Scientists Analyze Chromosomes 2 and 4: Discover Largest "Gene Deserts"

National Human Genome Research Institute ^ | 06 April 2005 | Staff

[AntiGuv]

I realize what you're saying and it's an interesting question that I don't know the answer to (i.e., if, for whatever reason, they exchanged gametes would offspring result?) but all other sources I've seen on the Green Warbler aside from the S.F. Chronicle graphic say they cannot interbreed. This may only be due to them not recognizing the mating calls, but there are other clearly different species that "can" in theory interbreed but never will in practice.

In some ways, and I think you already know this, "species" is an arbitrary, problematic concept - designed to assist in our classification of the natural world. The boundaries are frequently fuzzy as one would expect in a backdrop of common descent.

[Stultis]

called gene deserts because they are devoid of any protein-coding genes. However, researchers suspect such regions are important to human biology because they have been conserved throughout the evolution of mammals and birds

Anybody know? Does this mean that the nucleotide sequences in the regions are conserved (wrt what would be expected from selectively neutral evolution) or does it just mean that the size and position of these regions, and/or some other characteristic beyond the primary sequence structure, is conserved?

[balrog666]

I must say, at least, I admire you for your self-admission. The fact that you blatantly admit it, reinforces its validity.

You missed the point again. Somehow I just can't seem to underestimate you.

[dread78645]

Nanobot placemark

[jennyp]

creationist-equivalent-of-corporal-queball PLACEMARKER.

[AndrewC]

You missed the point again.

No. You are validating your self-description even more. I ignored your attempted point and highlighted your trolling nature. Or are you going to provide yet even more evidence by trying to defend your comment as a relevant contribution to this thread?

[balrog666]

Now you're about 0-for-200,000. Go troll somewhere else.

[AndyTheBear]

"This analysis is an impressive achievement that will deepen our understanding of the human genome and speed the discovery of genes related to human health and disease. In addition, these findings provide exciting new insights into the structure and evolution of mammalian genomes,"

Ahh, how refreshing. Nice repeatable scientific experimentation with respect to the human genome As a side effect of this science we gain insight into the historical model of the evolution of species. Too bad the later is beyond the scope of the scientific method - and too bad this latter fact is too offensive to the sensibilities of some who like to think they are objective.

[AndrewC]

Now you're about 0-for-200,000. Go troll somewhere else.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[balrog666]

Here's a clue:

Don't post to me. Ever.

[microgood]

OK. What process would create apes, then a couple millions of years later, humans with similar genes?

Assuming that your statement about the timing of apes and man is correct, I do not know. But it might be the same process that allowed creatures with arms and legs and brains to come into existence where they previously did not exist (of course I am just speculating here).

[microgood]

The problem with convergence theory in this sense is that these features that are deemed emblematic of common ancestry are to a degree arbitrary. There is no reason for them to have emerged independently with precisely this arrangement (or even close to it, in the traits discussed above).

Except for the fact that it could have just happened that way. I understand that the historical information may bolster the assumption of common ancestry, but it certainly does not prove the assumption nor is it a testable assumption.

[AntiGuv]

Well that's true, in much that same way that, while the odds that you just so happen for no apparent reason to share many of your father's traits are infinitesimal, they aren't nonexistent.

[AndrewC]

I expect the same behavior from the individual who posted the order to me and alerted you. Finally, he should consider contributing to the discussion rather than the typical "BWAAHHHHHHAAAAHHHAAHAA" comments and other belittling comments he makes.

[PatrickHenry]

For those who care about the ever-growing List-O-Links, here are a few of the changes made recently:

13Apr: Added section on Eugenics, with three new links
12Apr: Added section on the Cambrian Explosion with three new links
10Apr: Added "Neither intelligent nor designed" to Isn't ID Superseding Evolution? section
01Apr: Added "The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved" from 1928 to THEORY IN CRISIS section
31Mar: Noted Link not working for Gould's "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
27Mar: Added section SOME LINKS DEBUNKING "YOUNG EARTH" BELIEFS with three links
26Mar: Added "The Pocket Darwin" to What is Evolution? section
24Mar: Added "Timeline of Evolutionary Thought" to What is Evolution? section
24Mar: Added "History of Science" to Essential Information section
24Mar: Added "The omphalos hypothesis" to section on Epistemological Issues (it's "Last-Thursdayism")

[Chaguito]

I'm no "evo" but the discovery of the fusion was discovered three years ago. So that indeed is "years" of assurance, if the discovery means what the discoverers say it means.

[Chaguito]

Yikes! That was the most poorly worded sentence of my career. To many "discover" words. Sorry.

[JusPasenThru]

Saving for later. Too long and lots of big words.

[microgood]

Well that's true, in much that same way that, while the odds that you just so happen for no apparent reason to share many of your father's traits are infinitesimal, they aren't nonexistent.

You can make a lot more assumptions about observable events in that you can test your theories. Saying an offspring has the traits of its parent is a little different than saying apes and man share a common ancestor.

[VadeRetro]

I'm cool, I reckon he looks stupider than me to the lurkers.

If he doesn't look stupider than dirt, something's wrong.