-08-27T18:34:17.618-04:002013-08-27T18:34:17.618-04:00Off Topic but I found your blog by through Larry M...Off Topic but I found your blog by through Larry Moran's.<br /><br />I noticed his takedown of John Mattick which I thought was tinged with a bit of malice. Anyway, with regards to the junk nature of DNA, I found this very recent and interesting paper on the PLOS genetics site.<br /><br />http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003569<br /><br />Basically, a lot of the junk isn't junk.<br /><br />I tried posting the link over at Moran's site but for some reason it didn't get through moderation. Hmmmm.<br /><br />Interesting days ahead in the world of molecular genetics!<br /><br />Btw. I notice that you're a conservative Catholic. You might find the commentators at the orthosphere to your taste. <br /><br /> http://orthosphere.org/<br /><br />They're a bit too traditionalist for my tastes but you might enjoy them.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.com