tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7004743315645657180..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: ENCODE/Junk DNA Fiasco: The IDiots Don't Like MeLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45118528064506202182013-02-26T10:47:41.543-05:002013-02-26T10:47:41.543-05:00What's strange is that many could see the absu...What's strange is that many could see the absurdity of the claims. So how did it get through peer review without being toned down? That might be the bigger problem that comes out of this fiasco.<br /><br />The other alternative is that the journals knew this would lead to a big press release and publicity. This type of hype seems to be becoming more common. How often are editors overriding the objections of reviewers? Although, I can see this might be a good thing on a limited basis.<br /><br />What worries me is that respectable journals such as Nature and Science Magazine are starting to look like the tabloid journalists of the science community. This is not the first time they have published papers where the priority is to generate news and publicity.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802635622224862658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45785453987356908882012-09-19T18:16:08.346-04:002012-09-19T18:16:08.346-04:00Re Entertained
I am not a biologist or a genetici...Re Entertained<br /><br />I am not a biologist or a geneticist so I am incompetent to comment on the paper presented. However, as I understand the issue, I would make the following observations. <br /><br />The problem is that evolution makes a prediction that a fusion of 2 chromosomes must have occurred if apes and humans had a common ancestor. Creationism doesn't predict anything. <br /><br />The second problem is that the split off the ape line resulted in the Australopithecus line, not the Homo line. Thus, the fusion could well have taken place before the Homo line split off from the Australopithecus line and probably did. <br /><br />In addition, human chromosome 2 can be identified with ape chromosomes 12 and 13, with >98% identity. <br /><br />The argument that IDiots like Casey Luskin are pushing is that the structures that Miller identifies as telomeres aren't really telomeres at all. This is repudiated by geneticists who, unlike Luskin, who doesn't know his posterior orifice from a hole in the ground, have been studying genetics for yearsSLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67912761251512328872012-09-19T16:03:46.169-04:002012-09-19T16:03:46.169-04:00Miller's analysis only holds water if creation...Miller's analysis only holds water if creationists discount the possibility of genetic change in humans. The fusion occurred exclusively (as far as we know) in the HUMAN line. One can quite easily accept both "no common descent" creationism and chromosome fusion. <br /><br />The point in that paper is that it is not just a simple end-to-end fusion. At the very least, it is end-to-end fusion with a high rate of mutation/transposition. <br /><br />The authors also present some troubling logic as to why this is human lineage only - the "F1 offspring would have had reduced fertility because of the risk of unbalanced segregation of chromosomes during meiosis." That problem would greatly reduce the probability of ANY descendents - humanish, chimpish or anywhere in-between - from the first common ancestor. <br /><br />Entertainednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34838115255758484512012-09-19T14:35:26.605-04:002012-09-19T14:35:26.605-04:00First, it relies on a straw-man argument...
