It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by MrXYZ
Great post.
Admittedly, I was a in a rotten mood when I posted earlier.
I'm just shocked that this thread has gotten so many stars/flags when the people doing the starring and flagging should know better!
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by EnochWasRight
Evolution is dead? Ha. Could you please point me to the conclusion of the paper cited that claims DNA was designed or that evolution is wrong? So far I can't find it.edit on 2-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
[The unprecedented number of functional elements identified in this study provides a valuable resource to the scientific community as well as significantly enhances our understanding of the human genome. Our analyses have revealed many novel aspects of gene expression and regulation as well as the organization of such information, as illustrated by the accompanying papers (see www.encodeproject.org... for collected ENCODE publications). However, there are still many specific details, particularly about the mechanistic processes that generate these elements and how and where they function, that require additional experiments to elucidate.
The large spread of coverage—from our highest resolution, most conservative set of bases implicated in GENCODE protein-coding gene exons (2.9%) or specific protein DNA binding (8.5%) to the broadest, most general set of marks covering the genome (approximately 80%), with many gradations in between—presents a spectrum of elements with different functional properties discovered by ENCODE. A total of 99% of the known bases in the genome are within 1.7 kb of any ENCODE element, whereas 95% of bases are within 8 kb of a bound transcription factor motif or DNase I footprint. Interestingly, even using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein-coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.
Importantly, for the first time we have sufficient statistical power to assess the impact of negative selection on primate-specific elements, and all ENCODE classes display evidence of negative selection in these unique-to-primate elements. Furthermore, even with our most conservative estimate of functional elements (8.5% of putative DNA/protein binding regions) and assuming that we have already sampled half of the elements from our transcription factor and cell-type diversity, one would estimate that at a minimum 20% (17% from protein binding and 2.9% protein coding gene exons) of the genome participates in these specific functions, with the likely figure significantly higher.
The broad coverage of ENCODE annotations enhances our understanding of common diseases with a genetic component, rare genetic diseases, and cancer, as shown by our ability to link otherwise anonymous associations to a functional element. ENCODE and similar studies provide a first step towards interpreting the rest of the genome—beyond protein-coding genes—thereby augmenting common disease genetic studies with testable hypotheses. Such information justifies performing whole-genome sequencing (rather than exome only, 1.2% of the genome) on rare diseases and investigating somatic variants in non-coding functional elements, for instance, in cancer. Furthermore, as GWAS analyses typically associate disease to SNPs in large regions, comparison to ENCODE non-coding functional elements can help pinpoint putative causal variants in addition to refinement of location by fine-mapping techniques78. Combining ENCODE data with allele-specific information derived from individual genome sequences provides specific insight on the impact of a genetic variant. Indeed, we believe that a significant goal would be to use functional data such as that derived from this project to assign every genomic variant to its possible impact on human phenotypes.
Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen form the basis for all life. Just so happens, they are present here in balance. Air molecules are smaller than light. It just so happens that we can see at a distance because of this. Why this way and not another?
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by EnochWasRight
[The unprecedented number of functional elements identified in this study provides a valuable resource to the scientific community as well as significantly enhances our understanding of the human genome. Our analyses have revealed many novel aspects of gene expression and regulation as well as the organization of such information, as illustrated by the accompanying papers (see www.encodeproject.org... for collected ENCODE publications). However, there are still many specific details, particularly about the mechanistic processes that generate these elements and how and where they function, that require additional experiments to elucidate.
The large spread of coverage—from our highest resolution, most conservative set of bases implicated in GENCODE protein-coding gene exons (2.9%) or specific protein DNA binding (8.5%) to the broadest, most general set of marks covering the genome (approximately 80%), with many gradations in between—presents a spectrum of elements with different functional properties discovered by ENCODE. A total of 99% of the known bases in the genome are within 1.7 kb of any ENCODE element, whereas 95% of bases are within 8 kb of a bound transcription factor motif or DNase I footprint. Interestingly, even using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein-coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.
Importantly, for the first time we have sufficient statistical power to assess the impact of negative selection on primate-specific elements, and all ENCODE classes display evidence of negative selection in these unique-to-primate elements. Furthermore, even with our most conservative estimate of functional elements (8.5% of putative DNA/protein binding regions) and assuming that we have already sampled half of the elements from our transcription factor and cell-type diversity, one would estimate that at a minimum 20% (17% from protein binding and 2.9% protein coding gene exons) of the genome participates in these specific functions, with the likely figure significantly higher.
The broad coverage of ENCODE annotations enhances our understanding of common diseases with a genetic component, rare genetic diseases, and cancer, as shown by our ability to link otherwise anonymous associations to a functional element. ENCODE and similar studies provide a first step towards interpreting the rest of the genome—beyond protein-coding genes—thereby augmenting common disease genetic studies with testable hypotheses. Such information justifies performing whole-genome sequencing (rather than exome only, 1.2% of the genome) on rare diseases and investigating somatic variants in non-coding functional elements, for instance, in cancer. Furthermore, as GWAS analyses typically associate disease to SNPs in large regions, comparison to ENCODE non-coding functional elements can help pinpoint putative causal variants in addition to refinement of location by fine-mapping techniques78. Combining ENCODE data with allele-specific information derived from individual genome sequences provides specific insight on the impact of a genetic variant. Indeed, we believe that a significant goal would be to use functional data such as that derived from this project to assign every genomic variant to its possible impact on human phenotypes.
Where's the part about evolution being wrong and the part about the intelligent designer? That is copied from the conclusion. I don't see what exactly you guys are talking about. Could you please show me how any of this is saying that there is a designer?edit on 2-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
And in the presence of oxygen, why would a species adapt to breathing nitrogen?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Genesis
1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
So, in essence, this debate comes down to the plausible existence of a God-thingy that either "spoke" all of this into physical manifestation or not. No such thingy exists, so no...it didn't "speak" anything into existence.
The rest is crap that we haven't figured out yet. It's not magic, though, just because we haven't nailed it down yet.
Guy the scientist have been responsible for people believing they were not created but instead were descended from monkeys therefore responsible for sending people to hell
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by SimonPeter
Guy the scientist have been responsible for people believing they were not created but instead were descended from monkeys therefore responsible for sending people to hell
Did you just say that Scientists are responsible for sending people to hell?edit on 2-10-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: >Implying
To people who think that the world was created in 6 days and the Earth is flat, scientists are charlatans, heretics, etc.
In reality, without scientists, we'd all be living by biblical standards, etc.
Why pay for a wedding when you can trade some cattle for a wife?