Reply With Quote
Dude, if you would have just linked the article rather then starting with the usual Boutons rant of bad mouthing everyone you could think of, then this would have been far more interesting to read.
Although creationists and Bible-thumping literalists are not worthy of conversation, I never miss a chance to punch out, yet again, their postion with hard science, over and over and over, analogous to -slapping whott, yoni, aggie.
==================
Source: Harvard University
Date: May 10, 2007
Opossum Genome Shows 'Junk' DNA Source Of Genetic Innovation
Science Daily — A tiny opossum's genome has shed light on how evolution creates new creatures from old, showing that change primarily comes by finding new ways of turning existing genes on and off.
The first marsupial to have its genome sequenced, the laboratory opossum is a valuable model for research on heart disease, skin cancer, fetal development, spinal cord injury and repair, and other diverse topics of human health. (Credit: Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research)
The research, by an international consortium led by the Broad Ins ute of MIT and Harvard, revises our understanding of genetic evolution. Scientists previously thought that evolution slowly changed the genes that create specific proteins. As the proteins changed, so did the creatures that owned them.
The current research shows that opossum and human protein-coding genes have changed little since their ancestors parted ways, 180 million years ago. It has been the regulation of their genes - when they turn on and off - that has changed dramatically.
"Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than it is with the genes themselves," said Broad Ins ute director Eric Lander. "Almost all of the new innovation ... is in the regulatory controls. In fact, marsupial mammals and placental mammals have largely the same set of protein-coding genes. But by contrast, 20 percent of the regulatory instructions in the human genome were invented after we parted ways with the marsupial."
The research, released Wednesday (May 9) also illustrated a mechanism for those regulatory changes. It showed that an important source of genetic innovation comes from bits of DNA, called transposons, that make up roughly half of our genome and that were previously thought to be genetic "junk."
The research shows that this so-called junk DNA is anything but, and that it instead can help drive evolution by moving between chromosomes, turning genes on and off in new ways.
The research - the first time a marsupial genome was decoded - involved the gray, short-tailed opossum, a native of South American rain forests that is small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand. Marsupials, which include kangaroos and koalas, have young that do much of their development in a pouch outside the mother's body instead of in an interior womb as in humans and other "placental mammals."
The current research follows on the Broad's genome decoding effort in recent years that has focused on placental mammals such as humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and mice. Lander said it was this work that set the stage for the new understanding of the importance of regulation of protein-coding genes in evolution.
It had been initially thought that most of a creature's DNA was made up of protein-coding genes and that a relatively small part of the DNA was made up of regulatory portions that tell the rest when to turn on and off.
As studies of mammalian genomes advanced, however, it became apparent that that view was incorrect. The regulatory part of the genome was two to three times larger than the portion that actually held the instructions for individual proteins.
"The official textbook picture of how genes work really didn't appear to be right," Lander said. "There was much more of the genome standing around shouting instructions than actually producing proteins."
That raised a question of how evolution actually works on the genome, Lander said. With so much of the genome devoted to regulation, it became apparent that evolution could work by simply changing the instructions rather than changing the protein-coding genes themselves.
The opossum genome provided an important point of comparison because it is more distantly related to humans than other mammals whose genomes had been studied. While the common ancestor of humans and opossums split 180 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and mice split just 80 million years ago.
The research will also prove useful for those seeking to understand opossum biology, according to other researchers involved in the project. Opossums are important models for human disease studies because they're the only animal other than humans who develop melanoma - skin cancer - after exposure to ultraviolet radiation. They are also used in nervous system research because baby opossums can regenerate their spinal cord tissue after it is cut and regain the ability to move their limbs.
The work was published in the May 10 issue of the journal Nature.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Harvard University.
Copyright © 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: [email protected]
Dude, if you would have just linked the article rather then starting with the usual Boutons rant of bad mouthing everyone you could think of, then this would have been far more interesting to read.
Great article. Boutons just wants to stick it in the face of "The world is 6000 years old" preachers, which makes his ing legitimate. Religion is now a danger to the worlds developement. It should be locked in the closet.
