Skip to comments.The Human Genome Is Far More Complex Than Scientists Thought
Posted on 09/06/2012 4:26:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For the past decade, scientists have been working on the assumption that 20,000 genes, less than 2 percent of the total genome, underpin human biology. But a massive international project called ENCODE has just revealed that plenty of the remaining 98 percent, once tossed aside as "junk DNA", is in fact incredibly important.
In fact, the projectknown more formally as the Encyclopedia of DNA Elementsreveals that 80 percent of that "junk DNA" is biochemically active. Add to that the fact that large stretches of DNA that appeared to serve no purpose actually contain over 400,000 regulators that help activate or silence genes, and the scientific community is surprised to say the least.
The finding required an international team of 442 scientists and a decade of research to come to fruition. But, according to Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute in the UK who spoke to the Wall Street Journal, the discovery "is like a huge set of floodlights being switched on".
The findings will shake up biology for good, and are already starting to help scientists better understand disease. It will, however, take a long time for scientists to get to grips with the vast quantities of information this research yields. To give you some sense of scale, the main research findings alone are being published in 30 central papers in Nature, Genome Biology and Genome Research. With plenty more to come, biologists will be kept busy for some time.
If you're keen to read more about the new findings and how they'll change science, Ed Yong has an extremely thoroughyet incredibly readableaccount you should take a look at. [ENCODE via Not Exactly Rocket Science]
This is a call for more research funding.
ain’t evolution grand?
all that encoded information out of nothing
The amount of time to develop the human genome randomly approaches infinity.
infinity- another totally logical reasonable and scientific concept
my kids were just joking yesterday about writing a story about the man who discovers that last digit of “pi”
> The finding required an international team of 442
> scientists and a decade of research to come to fruition.
Ken Ham once said with his characteristic half-smile that such research proves no intelligence is necessary to create life.
I never bought the “junk DNA” idea.
“The Human Genome Is Far More Complex Than Scientists Thought”
Really?????? Who’d a thunk it?
This cannot be correct, as it goes against the existing consensus....
Once again we are reminded that established science is rarely setting on firm ground.
wacky evolutionists, always late to the party.......
400,000 little teeny, tiny regulators ~ and they work in tandem, separately, with groups, in long strings, short bursts ~ and next thing you know they look like the makings of the supercomputers behind all this multicellular life stuff eh!
It's also a call for sheer amazement at Gods creation. The click through is a great write up;
Evolutionists will have to work overtime ti figure out how it all evolved without God!
God reveals Himself through his Word AND his creation.
Every time I read a story about a new discovery it cause me to meditate on God’s greatness.
Others take the opportunity to laugh and hoot and roll their eyes.
Paging Captain Obvious!
I wonder if the standard line we hear about having “98% of the same genes as a chimpanzee” is based on the entire genome, or if they excluded this “junk dna” from that assessment?
Largely the latter from what I understand. I've never bought the idea of "junk DNA". It's all just stuff they didn't know about yet. God's creation is wonderful. Talk to an information theorist sometime about the information density of DNA sometime. It's amazing.
——For the past decade, scientists have been working on the assumption that 20,000 genes, less than 2 percent of the total genome, underpin human biology.-—
Ah...the fallacy of evolution...they presume a evolutionary beginning and roll their eyes at a creator
Yet who creates something and 98 % of it is junk ?
Agreed. Worth reading.
Here's an interesting snippet:
Transparency is a big issue too. With these really intensive science projects, there has to be a huge amount of trust that data analysts have done things correctly, says Birney. But you dont have to trust. At least half the ENCODE figures are interactive, and the data behind them can be downloaded. The team have also built a Virtual Machine a downloadable package of the almost-raw data and all the code in the ENCODE analyses. Think of it as the most complete Methods section ever. With the virtual machine, you can absolutely replay step by step what we did to get to the figure, says Birney. I think it should be the standard for the future.
Yes. This is how science should be done. You'll never see anything like this from the global warming crowd.
Calling a spade a spade.....
This guarantees several things.
More money for research “we aren’t close to a universal cure for ANYTHING yet...we need more $$$” isn’t that a noble cause? (prefer the nice MLT mutton lettuce and tomato when the tomatoes are fresh and the mutton is nice and lean....they’re so perky)
Continued revenues from continued, expensive, crushing therapies and treatments (not to mention the wide array of $$$$$$ te$t$)
Breakthroughs in treatments (ongoing) that will require the burdensome weight of the FDA, its minions, consensus, and time to market.
Magnificence in complexity, God’s grace is greatest.
This work will lead eventually to several things:
(1) The disestablishment of Darwinian evolution entirely,
(2) The replacement of current evolution discussion that focuses on genes and their variations with something else that probably doesn't even sound like evolution (as if current "change" stuff does) ~ probably more like how our immune systems attack bugs, and
(3) A way into controlled gene resetting or modification ~ so if you get a bad mutation "they" can fix it!
I'm expecting that at some point someone will figure out how to wire up a chromosome so that we can communicate with it directly ~ see what it's thinking of ~ where it's going ~ why it "did that" instead of "this" ~ and so forth.
At some point we need to quit using the term.
‘Right turn, Clyde.’
Glucophage and glipizide both reset dna functions.