Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ENCODE adds 1600 data sets

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers will recall that the ENCODE project, to study the human genome, is now looking at genomic similarities across species, including roundworms, flies, and humans.

One earlier finding, that there was not much junk DNA in the human genome (80% functional), provoked angry responses from some of Darwin’s followers, who accused it of being an “evolution-free gospel”, though the ENCODE researchers were not motivated by a desire to defend or oppose evolution. (Mega-rant here.) The researchers responded, pointing out that “However, the article by Graur et al. contains assumptions and statements that are questionable.

But the project ploughs ahead. According to The Scientist :

Researchers have long recognized genomic similarities across species. New results from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) and model organism ENCODE (modENCODE) projects, published in a series of papers in Nature today (August 27), could support further comparative analysis; together, the projects have now added more than 1,600 data sets, bringing the total number of available ENCODE/modENCODE data sets to 3,300. In their respective papers, the teams behind each project also provide key cross-species comparisons of genome regulation in nematode (roundworm), fly, and human cells.

“What’s really striking about these papers is that they find ways in which we can map similarities in genomic function between key model organisms that are often used in lab research,” said geneticist William Bush of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who was not involved with the studies. “They have built models of genomic function that span all of these organisms.”

Previously, most cross-species comparisons of genome regulation examined only a few sites in the genome, yielding mixed results. Some studies suggested that regulatory regions were strongly conserved, while others found greater diversity among the same locations. More.