The next time you pull that off will be the first. Shouldn't you be stroking off to your Jihadist magazine or something?Although creationists and Bible-thumping literalists are not worthy of conversation, I never miss a chance to punch out, yet again, their postion with hard science, over and over and over, analogous to -slapping whott, yoni, aggie.
You know what the sad part is? This was a decent article, and you had to it up with your usual diarreah of the mouth commentary.
go yourself, aggie, nobody else will.
Dude, don't you think it's more "radical religion" that is a danger then it is just your plain old average Joe going to church once a week.
Says the boards only guaranteed virgin.
It's impossible to seperate our religion from our foreign policy. To them , we are radical. Religion in the world should be outlawed.
While I totally respect other people's opinion in regards to religion, I also totally disagree.
Do you honestly think religion in any shape or form is not good for an individual? That's what outlawing religion would imply. I think.
So, nobody should have the right to believe whatever God they believe in?
What do you mean NOW
It always has been.
I have no problem with religion being kept to ones self. Don't push it, don't claim your faith in public, don't use it as a tool in politics, don't promote it.
Isn't your own view a radical one as well.... it's a two way street buddy.
Although creationists and Bible-thumping literalists are not worthy of conversation, I never miss a chance to punch out, yet again, their postion with hard science, over and over and over, analogous to -slapping whott, yoni, aggie.
==================
Source: Harvard University
Date: May 10, 2007
Opossum Genome Shows 'Junk' DNA Source Of Genetic Innovation
Science Daily — A tiny opossum's genome has shed light on how evolution creates new creatures from old, showing that change primarily comes by finding new ways of turning existing genes on and off.
The first marsupial to have its genome sequenced, the laboratory opossum is a valuable model for research on heart disease, skin cancer, fetal development, spinal cord injury and repair, and other diverse topics of human health. (Credit: Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research)
The research, by an international consortium led by the Broad Ins ute of MIT and Harvard, revises our understanding of genetic evolution. Scientists previously thought that evolution slowly changed the genes that create specific proteins. As the proteins changed, so did the creatures that owned them.
The current research shows that opossum and human protein-coding genes have changed little since their ancestors parted ways, 180 million years ago. It has been the regulation of their genes - when they turn on and off - that has changed dramatically.
"Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than it is with the genes themselves," said Broad Ins ute director Eric Lander. "Almost all of the new innovation ... is in the regulatory controls. In fact, marsupial mammals and placental mammals have largely the same set of protein-coding genes. But by contrast, 20 percent of the regulatory instructions in the human genome were invented after we parted ways with the marsupial."
The research, released Wednesday (May 9) also illustrated a mechanism for those regulatory changes. It showed that an important source of genetic innovation comes from bits of DNA, called transposons, that make up roughly half of our genome and that were previously thought to be genetic "junk."
The research shows that this so-called junk DNA is anything but, and that it instead can help drive evolution by moving between chromosomes, turning genes on and off in new ways.
The research - the first time a marsupial genome was decoded - involved the gray, short-tailed opossum, a native of South American rain forests that is small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand. Marsupials, which include kangaroos and koalas, have young that do much of their development in a pouch outside the mother's body instead of in an interior womb as in humans and other "placental mammals."
The current research follows on the Broad's genome decoding effort in recent years that has focused on placental mammals such as humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and mice. Lander said it was this work that set the stage for the new understanding of the importance of regulation of protein-coding genes in evolution.
It had been initially thought that most of a creature's DNA was made up of protein-coding genes and that a relatively small part of the DNA was made up of regulatory portions that tell the rest when to turn on and off.
As studies of mammalian genomes advanced, however, it became apparent that that view was incorrect. The regulatory part of the genome was two to three times larger than the portion that actually held the instructions for individual proteins.
"The official textbook picture of how genes work really didn't appear to be right," Lander said. "There was much more of the genome standing around shouting instructions than actually producing proteins."
That raised a question of how evolution actually works on the genome, Lander said. With so much of the genome devoted to regulation, it became apparent that evolution could work by simply changing the instructions rather than changing the protein-coding genes themselves.