No. I...<i>First, it relies on a straw-man argument...</i><br /><br />No. It was an attack on "no common descent" creationism. Front-loaders, etc should not be bothered by this sort of thing at all.<br /><br /><i>... less clear than one would expect...</i><br /><br />A few sources of this shocking variation. Oddly, I found them in the same paper;<br /><br />"Overall, interspersed repeats occupy 40% of the sequence, with Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs) and Long Interspersed Elements (LINEs) accounting for 12% and 15% of the sequence, respectively."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"The AluYa5 and AluYb8 subfamilies have been transpositionally active very recently: 99% of the insertions of these elements are human specific, and ∼25% exhibit presence/absence polymorphism in humans"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Interstitial arrays of degenerate telomere arrays are common in the human genome, particularly in subtelomeric regions (Riethman et al. 2001). Like the array at the fusion site, these arrays are highly diverged from the prototypic telomeric repeats (70% and 86% identical to [TTAGGG]n, respectively). A SATR1 (satellite) repeat cluster within the block common to 2qFus, 9pter, 9q13, and 9p11.2-B (asterisks in Fig. 3) also shows high variability in length, especially when compared with the overall high identity of these blocks."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"(2) The arrays were originally true terminal arrays that degenerated rapidly after the fusion. This high rate of change is plausible, given the remarkably high allelic variation observed at the fusion site."..."However, explanation 2 is supported by the high variability among allelic copies of other interstitial telomeric repeats and associated regions sequenced by Mondello et al. (2000) (AF236886 and AF236885)."<br /><br />And you accuse him of a strawman?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6592819845634806892012-09-19T11:29:49.670-04:002012-09-19T11:29:49.670-04:00SLC
As for the Ken Miller video, it is not as com...SLC<br /><br />As for the Ken Miller video, it is not as compelling as folks seem to think. First, it relies on a straw-man argument that non-Darwinists don't believe there has been genetic change in the human lineage. The chromosome fusion obviously occurred after the proposed human-chimp split. Is could have also occurred after God created humans separately with 24 pairs of chromosomes. <br /><br />Secondly, the fusion is less clean than one would expect from a pure common descent argument. Consider the following evaluation of the fusion from Genome Research (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full.pdf+html) <br /><br />"If the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ∼6 Mya, why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate? The arrays are 14% diverged from canonical telomere repeats (not shown), whereas noncoding sequence has diverged <1.5% in the ∼6 Mya since chimpanzee and humans diverged"Entertainednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56286215737509208802012-09-18T18:42:12.477-04:002012-09-18T18:42:12.477-04:00(Actually, a product of its times. The bible is a ...(Actually, a product of its times. The bible is a collection of books written at different times. It is possible to witness changes in laws, in morality, in cosmologies, and such.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5842275240957560902012-09-18T18:40:21.308-04:002012-09-18T18:40:21.308-04:00Denny,
What you are doing is equivalent to what p...Denny,<br /><br />What you are doing is equivalent to what people do with horoscopes. The Bible has nothing about microbes, nothing about atoms, nothing about spherical Earths (though the greeks knew about it quite early in time), nothing that people of those times would not have known, and a lot of plainly imaginary shit. But, like people do with horoscopes you do with the Bible, you put a meaning there that is not really there. This is not "hermeneutics" (fancy word for making a fool of yourself), but "eisegesis" (putting a meaning into a text rather that situating yourself into the author's cultural and whatever else background: exegesis). <br /><br />If you tried exegesis, instead of being erroneously bound into eisegesis, and thus investigated the cultural background of people's of those times and places, you would find an excellent correlation between what is said and quite the primitive superstitions and cosmologies. The Bible is a product of its times (with a good deal of tradition behind, but still a product of its time). It was written by people with no intervention by any super-omni-whatever gods.<br /><br />Grow up already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10368587404887231312012-09-18T16:38:28.331-04:002012-09-18T16:38:28.331-04:00Jud: Yes, we all recall the references to microorg...Jud: <i>Yes, we all recall the references to microorganisms and geology in Genesis.</i><br /><br />They are ALLEGORICAL, you know. When God said "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit", he really meant "Let there be cyanobacteria yielding oxygen". It's the ABC of hermeneutics. And the next day he made the stars... oops, I mean <b>by</b> the next day he <b>had made</b> the stars, I'm sure that's what the Hebrew construction actually means. ;) Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1489887744302557692012-09-18T14:41:18.349-04:002012-09-18T14:41:18.349-04:00Genesis 1 is a chronological account of creation.....<i>Genesis 1 is a chronological account of creation.... Day 3 was 2 bya to 650 mya. Microorganisms and earth’s crust appear.</i><br /><br />Yes, we all recall the references to microorganisms and geology in Genesis.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29531621995624191292012-09-18T14:35:12.637-04:002012-09-18T14:35:12.637-04:00Dear oh dear....
