Turns Out Most DNA Is Not Junk After All
"The thought before the start of the project, said Thomas Gingeras, an Encode researcher from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was that only 5 to 10 percent of the DNA in a human being was actually being used.
The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches. Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, “if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don’t think people would have believed you.”
By the time the National Human Genome Research Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, embarked on Encode, major advances in DNA sequencing and computational biology had made it conceivable to try to understand the dark matter of human DNA. Even so, the analysis was daunting — the researchers generated 15 trillion bytes of raw data. Analyzing the data required the equivalent of more than 300 years of computer time." - (read the rest here)
Listen to Dr. Fuz Rana's analysis here.
Other great analysis and the validation of the design inference here.
The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches. Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, “if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don’t think people would have believed you.”
By the time the National Human Genome Research Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, embarked on Encode, major advances in DNA sequencing and computational biology had made it conceivable to try to understand the dark matter of human DNA. Even so, the analysis was daunting — the researchers generated 15 trillion bytes of raw data. Analyzing the data required the equivalent of more than 300 years of computer time." - (read the rest here)
Listen to Dr. Fuz Rana's analysis here.
Other great analysis and the validation of the design inference here.
Labels: Genetics, Intelligent Design, Science
posted by Jonathan Morrow at
11:39 AM
1 Comments:
I’ve just concluded a small debate on human origns with the science editor of the English newspaper ‘The Catholic Herald’ – Quentin de la Bedoyere.
http://secondsightblog.net/2012/09/06/simply-disgusting/
He begins quite early in the debate stating “the outcome of evolution from earlier forms is no longer seriously disputed” to which I offer various lines of study disputing this only to be told by him initially “If you would like a good authoritative source on human evolution i would recommend Britannica” then finally after submitting more evidence against his authoritative sources I get my notice to quit served via private email away from other readers which I ofcourse posted up straight away on his blog…
“Dear Stefangillies
I have somewhat reluctantly left your latest comment on the blog, although it is obscure and of little interest to anyone who is not a specialist in the field. So that you do not think that I am making up ground rules post factum let us agree that in future that such issues should not be raised unless they have received reasonable attention in the general scientific press. Scientific American and New Scientist will certainly have picked up any reputable scientific work with significance for the mainstream theories of evolution.
But, although there will be exceptions, the invitation to contribute is generally for comments on the existing formal posts – not for raising new subjects. If you wish to do that you will need to start your own blog. Get in touch with WordPress, and they will show you how.”
Alas one of his readers bites back in saying…
I cannot see why we kow tow to what appears to be such an absolutist theory. I follow the evolution thing quite closely and cannot see why even the very questioning of it is generally recieved with sneers. I thought the earlier attempt by stefanGillies was very good:
“…Indeed all of the non-creationist opposition to the modern theory of evolution comes from molecular biologists!
History teaches us with Galileo Galilei, amoungst others, that just because there is a consensus it doesn’t mean it is correct especially when that consensus is propogated via the vested interests of philosophical materialism…”
Hope you find this of interest.
God Bless,
Stefan Gillies.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home