The opossum genome provided an important point of comparison because it is more distantly related to humans than other mammals whose genomes had been studied. While the common ancestor of humans and opossums split 180 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and mice split just 80 million years ago.
The research will also prove useful for those seeking to understand opossum biology, according to other researchers involved in the project. Opossums are important models for human disease studies because they're the only animal other than humans who develop melanoma - skin cancer - after exposure to ultraviolet radiation. They are also used in nervous system research because baby opossums can regenerate their spinal cord tissue after it is cut and regain the ability to move their limbs.
The work was published in the May 10 issue of the journal Nature.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Harvard University.
Copyright © 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved — Contact: [email protected]
BTW boutons_ if your IQ were one par with the magnitude of your bitterness and hate you would know that I've been suggesting this very mechanism on the forum for over two years. In fact, one of the researchers on the team was a classmate and very close friend of mine. I've known about this study for months - well before it was published.
The glaring difference in perception is that the conclusion of the study tries to validate evolutionary theory whereas I believe it supports and suits a creationist theory even better (not the strict 6 day fundamentalist take - the one that simply suggests that every species was created according to its kind, one that attributes their creation and design to GOD).
My whole point about the strikingly disimilar genetic permutations present in the canine family was based on this very observation - particularly because most canine 'species' are interfertile with each other. The importance of the placement of genetic 'dead zones' in genes was also highlighted by me as an argument against chaotic evolutionary branching - but you're too much of a twit to figure it out. And no, I won't spend my time trying to explain it to you - you are already blinded by your hate towards anything related to a Creator.
There is no ownage whatsoever on your part until you manage to bring stronger takes to the table. At least try and understand the subject matter.
And you dare call me a 'sheeple'.... pleeeeaaaaseeee!
You're a sheeple to the Church of Science, except that your 'Church' happens to screw up a lot more than you would like to admit.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-11-2007 at 05:53 PM.
If you promise not to support
atheism, sexuality, not observe
Christian holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas) environmentalism. And
any sundry other "ism's) And claim
your support thereof. Okay?
I also promise not to support brothels that have women being held captive as sex slaves.
Whoah, slow down there buddy! Let's not overreact.....
Wheres the smilie for "Over my head" on the brothel comment?
Those faces scare me. I think they're North Korean.
You more than likely know one of my daughters.BTW boutons_ if your IQ were one par with the magnitude of your bitterness and hate know that I've been suggesting this very mechanism on the forum for over two years. In fact, one of the researchers on the team was a classmate and very close friend of mine. I've known about this study for months - well before it was published.
The glaring difference in perception is that the conclusion of the study tries to validate evolutionary theory whereas I believe it supports and suits a creationist theory even better (not the strict 6 day fundamentalist take - the one that simply suggests that every species was created according to its kind, one that attributes their creation and design to GOD).
My whole point about the strikingly disimilar genetic permutations present in the canine family was based on this very observation - particularly because most canine 'species' are interfertile with each other. The importance of the placement of genetic 'dead zones' in genes was also highlighted by me as an argument against chaotic evolutionary branching - but you're too much of a twit to figure it out. And no, I won't spend my time trying to explain it to you - you are already blinded by your hate towards anything related to a Creator.
There is no ownage whatsoever on your part until you manage to bring stronger takes to the table. At least try and understand the subject matter.
And you dare call me a 'sheeple'.... pleeeeaaaaseeee!
You're a sheeple to the Church of Science, except that your 'Church' happens to screw up a lot more than you would like to admit.
She is now teaching science in school.
So Bible-thumping Phenom isn't a strict believer in 144-hour Genesis, but he finds some holes, anomalies in the theory of evolution that "proves", or at least supports, his unquestioned belief that fauna, and I guess flora?, popped out of the ether, or God's hands, extant.
I'm not "blinded to the Creator", or hate God, etc, etc.
I just don't "believe" in the infantile, simplistic view of a Creator that "Christian" Bible-thumpers believe is the absolutle, irrefutable, closed-minded, unquestioned, unquestionable truth, and I'm vehemently against those silly s who do, who insist on sliming their opponents with the false dichotomry that believing in God is incompatible with science.