Bet there’ll be many more surprises.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Care to tell me why an onion that has no organs needs 5 times more DNA than us?
Sure. It's because onions can't read books and we can.Mung
August 30, 2014
August
08
Aug
30
30
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Care to tell me why an onion that has no organs needs 5 times more DNA than us ?bobby flay
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Axel, Thank you for your comments.Dionisio
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Dioniso #20: It will really be overkill, won't it, dionisio? The only people on the planet who could possibly doubt that our world and the whole universe were designed - and necessarily by a mighty intelligence - must be science professors and PhD's - with a lot to lose. It is at least as obvious to people without an academic education - and that, without necessarily knowing anything about the almost satirically complex E-coli cell; irrespective of whether or not they then proceed to infer the necessarily transcendental, divine author of the myriad designs in nature.Axel
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Jehu, I like how you argue your points.
And yes, screeching Darwinists were upset at implications for Darwinism that ENCODE created, because if only a fraction of functional DNA is conserved, it is devastating to the materialist paradigm.
You want to bet that they'll find another just-so explanation to hide this blatant failure? We are not arguing with honest researchers here. We are arguing with psychopaths, true believers who have found their religious calling.Mapou
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Arcatia
And this was not because of pressure from the Darwinian thought police, as tguy claims, but because the evidence and the science was overwhelmingly against them.
No. There is no body of evidence gives us an idea as to what percentage of biologically active DNA is functional. Although without an evolutionary bias one would assume that activity correlates with function. And yes, screeching Darwinists were upset at implications for Darwinism that ENCODE created, because if only a fraction of functional DNA is conserved, it is devastating to the materialist paradigm. What we have are unknowns. The percentage of functional DNA may even be higher than 80%. For one thing, some DNA may only be biologically active at certain times such as developmental stages or under specific hormonal or environmental pressures. Further, some function may relatively minimal or related to unknown functions. What really is chaffing people about the ENCODE result is that if flies in the face of the Darwinist conservation=function paradigm and shows us what a science stopper Darwinism can be.Jehu
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
#19 Acartia_bogart
But the best predictions (educated guess) at this point, is that it may go up to 10, 15, maybe even as high as 20%.
At the end of the day who cares what % is closer to reality, if knowing that does not answer the real questions (which are many) about the functioning of the biological systems. The bottom line is that the more we know about the biological mechanisms the more the whole thing look designed. The %s won't change that trend. It's a fact. Hence, chill out, relax, get a life. The party has just started. The fun part is still ahead. We are approaching a monumental 'told you so' moment that many will enjoy, but others will dislike.Dionisio
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Jehu:
I guess you don’t know what a retraction is. ENCODE didn’t retract anything.
A quick definition search gave me this:
Retraact: withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified
After other scientists criticized the 80% functional claim:
Kellis says that ENCODE isn't backing away from anything. The 80% claim, he says, was misunderstood and misreported.
OK. So you are correct. This is not, by definition, a retraction and I formally apologize for using the wrong word. Equivocation and prevarication are probably better words to define what they did. But let's get real. In their initial release it was very clear that they were claiming that 80% of the genome was fully functional and that this was a game-changer. Textbooks would have to be written. The paradigm would have to change. But when it was pointed out by scientists that the way they were using the term 'functional' was wrong and misleading (some would argue, intentionally misleading), they started singing a different tune. And this was not because of pressure from the Darwinian thought police, as tguy claims, but because the evidence and the science was overwhelmingly against them. At best, their work will point scientists to parts of the genome in which real functionality may be found. There is little doubt that the estimate of genome functionality will be revised upwards. And most scientists would agree. But the best predictions (educated guess) at this point, is that it may go up to 10, 15, maybe even as high as 20%.Acartia_bogart
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Nice post BM40, however, when ENCODE measured biological activity they found 80% of the genome was active. They inferred function from activity. Function has not been disproven. 80% is a huge gulf from the 8.2% found when conservation is the sole criteria for predicting function. Even if only half of the biologically active DNA found by ENCODE is ultimately found to be functional, it represents an incredible failure of a Darwinist prediction. This is why all of the shrill screeching from Darwinists about ENCODE results. And no, ENCODE hasn't retracted anything.Jehu
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
#16 BM40 Final Translation: Science (both big and small) can't tell us yet how things function in biological systems. Perhaps will never do. For every outstanding question that gets 'kind of' answered, new questions arise. This is a never-ending story. Just take the case of cell fate determination mechanisms in human development. Piece of cake, right? Review all the most updated peer-reviewed papers on the subject, Royal Society, Oxford, Nature, Cell, the whole nine yards. Tell me the final verdict. None. The jury is still out deliberating. They won't come back soon. Actually, the might never come back at all. Many folks (on both sides of the worldview great divide), like to see things in terms of statistical quantities and percentages. That's fine, but I prefer more the "where's the beef" and "show me the money" approaches. The real deal. I don't care much about the Junk DNA or other similar discussions. Basically, whatever description you show me, I like to rip it off with a barrage of simple childish 'common sense' 'bottom line' questions. If I read that something goes from Z to A, I want to know how. Perhaps my engineering/software development background makes me approach problems this way. Basically, all the details must be in. No compromises. No vague statements. No bluffing. No philosophical mumbling. No science fiction fantasies. All the nuts, screws, washers, etc. Unending revelation of the ultimate reality. Priceless. The rest you can buy with your credit card (either Visa or MC is fine). ;-)Dionisio