C'mon, Denny, the Biblical c...Dear oh dear....<br /><br />C'mon, Denny, the Biblical creation story is in the Old Testament, and is thus identical to the creation story of Christianity. So what makes Christianity different than Judaism in terms of being scientifically correct?<br /><br />By the way, whatever you've heard or read is very, very wrong - virtually every religion you can think of has a creation story in its holy scriptures: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and on and on.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14975838820594192402012-09-18T08:58:48.726-04:002012-09-18T08:58:48.726-04:00Piotr Gasiorowski said, “The Biblical description ...Piotr Gasiorowski said, “The Biblical description is incompatible with scientific evidence.” - RTB takes a concordist view (Concordism = the book of nature and the book of scripture are telling the same story, though in different languages.) RTB expresses their view as a ‘Day-Age’ (a Day [English word translated from Hebrew] is commensurate with an Age/era of time. SLC seems to have a greater scholarship for judging ancient Hebrew language and interpreting scripture than me, so I’ll dispense with language and biblical interpretation and simply cut to the chase of what Genesis 1 is believed to say by RTB and old-earth creationists like me. <br /><br />Genesis 1 is a chronological account of creation (Genesis 2 is a spiritual account of creation). Genesis’ 1 Day 1 was 4.5 bya. The moon and earth were formed; oceans became permanent. Day 2 was 3. to 2. bya. Blue-green algae dates to this period. Day 3 was 2 bya to 650 mya. Microorganisms and earth’s crust appear. Day 4 was 650 to 543 mya ‘possibly’ with first land plants. Day 5 was 543 to 65 mya with Cambrian explosion. Day 6 was 65 mya to about 50,000 years ago. Day 7 is not mentioned, because it is ongoing. <br /><br />Piotr Gasiorowski said, “If you interpret the passage literally.” – An essential element of hermeneutics is that scripture should be taken in its plain sense unless there are compelling reasons to think otherwise. Genesis 1 is only one of at least twenty chapter length creation accounts in the Bible. When the respective contexts and best interpretations are taken into consideration for those twenty accounts, the Genesis 1 chronology I described above results.<br /><br />Jud said, “Please name every other religious holy book ever written so we can verify you even are aware of them, let alone that you have assessed those religions/books for the absence of creation stories.” – Jud, what do you know that you did not learn from someone else, who learned from someone else, ad nauseam? <br /><br />Jud said, “what about Judaism?” - Judaism provided the source document.<br />Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86126158363247621912012-09-17T20:08:01.488-04:002012-09-17T20:08:01.488-04:00One has to laugh at Mr. Denny. Many of the claims...One has to laugh at Mr. Denny. Many of the claims in the Hebrew bible have been discredited. For instance, archeological research has confirmed that the exodus from Egypt never happened. This is in addition to the totally ridiculous claim that the Hebrews wandered around in the Sinai Desert for 40 years. Since the distance from where the Suez Canal currently sits and the current border of Israel is about 100 miles, it could be covered in 2 weeks, even by a slow moving caravan. Therefore, if we are to believe the poppycock in the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrews must have been traveling in circles for 40 years! Totally preposterous.<br /><br />Then, of course, there is the preposterous claim that Joshua stopped the Sun in the sky for a day. Aside from the fact that this would required violation of the laws of physics in order to prevent the consequences that would follow from such an event, there is not a jot or a tittle of evidence that anyone else in the world observed any such thing. It is beyond the realm of credibility that no one would have remarked on such an unusual occurrence. <br /><br />Of course, there is the claim in the Christian bible that Yeshua of Nazareth was born of a virgin and had no earthly father. Scientifically, the only way this could be accomplished by humans would be if Mary was a hermaphrodite who impregnated herself/himself. Unfortunately, my information is that all human hermaphrodites have the male sex organs external, which would cause all sorts of physical difficulties for fertilization (I will cease and desist from describing these issues in clinical detail as this is a family blog).SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71162779300942776312012-09-17T18:05:58.482-04:002012-09-17T18:05:58.482-04:00Denny: Therefore, a correct interpretation is, &qu...Denny: <i>Therefore, a correct interpretation is, "God had made" rather than "God made."