At The Conversation on junk DNA: Bewilderingly, scientists found that the non-coding genome was actually responsible for the majority of information that impacted disease development in humans. Such findings have made it clear that the non-coding genome is actually far more important than previously thought.
At Smithsonian Magazine: That Mammuthus columbi originated as a new species, born of a hybridization event, “has major implications for our understanding of the population structure of Pleistocene megabeasts,” MacPhee says. The ancestors of the woolly mammoth and the Krestova mammoth had diverged from each other for about a million years before a population produced a hybrid that was different from both, giving rise to Mammuthus columbi.
At Nature Heredity: Discoveries during the subsequent two decades have continued to support the idea that loss of function contributes to adaptation (Murray 2020), with cases of adaptive or beneficial loss of function being discovered across diverse organisms, genes, traits, and environments.”
Researcher: “But it’s possible that the mutation rate is so high in some of these non-B DNA regions that the same mutation could occur independently in several different individuals. If this is true, it would change how we think about evolution.”
AI natural language processors analyze sentences in human languages but the human genome is a language with sentences too.
The presenters provide revealing information about how our understanding of genetics has changed in the last seven decades. Very easy to follow.
Not “pure luck,” they say. Nature is full of intelligence, some of it nasty.
We remember when genetics was simple and determinist.
Does anyone remember when genetic determinism was a thing? This is disastrous news for all the claims about how adultery or bad driving are “in yer genes.” If even identical twins don’t … Wow. Times, they are a-changin’
Claimed findings from such algorithms are generally bunk. With a large enough database, you can find pretty much any conclusion you want and that is exactly what many researchers do.
If your coins keep coming up heads instead of tails, millions of years after millions of years, something is happening that isn’t mere chance.
They are saying that there were no blue-eyed people before 10,000 years ago. Someone should interview the prof on whether he believes that all humans are, in any event, descended from a single pair, Adam and Eve. Just for fun. See what he says.
New Scientist seems to be back to their usual schtick. Their 13 reasons for questioning Darwinism were probably some kind of aberration.
I won’t kid you, the story ends tragically (1965–2004) but it is nonetheless a testimony to the human spirit. Especially when finally, finally, he turns on his social engineers—even though he was doomed.
It would be interesting to know if there is any significance to the size of the sperm in terms of genetic transmission.