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Following the evidence may not lead you to where you thought it will, tjguy, because it's rather the raw data not the evidence that is still the same. According to the articles it is evident that the data can't be interpreted as ENCODE claimed before anymore. Dan Graur, one of ENCODE's main critics puts it this way (excuse me for citing strong language):
“Although the function of these regions has not been assessed, our work in Drosophila suggests that many are active enhancers, which trigger gene transcription. However, because factors can bind DNA without functional consequences, especially at HOT regions, the contribution of each of the bound factors to enhancer activity remains unclear.”
Translation: Not every piece of chewing gum attached to the soles of your shoes is functional. Moreover, the function of the sole of your shoe to which the chewing gum stuck is NOT to bind chewing gum.
“Furthermore, although they are extremely data-rich, the papers expose how data sets that are created to catalogue all functional elements under standardized conditions are not sufficient for understanding the regulation of transcription, chromatin biology and enhancer function, nor the evolution of these mechanisms.”
Translation: We report on a zillion experiments, each of which could have been performed differently. Thus, ENCODE studies cannot tell us anything about biological function.
“Addressing such questions typically requires more-diverse set-ups and experiments, often specifically adjusted for each question. In addition, the identification of regulatory elements remains limited by the lack of cell-type specificity and the fact that chromatin features and regulatory-factor binding are imperfect predictors of regulatory-element function.”
Translation: Big Science is useless in elucidating function. Only Small Science and hypothesis driven science will be able to provide us with insight.
The papers do not reveal how many of these elements might be functional, and independent estimates span a broad range.”
Translation: The proclamations by ENCODE 2012 were complete and utter b*s* and the nasty criticism has touched our sensitive souls. We are not going to repeat these errors in 2014.
BM40
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Aracatia, I guess you don't know what a retraction is. ENCODE didn't retract anything.Jehu
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
The Encode evidence has NOT changed. The only thing that changed was their interpretation of it as a result of the deafening protests of the Darwinian thought police! The findings remain unchanged and are open to various interpretations, including their original one.tjguy
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
wd400, we are all well aware that unguided neo-Darwinian processes are excellent at creating junk:
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Thus the question for you wd400 is not whether or not Darwinian processes can produce junk. We all concede that Darwinian processes are excellent at breaking things and creating junk,, Thus, The problem for you is to explain where such astonishing complexity came from from a process that excels at breaking things and has never been observed to create even one molecular machine:
DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video http://vimeo.com/33882804 Unwinding the Double Helix: Meet DNA Helicase - Jonathan M. February 20, 2013 - article with video Excerpt: With a rotational speed of up to 10,000 rotations per minute, the helicase rivals the rotational speed of jet engine turbines. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/unwinding_the_d_1069371.html Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5950/289 A Look at the Quality Control System in the Protein Factory - JonathanM - March 2012 Excerpt: The DNA damage response (DDR) system is like a cellular special ops force. The moment such damage is detected, an intricate network of communication and recruitment launches into action. If the cellular process for making proteins were a factory, this would be the most advanced quality-control system ever designed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/a_look_at_the_q057791.html Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - Science Magazine, August-16-2012 Excerpt: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html
Verse and Music:
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's handiwork, Thrive - Casting Crowns http://myktis.com/songs/thrive/
bornagain77
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
wd400:
All ENCODE measured was biochemical signatures, so…
So Meyer should have titled his book Signatures in the Cell?Mung
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Jehu, ENOCDE never actually made the 80% functional claim in a paper, that was restricted to the press releases. This is the paper in which they quietly back further way from their claims Which includes, among other statements "In short, although biochemical signatures are valuable for identifying candidate regulatory elements in the biological context of the cell type examined, they cannot be interpreted as definitive proof of function on their own." All ENCODE measured was biochemical signatures, so...wd400
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Love your last sentence, BA! Especially this: 'If neo-Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being primarily a cornerstone of the atheistic religion which is basically impervious to empirical falsification,....'Axel
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
It is of interest to point out that they found that genome regulation is 'markedly different' in the three species they studied,,,
Expanding ENCODE - Aug. 2014 Latest Encyclopedia of DNA Elements data enable researchers to compare genome regulation across species Excerpt: Ho and his coauthors also found key differences in the structure of heterochromatin between species.,,, ,,,these data show that “heterochromatin is not the same thing in different organisms, not only in terms of distribution but also in terms of composition.” http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40891/title/Expanding-ENCODE/ Comparative analysis of metazoan chromatin organization - J.W.K. Ho et al - ENCODE - Aug. 2014 Excerpt: Genome function is dynamically regulated in part by chromatin, which consists of the histones, non-histone proteins and RNA molecules that package DNA. Studies in Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster have contributed substantially to our understanding of molecular mechanisms of genome function in humans, and have revealed conservation of chromatin components and mechanisms1, 2, 3. Nevertheless, the three organisms have markedly different genome sizes, chromosome architecture and gene organization.,,, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13415.html
The reason why it is interesting to point out that genome regulation is 'markedly different' between the species is that, although Darwinists are very fond of pointing to genetic similarities in protein coding regions between species as evidence that species share a common ancestor, similarities in protein coding regions do not explain how the gross morphological differences between species arose. As Doug Axe has stated,
