Genetics

New research: People differ in their genetic makeup more in big ways than small ones

Spread the love

From Brandon Keim (Wired, July 29, 2011), we learn, “Your Genome Structure, Not Genetic Mutations, Makes You Different”:

A new look at the human genome suggests that unappreciated variations in its fundamental architecture, rather than point-by-point mutations, may be responsible for most genetic difference among people.

Anyone remember the Central Dogma of Genetics? One gene, one protein? “almost no exceptions”? Darwinism, gene by gene? What if it is more like this:

In the new study, Wang and colleagues used algorithms that assemble long, relatively intact genome sequences from small fragments, allowing them to see more structural variation than is usually possible. In a high-profile earlier study, they’d used it to sequence a giant panda genome; this time they compared structural variations across 106 people from the 1000 Genomes Project.

They found that individuals seem to be distinguished less by their SNPs than their structural variations. “Defining structural variations will be of considerable importance for future analyses of personal genomes,” they wrote.

The question isn’t whether Darwinism can “explain” this, but whether Darwinism is even relevant any more. It may have been relevant in the days of the Central Dogma, but … in the story about bacterial “spite” or long range planning among horses, Darwinism is only explaining itself, in increasingly bizarre ways.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “New research: People differ in their genetic makeup more in big ways than small ones

  1. 1
    T. lise says:

    “I predict that when we understand the genome better, we will see integration and unity at all levels” John Sanford in his book Genetic entropy

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    semi related:

    “Recent articles confirm the thesis of Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA” – audio podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_57-07_00

  3. 3
    PaV says:

    It’s quite evident that whole genome analysis will, in the end, be rather decisive when it comes to Darwinism vs. ID. So far, Darwinism is losing. I’m not surprised.

    Recently I’ve become acquainted with James Shapiro’s work with bacteria. He writes of Natural Genetic Engineering. Now that’s a different view of what bacteria do, and how they react to their environment. But, of course, he has had trouble getting some of his work published because, as he says, NGE suggests that an engineer is involved. Humm …..

Leave a Reply