RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,17:40   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.

genes aren't definable either!

http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over

"Genes, move over. Ever since the early 1900s, biologists have thought about heredity primarily in terms of genes. Today, they often view genes as compact, information-laden gems hidden among billions of bases of junk DNA. But genes, it turns out, are neither compact nor uniquely important. According to a painstaking new analysis of 1% of the human genome, genes can be sprawling, with far-flung protein-coding and regulatory regions that overlap with other genes... [One can not help thinking about replacing the concept with FractoGene... - AJP]

Given the traditional gene-centric perspective, that finding "is going to be very disturbing to some people," says John Greally, a molecular biologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. On the other hand, says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Bethesda, Maryland, "we're beginning to understand the ground rules by which the genome functions."... [Indeed, alongside the $100 M to continue ENCODE, time is to establish, like the "Theoretical Neuroscience Program" with Neural Networks breaking through by the 1980's an "NIH PostGenetics Study Program" to head for algorithmic "ground rules" for genome functions - AJP]

When Alexandre Reymond, a medical geneticist at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and his colleagues took a close look at the 400 protein-coding genes contained in ENCODE's target DNA, they found additional exons--the regions that code for amino acids--for more than 80%. Many of these newfound exons were located thousands of bases away from the gene's previously known exons, sometimes hidden in another gene. Moreover, some mRNAs were derived from exons belonging to two genes, a finding, says Reymond, that "underscores that we have still not truly answered the question, 'What is a gene?' " In addition, further extending and blurring gene boundaries, ENCODE uncovered a slew of novel "start sites" for genes--the DNA sequences where transcription begins--many located hundreds of thousands of bases away from the known start sites.


[Those who thought the "ENCODE" only blew away "Junk DNA" see now that not only the "antithesis" was incorrect, but the "Gene" thesis was defective, too. Some of us have put forward "Synthesis" - and a select few in algorithmic, i.e. "software enabling" manner. Synthetic Biology and Protein-based Nanotechnology will not make it without proper "software design" ... - comment by Pellionisz, 22nd of June, 2007]"

  
  603 replies since Sep. 17 2007,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]