"Darwinists really need to confront not the similarities but the differences" Doug Axe - What are the implications of the book Science & Human Origins for the Darwinian paradigm - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnFs5D-vvnI
In other words, pointing to genetic similarities in protein coding regions tells us nothing as to the question of 'are such transitions between species possible?'. Some may think this question has long been settled but that is far from the situation as far as empirical science itself is concerned,,,, in regards to actual evidence,, as Dr. Axe also stated,,
“Any transition of form is pure fantasy. There is no demonstration of it.” Douglas Axe - co-author of Science & Human Origins - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxMmLakH2LQ
And if we look to see if such a transition is possible by manipulating the 'markedly different' genetic regulation networks, we find,,,
Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8Mhn2EKvQ “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” - Eric Davidson Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Thus where Darwinian theory most needs plasticity in order to be viable as a hypothesis, i.e. in developmental gene regulatory networks, is the place where it is found to be least flexible, (always catastrophically bad!). Yet, it is in these developmental gene regulatory networks where the greatest differences are found! ,,, If neo-Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being primarily a cornerstone of the atheistic religion which is basically impervious to empirical falsification, this finding, along with many other lines of evidence (J. Shapiro etc,,) would be enough to overturn neo-Darwinism as a hypothesis of serious consideration in science.bornagain77
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
gpuccio You're correct, very timely publications! Right when you are working on the procedures paper! Thank you for alerting me on this. :)Dionisio
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Acartia
Was subsequently retracted by the ENCODE authors. But the creationists do not accept this.
Do you have a citation for this "retraction?"Jehu
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Wow! Five huge papers on the current issue of Nature. And all of them free! And all of them about regulatory networks! Dionisio, have you seen this? Procedures, procedures...gpuccio
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
I love this response posted on the article!
Re: “heterochromatin is not the same thing in different organisms, not only in terms of distribution but also in terms of composition.” Selective Methylation of Histone H3 Variant H3.1 Regulates Heterochromatin Replication reported as: Unraveling mystery in 'histone code' shows how gene activity is inherited Excerpt: "...a single amino acid difference in the structure of histone H3.3 enables it to serve as a kind of memory device for the cell, marking genes that need to remain active..." My comment: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. It does no good to explain how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms if others cannot understand the link from nutrient-uptake to thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that typically leads to amino acid substitutions that stabilize organism-level thermoregulation in the context of an atoms to ecosystems approach to ecological adaptations. However, if only one other serious scientist would agree that the differences in heterochromatin are nutrient-dependent, others might begin to link nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals in all species via their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction, which leads from ecological variation to biodiversity. But noooo... other serious scientists won't do that. Will they? Who is forcing them to continue to think in terms of evolutionary events, when there has never been such a thing? And who doesn't know that Eugene Koonin's group just changed the ridiculous term "evoluttionary events" to "Genome Dynamics Events" --probably because epigenetically-effected "Genome Dynamics Events" can be linked from ecological variation to nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man without the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics, mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity?
Andre
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
BA77, you are so right: We should never forget that William Dembski named this site uncommondescent.com.BM40
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
"One earlier finding, that there was not much junk DNA in the human genome (80% functional)" Was subsequently retracted by the ENCODE authors. But the creationists do not accept this.Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
supplemental notes on comparing species for medical research:
Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Excerpt: The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.,,, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.,,, Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx What scientific idea is ready for retirement? – Mouse Models Excerpt: A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community. AZRA RAZA – Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org
Of related note: Immunity bacteria are shown to be species specific:
Our Microbes, Ourselves: Billions of Bacteria Within, Essential for Immune Function, Are Ours Alone - ScienceDaily (June 21, 2012) Excerpt: Chung repeated the experiment, only this time populating a third group of mice with microbes common to rats. This new group showed the same immune system deficiency as the humanized mice. "I was very surprised to see that," Chung said. "Naturally, I would have expected more of a half-way response." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621130643.htm
bornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
a few notes of caution on "cross-species comparisons" and on "similarities in genomic function between key model organisms that are often used in lab research" Embryological development, contrary to the belief that was originally, and still is, generated by Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings,,,
Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny - video (June 2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM
Contrary to that fraudulent belief, embryological development is vastly different between different species:
The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Another Key Evidence For Evolution is Getting Squashed - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: Confusion abounds and the evolutionists conclude, contra the traditional evolution view, that given the early embryo of an animal species, it would be possible to infer “comparatively little about its evolutionary trajectory.” That once powerful evidence that Darwin and the evolutionists proclaimed is now in the crowded dustbin of evolutionary proofs. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/another-key-evidence-for-evolution-is.html
This 'species specific' embryological development includes chimp and human development,,
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/
bornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply