Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (JAM @ Oct. 20 2007,14:14) |
Yes, VISTA. You're so afraid of what you'll find that you won't explore it. If you need spoonfeeding, here's a larger region:
http://pipeline.lbl.gov/servlet....llbar=0
1) Switch "# rows:" to 1.
2) Read the legend at lower left. See the symbol for genes? This region has four genes: Mtap7, Bclaf1, 260016C23Rik (a putative gene), and Pde7b.
3) Note the color of Exons in the legend: dark blue. See how the exons (protein-coding regions) are within the genes? The exons also are represented on the gene arrows at the top. Exons include all protein-coding regions, but they contain other sequences, such as UTRs, which have function.
4) Look at the scale for the Y axis on the right. It represents % identity.
5) Bonus question: why doesn't the scale go below 50%?
6) Do you see that the exons are highly conserved?
7) Do you see that there is less conservation outside the exons?
7) Look at the mouse vs. rat graph. These species are within the same "lineage" as you defined the term. What do the spaces between the pink bumps represent in that graph?
If you'd like to browse, it's easiest to change chromosome number in the address bar. Here's a gene-rich region:
http://pipeline.lbl.gov/servlet....llbar=0
|
First, thanks for making it a bit clearer.
Second, if the protein coding regions are dark blue and UTRs are light blue, what are the pink (CNS) regions?
Are these non-coding?
If so, why are they also so highly conserved between rat and mouse?
Like this? | Quote | | Quote | | Obviously I have much more research to do, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you can take a working genome, cut it into pieces, shuffle it around, and come up with another working genome. It defies credulity. It's like taking a book, cutting up all the pages, shuffling them around and coming up with an equally coherent story. |
That's the power of selection. There's no coherent design hypothesis that can explain it. |
Sure there is. Every kid who ever rearranged someone else's book report to try to "put it in his own words" knows about it.
BTW, giving credit to "selection" without showing the steps that were selected for is only an assumption and is not grounded in the evidence. | Quote |
| Quote | | I know you'll probably say that millions of years+selection can accomplish this, but where's the data to support that assumption? |
These *are* the data. There also are data from shorter time periods that, when extrapolated, are consistent with this. |
Isn't that the classic case of using the thing that must be explained as an explanation? I was told that was taboo around here.
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
