tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6770187136411045677..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Nature falls (again) for gene hypeLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40413006007603776902018-07-09T04:34:05.341-04:002018-07-09T04:34:05.341-04:00The point I’m making is that there were many knowl...The point I’m making is that there were many knowledgeable scientists who were predicting about 30,000 genes back in the 60s and 70s. They based their predictions on available evidence.<br /><br />The people who were making guesstimates of 100,000 genes in the 1990s were unaware of the genetic load argument and of the predictions based on the number of mRNAs from the earlier era. The 1990s guesses did not represent the views of the experts and they shouldn’t be given as much credit as they are getting in recounting the history of gene estimates. <br /><br />I was not the least bit shocked to learn we had 30,000 genes when the draft sequence was published in 2001. Were you?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41130255573541417952018-07-08T17:35:10.254-04:002018-07-08T17:35:10.254-04:00The genetic load argument is not really about prec...The genetic load argument is not really about precise gene number though, it is about how much of the genome is under constraint. After all, it was advanced before even people knew about things like splicing.<br /><br />It does give a good order-of-magnitude estimate though, and given that this is something that many did in fact get wrong in a major way based on other criteria, it is a remarkable success for me.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16401062583547902782018-07-08T17:25:23.603-04:002018-07-08T17:25:23.603-04:00The problem with assuming that the 1960's &quo...The problem with assuming that the 1960's "genetic load" argument really was an accurate predictor of the number of human genes is that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that it was a generally applicable argument. Did it accurately predict the number of genes for other organisms? Somebody's guess for the number of jellybeans in a jar is bound to be closer to the real number, but it doesn't follow that the person has a generally applicable method for guessing the number.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.com