"As well as aiding the investigation of disease and the development of new drugs, the research will also inform the study of human evolution, which probes genetic variation in modern populations for what it can say about their relationship to ancestral peoples."
Maybe they'll find the Neanderthal genes lurking in there, huh?
The study of variation is really where Darwin made a contribution. Ditto, Mendel. So why not focus on the correlations we can look at now rather that worry about remote ancestery? If we try hard enough we will gain knowledge far more valuable than our relationship to Chimps.
people need to remember DNA is three dimentionsional not jsust a straight helix. There is a ball of the DNA with RNA ziping around doing their reading and producing.
These civilian reports are usually full of holes in the real science.
I suspect that in the end, when we have mined this field extensively, we will find a myriad of differences between individuals, base on the genes...ie each person is unique and special.
Here's the thing though---I've already seen an NPR Special that showed that genetically, the various races were non-existant.
True?
Another lib lie?
Anyone know the real answer?
18:00 22 November 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Debora MacKenzie
Stephen Scherer, Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto Matt Hurles, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute What makes people different may not just be their different genes, but how many copies they have of each one, and how many stretches of DNA are "missing".
Two separate studies of the human genome have revealed an unsuspected amount of variation between people in the number of copies of genes they have. Such variations appear to involve as much as 12% of our DNA, and raise questions about what constitutes a “normal” genome.
Originally, the differences between individuals were thought simply to be the result of mutations, whereby single bases in a DNA strand change, which can cause small changes in the proteins the DNA codes for.
Then in the 1990s scientists discovered that people also differed in the number of copies of genes they had, with large chunks of one person’s DNA being duplicated or deleted when compared to another’s. Extra copies of identical genes can even cause disease with no mutation involved (see Genomics: We are all numbers).
What is normal?
How much of this duplication and deletion occurs is not clear, but now two separate groups of researchers have found that it involves more of the genome than anyone suspected.
Stephen Scherer at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, and colleagues sought out differently deleted or duplicated chunks of DNA in the two complete human genome sequences so far produced. They discovered that nearly 24 million nucleotides are involved in such “copy number variants” (CNVs).
They conclude that adding this kind of variation to the single-base mutations we already knew about means “significantly more variation exists between humans than was previously estimated”.As personalised genetic sequencing becomes more common, they say, questions will be raised as to whose genome will be considered “normal”.
Immense contribution
Meanwhile, Matt Hurles at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, and colleagues compared genomes from 270 people in four ethnic groups: Yoruba in Nigeria; European descendants in the US; Han Chinese in Beijing; and Japanese in Tokyo. They measured the number of copies of genes by looking at how well chunks of the genomes bonded to each other.
They found 1447 CNVs, covering about 12% of the human genome. “One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals,” says Hurles. “Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA.”
“This research paper will change forever the field of human genetics,” says James Lupski at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston in the US, an independent CNV expert. Now, when seeking genetic causes for diseases, scientists will have to look, not just for mutations, but for CNVs, he says. The new data have been placed in the public domain to help researchers do this.
Journal reference: Nature Genetics (DOI: 10.1038/ng1921) Nature (vol 444, p 444)
I'm guessing that evolutionists are going to have to stop saying that man and chimps have 99.whatever % similiar DNA.....
Thanks for another interesting thread.
Fascinating. Thanks.
Most interesting.
FOXP2 is probably only one of many genes that are crucial for speech development. FOXP2 is nearly identical in every human being who has normal speech development. This gene was identified by studying a family who had inherited speech difficulties. A brief layperson's review of this gene is here. An excellent, but more technical review of this gene is here.
The fascinating aspect about this gene is that it is found in organisms ranging from fungus, to flies, to primates, to humans. However, the human variant of this gene is significantly different than primates. The primate version is closer to that found in mice, as compared to humans. Scientists estimate this gene underwent genetic mutation in humans 100,000 to 200,000 years ago-- about the time archaeological evidence suggests humans began using language.
Our ancestors who carried this "mutation" would obviously have a huge survival advantage over other members of the species who did not have it.
Scientists have shown that our genetic code varies between individuals far more than was previously thought. A UK-led team made a detailed analysis of the DNA found in 270 people and identified vast stretches in their codes to be duplicated or even missing.That much isn't news. :') There are loads of so-called junk DNA, which doesn't seem to code for anything, and may have been spliced in by virus infections long ago. Or perhaps it relates to a lack of meaning in nuclear DNA. ;')
It would seem the assumption that the DNA of any two humans is 99.9% similar in content and identity no longer holds... "One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.And that's true regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin. ;') [rimshot!] To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function
Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be useless garbage, commonly called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists.
Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways.
However, the knowledge is still very incomplete about this DNA. And there is little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes.
Without this knowledge it is completely impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.
This is a very important reason why genetic engineering is unsuitable for commercial application. It is still at a stage of early experimentation with very incomplete understanding about its consequences. According to the ethical standards of sound science, the products of such experimentation should be strictly contained in laboratories, especially as released DNA may spread indefinitely in an uncontrollable way.
[Excerpt]
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
Isn't any difference in genetics between individuals evidence of evolution (according to evolutionists)?
Kind of a low-threshold definition, if you ask me (change in allele frequency)....
found a link to this old topic (2002) in someone's links page:
UGA Study of Retroviruses Shows Human-specific Variety Developed When Humans, Chimps Diverged
The University of Georgia news bureau | Thursday, August 1, 2002 | Phil Williams
Posted on 08/02/2002 2:44:30 PM EDT by forsnax5
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/726668/posts
ATHENS, Ga. — Scientists in the past decade have discovered that remnants of ancient germ line infections called human endogenous retroviruses make up a substantial part of the human genome. Once thought to be merely "junk" DNA and inactive, many of these elements, in fact, perform functions in human cells.
Interesting, ping!
Interesting, ping!