What's the point of discussing "science" with somebody who knows science is wrong, and only their puerile view of God is right? no pointa at all.
BTW boutons_ if your IQ were one par with the magnitude of your bitterness and hate know that I've been suggesting this very mechanism on the forum for over two years. In fact, one of the researchers on the team was a classmate and very close friend of mine. I've known about this study for months - well before it was published.
The glaring difference in perception is that the conclusion of the study tries to validate evolutionary theory whereas I believe it supports and suits a creationist theory even better (not the strict 6 day fundamentalist take - the one that simply suggests that every species was created according to its kind, one that attributes their creation and design to GOD).
My whole point about the strikingly disimilar genetic permutations present in the canine family was based on this very observation - particularly because most canine 'species' are interfertile with each other. The importance of the placement of genetic 'dead zones' in genes was also highlighted by me as an argument against chaotic evolutionary branching - but you're too much of a twit to figure it out. And no, I won't spend my time trying to explain it to you - you are already blinded by your hate towards anything related to a Creator.
There is no ownage whatsoever on your part until you manage to bring stronger takes to the table. At least try and understand the subject matter.
And you dare call me a 'sheeple'.... pleeeeaaaaseeee!
You're a sheeple to the Church of Science, except that your 'Church' happens to screw up a lot more than you would like to admit.
Dude, Christianity in NEEDS you man.....seriously if it weren't for incredibly smart people like you that get suckered into Christianity the religion simply could not continue....jeezus, you remind me of a teacher I had in high school. So smart that she was christian. Hilareeous.
Dude, Christianity in NEEDS you man.....seriously if it weren't for incredibly smart people like you that get suckered into Christianity the religion simply could not continue....jeezus, you remind me of a teacher I had in high school. So smart that she was christian. Hilareeous.
Grow up. Man up or whatever. But get your trash out of here.
I went to god just to see. And I was looking at me.
I believe you are contradicting yourself.
What happened to the parading ownage you promised?
What's the point in discussing about what occurred thousands, or millions of years ago if there's no real absolute proof that 'x' person ever existed, or that 'y' event ever occured? Is that what you've boiled down this discussion into? Do you wish for absolute proof for everything to exist??? For only a few things... and then when can deductively infer the rest? I mean you're telling me it has to be black or white. Which is it? Science or Religion. Science or GOD. They coexist in my mind, one is the outcome of the other. One serves to describe our natural world while the other serves to enrich us spiritually. There is room in my life for both, I don't know where you obtained the silly idea that I'm the one who's badgering for sides.
Science has its limitations and until you acknowledge that fact you're right in stating that there is no merit in continuing the discussion. Again, you assume that belief in the Judeo-Christian GOD is a handicap of some sort, but you can't or wouldn't ever be able to back up such a statement. Particularly because science alone can't slam the door on GOD.
Which reminds me, when have I ever stated that Science as a whole was wrong? I've stated repeatedly that people's conclusions from scientific studies can vary. Just like you believed that this study was the 'beatdown' of 'creationists' - I actually believe that their findings hurt some of the core principles behind evolutionary processes. While the results of the study enhance and support the principles of Macroevolution, they do so at the cost of the principles that govern Microevolution. The fact that the article, or even some of the members of the team failed to see this conflict initially is what I pointed out as erroneous. Actually I'm surprised that they went ahead and published it in this manner without a mention of the former.
In fact, when my friend pointed out this significant problem to the rest of the research team (after I pointed it out to her)... they stared at her shockingly... after about a minute of dead silence their mumbling responses gave away the fact that they knew their futile justifications couldn't resolve the gap... Nevertheless, they've mananged to keep mum on the issue. On a side note: so much for the alleged flawlessness of peer review, huh?
The claims of the study in its current format are nothing more than sugar coated hooks for people like yourself wishing to discredit GOD for His creation. Do whatever you please, but remember that some of us don't always buy off on other peoples' conclusions. That is the benefit of learning. Not everyone can throw a sheet over your eyes. Especially not when their agendas are apparent.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-12-2007 at 03:02 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