</i><br /><br />The aspect makes little difference (English <i>made</i> can be interpreted as a perfective preterite, so the hair-splitting correction is simply unnecessary). The Biblical description is incompatible with scientific evidence no matter if the "days" are taken to last 24 hours or a hundred million years (I leave it to creationists to duke it out among themselves). If you interpret the passage literally, it's pure nonsense. If you insist on a metaphorical reading -- fine, but such a reading is unconstrained, hence arbitrary, subjective, and untestable.<br /><br /><i>As it relates to (Rigveda, Hymn 129), I am not familiar with it.</i><br /><br />Here is the relevant fragment (translated by Ralph Griffith, 1889):<br /><br /><i>Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.<br />All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.<br /><br />Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.<br />Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.<br /><br />Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?<br />There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.<br /><br />Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?<br />The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?<br /><br />He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,<br />Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.</i><br /><br />At least you don't have to strain your imagination beyound reasonable limits to see a "strikingly accurate" description of the Big Bang here (I chose Griffith's Victorian translation deliberately, since <b>he</b> can't have heard about the Big Bang, and so his wording can't have been influenced by familiarity with modern cosmological models). Not that I regard the Vedic account as anything more than a piece of ancient myth, just like Genesis. With hindsight, just about any bloody thing can be read into such texts "allegorically".Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51889264016885227672012-09-17T17:53:45.861-04:002012-09-17T17:53:45.861-04:00No other religious holy books claim a beginning to...<i>No other religious holy books claim a beginning to the universe.</i><br /><br />Either you are quite an amazing scholar, place a very high degree of credence in non-primary sources, or you are prone to exaggeration.<br /><br />Please name every other religious holy book ever written so we can verify you even are aware of them, let alone that you have assessed those religions/books for the absence of creation stories.<br /><br />By the way, what about Judaism?Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32007275146660764072012-09-17T15:36:00.017-04:002012-09-17T15:36:00.017-04:00Piotr Gasiorowski said, “it says that in the begin...Piotr Gasiorowski said, “it says that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, even before he created light.” - A correct interpretation, using the original Hebrew word for "made" (asah) refers to an action completed in the past. Therefore, a correct interpretation is, "God had made" rather than "God made."<br /><br />Also, the Hebrew phrase, "the heavens and the earth" (hashamayim we ha' erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence. This indicates the heavenly bodies - the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets - were created "in the beginning" prior to the six creation "days," which represent eras or long periods of time.<br /><br />Piotr Gasiorowski said, “never mind the seven-day nonsense that follows.” – I subscribe to progressive creationism or old-earth creationism, not young-earth creationism.<br /><br />Piotr Gasiorowski said, “you are not even right about other religions being still less accurate.” – Genesis is typically considered by Christian scholars as a historical or allegorical account, not poetry. As it relates to (Rigveda, Hymn 129), I am not familiar with it. I’ll leave it to you to translate and show how it correlates to a “beginning” or Big Bang event. <br />Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43253856174688276522012-09-17T07:28:42.312-04:002012-09-17T07:28:42.312-04:00"... only the Bible’s creation account correl..."... only the Bible’s creation account correlates to what is scientifically known about the universe’s beginning – in fact, that it had a beginning."<br /><br />Well, it says that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, even before he created light. That doesn't match known scientific data at all (never mind the seven-day nonsense that follows). Then you are not even right about other religions being still less accurate. See e.g. the Vedic creation myth (Rigveda, Hymn 129). It's far better poetry than anything you can find in the Bible, and contains no "heaven and earth" BS. It would win your competition hands down if pitted against Genesis.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62968456794623616262012-09-17T06:49:34.869-04:002012-09-17T06:49:34.869-04:00The Whole Truth said, – “they seriously believe i...The Whole Truth said, – “they seriously believe in and worship Fifi the pink unicorn god and that Fifi is the one and only true god/creator…” - If they said that natural scientific evidence could support their Fifi belief, I would say, ‘show me where scientific data correlates or infers support for your belief.’ To infer is to take available data and deduce relatively compatible (i.e. non-contradictory, non-presumptive) conclusions based on that data. Evolutionists are typically evolutionarily presumptive in their view of natural science data. Layman like me, plus scientifically qualified Christians like Fuz Rana, can simply look at empirical data and deduce inference. That’s why the increasing level of sophistication and design characteristics revealed by scientific discoveries (i.e. supposed junk DNA, or not) infer a designer vs. an undirected unintelligent random natural force called evolution.<br /><br />The same process can be applied to competition between gods. For example, if one looks at all the narrative creation accounts of all the religions, and compares them to known natural science data, even something as simple as the universe’s beginning, one would readily see that only the Bible’s creation account correlates to what is scientifically known about the universe’s beginning – in fact, that it had a beginning. No other religious holy books claim a beginning to the universe.<br />Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44118918804709791592012-09-15T21:37:59.589-04:002012-09-15T21:37:59.589-04:00His main problem is that his god is nonsense.His main problem is that his god is nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3343647462870957222012-09-15T21:37:03.376-04:002012-09-15T21:37:03.376-04:00However, I know you have all been waiting to see w...<i>However, I know you have all been waiting to see what RTB’s Dr. Fuz Rana (PhD biochemistry) has to say about ENCODE’s findings</i><br /><br />Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa! Stop it, I can't breath! Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Oh my, my stomach hurts! Haaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! Haaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! Haaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! Haaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! Haaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86516738633903870772012-09-15T19:49:43.665-04:002012-09-15T19:49:43.665-04:00Denny, before you get too cocky you should conside...Denny, before you get too cocky you should consider the FACT that no matter what is found in a genome, it doesn't and won't verify that your imaginary god exists. Even IF the naturalistic theory of evolution is wrong in important ways, it doesn't and won't verify that your imaginary god exists. Even IF Larry is wrong, it doesn't and won't verify that your imaginary god exists. <br /><br />To verify the existence of your imaginary god you need to provide substantial, testable, positive evidence. Do you have any? <br /><br />And why did you pick the imaginary christian god? What about all the other imaginary gods people have dreamed up? Do you think that you would be a christian if you had been born and brought up in Iran? <br /><br />What would you do if someone were to come up with solid evidence showing that Fifi the pink unicorn is the creator/designer, instead of your imaginary yhwh? Would you still believe in yhwh, or would you switch your beliefs and worship to Fifi? <br /><br />Can you honestly say that there is more substantial, testable, positive evidence for yhwh than for Fifi? If someone were to say to you that they seriously believe in and worship Fifi the pink unicorn god and that Fifi is the one and only true god/creator/designer, how would you go about showing them that they are wrong and that you are right? <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45209934592363944902012-09-15T10:31:34.048-04:002012-09-15T10:31:34.048-04:00I (Denny) made earlier comments about the ENCODE c...I (Denny) made earlier comments about the ENCODE consortium, because I think its findings have implications that go beyond natural science to the innate longings of human beings and what the future holds. However, I know you have all been waiting to see what RTB’s Dr. Fuz Rana (PhD biochemistry) has to say about ENCODE’s findings, so here is his early interpretation.<br /><br />“I (Fuz Rana) was asked to prepare a response to one of our high-end Donors who saw articles … and was concerned that ENCODE was no big deal. Below is what I wrote. I hope this is helpful.<br /><br />“I have spent some time collecting the responses of the scientific community to the ENCODE project. By and large, there is a lot of excitement about their accomplishments and the potential for biomedical applications.<br /><br />“The scientists who are dismissing the significance of the ENCODE findings (i.e. 80% of the human genome consists of functional elements) are, as far as I can tell, a vocal minority. I plan on writing an article detailing their complaints and offering a response<br />to their concerns.<br /><br />“In my view, this vocal minority is engaged in some serious back peddling that has been prompted by creationists pointing out the apologetic significance of the ENCODE results.<br /><br />“The two most common objections that have been offered up by the ENCODE “deniers” are 1) the results of the project have been hyped and poorly reported on by science journalists; and 2) the ENCODE scientists detected biochemical activity for 80% of the human genome and that it is incorrect to equate biochemical activity with function.<br /><br />“As for the first point, I don’t think that the popular science reports represent hype at all. Nor do I think the science journalists, many who are among the best in the world, did a poor job on reporting on the results of the ENCODE project. For example, the ENCODE Project Consortium write in the abstract of the summary/overview article published in Nature (September 6, 2012) “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside the well-studied protein-coding regions.” Sciencedaily.com published a news item on September 5, 2012 that is based on a press release issued by NIH/National Human Genome Institute in which Eric D. Green (Director of NHGRI) is quoted as saying, “During the early debates about the Human Genome Project, researchers had predicted that only a few percent of the human genome sequence encoded proteins, the workhorses of the cell, and the rest was junk. We now know that this conclusion was wrong.” Based on the paper’s abstract and this statement, it is hard to describe the reporting as being hype or poorly carried out.<br /><br />“With regard to the second point, this represents a distinction without a difference, at least when it comes to the ENCODE study. The ENCODE project chose assays to specifically detect biochemical activity (transcription, binding of transcription factors, histone binding, sites where modified histones bind, methylation, and three-dimensional interactions between enhancers and genes) that biochemists know is functionally important for gene regulation and gene expression. The distinction between biochemical activity and function is a “slight of hand” and just a way to detract from what Christian apologists are saying about the significance of ENCODE. It is a tactic, nothing more.”<br /><br />Now we all wait for Larry’s assessment one year hence.<br />Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5588612090152119982012-09-14T14:09:28.218-04:002012-09-14T14:09:28.218-04:00Larry said: "Denny, I confidently predict tha... <br /> Larry said: "Denny, I confidently predict that within a short time (about one year) real science will win and the ENCODE speculations will lose. The consensus among scientists will be that we do, indeed, have lots of junk in our genome"<br /><br />I've been thinking about this and I think it will take a hell of lot longer than one year to undo the ENCODE hype. Consider that they've made a claim for 80% of the genome. Will there be another project that will examine a similar fraction and determine it has no real function ( as the term is commonly used) ? I think not. <br /> At best this claim will be chipped away at and it will take a LONG time before most reject it. As for how it can be chipped away at....perhaps looking at a region, such as the BRCA1 locus with a huge number of recent duplication,deletions and translocations and showing that ENCODE has it all annotated as 'funcional'<br /> Are there transcription factors that are known (from microarrays etc?) to have only one or a handfull of targets? If binding sites for that TF light up the genome we could say with confidence that almost all are functionless. Then there are ALU polymorphisms, gene deserts etc.... If I knew how to access the ENCODE info I'd make a stab at it but I dont have time to figure it out<br /><br />RodWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3361180663406171032012-09-14T11:39:23.422-04:002012-09-14T11:39:23.422-04:00Re Denny
Prof. Moran's lack of regard for Ken...Re Denny<br /><br />Prof. Moran's lack of regard for Ken Miller has more to do with the latter's religious views then it does with any scientific disagreement.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66394546698041763102012-09-14T08:48:02.580-04:002012-09-14T08:48:02.580-04:00SLC said, “if Mr. Denny follows this blog, he will...SLC said, “if Mr. Denny follows this blog, he will know that Prof. Moran is not a member of the Ken Miller marching and chowder society.” – I see that Larry disagrees with others in his and related fields of biological science. I enjoy the scientific contest, and struggle to sort out all the biases, which everyone claims do not exist.<br /><br />Thanks for the link. <br />Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72045026646444454292012-09-13T22:51:45.365-04:002012-09-13T22:51:45.365-04:00If science proved to be more reliable than the Bib...If science proved to be more reliable than the Bible?? Has this not been clear for centuries? Exactly how much of what the Bible says can be corroborated by independent sources?Matt Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745943486966305844noreply@blogger.com