http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html
Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry. The findings, appearing Aug. 28, 2014, in the journal *Nature*, offer insights into embryonic development, gene regulation and other biological processes vital to understanding human biology and disease. Consortium studied how gene expression <http://phys.org/tags/gene+expression/> patterns and regulatory proteins that help determine cell fate often share common features. Investigators also detailed the similar ways in which the three species use protein packaging to compact DNA into the cell nucleus and to regulate genome function by controlling access to DNA. "The insights gained about the workings of model organisms' genomes greatly help to inform our understanding of human biology." "One way to describe and understand the human genome is through comparative genomics and studying model organisms," said Mark Gerstein, Ph.D., Albert L. Williams Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and the lead author on one of the papers. "The special thing about the worm and fly is that they are very distant from humans evolutionarily, so finding something conserved across all three – human, fly and worm – tells us it is a very ancient, fundamental process." Investigators showed that the ways in which DNA is packaged in the cell are similar in many respects, and, in many cases, the species share programs for turning on and off genes in a coordinated manner. More specifically, they used gene expression patterns <http://phys.org/tags/gene+expression+patterns/> to match the stages of worm and fly development and found sets of genes that parallel each other in their usage. They also found the genes specifically expressed in the worm and fly embryos are re-expressed in the fly pupae, the stage between larva and adult. The researchers found that in all three organisms, the gene expression levels <http://phys.org/tags/gene+expression+levels/> for both protein-coding and non-protein-coding genes could be quantitatively predicted from chromatin features at the promoters of genes. A gene's promoter tells the cell's machinery where to begin copying DNA into RNA, which can be used to make proteins. DNA is packaged into chromatin in cells, and changes in this packaging can regulate gene function. If Darwinian Evolution was considered an Absurdity, this work would not have been done. Such is the danger of religious precipice in science. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The > past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like > wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day. > > I hope that clears things up. > > > On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold >> here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or >> an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley >> was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not >> honest. But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you >> say he is incompetent. How can one discuss science in the face of such >> INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS. >> >> Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations >> than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field? >> >> OK, I'll bite. How off do you think Huxley was in his computations. Was >> he off by a factor of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 200,000? Even if >> he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the >> number), that probability is still 10^1000. Still impossible. (I presume >> you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and >> that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.) Any sensible >> man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution. >> >> My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether >> you like it or not. >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS: Did you even read my first link? If you did, you would realize that >> I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains >> computations from many people. In fact, I deliberately included another >> link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man. >> >> >> Wait .... Wait .... Wait for it ... Here it comes: >> >> You: "Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going >> to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept >> basic science. You should be banned from this forum because you do not >> accept basic science." >> >> Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Sunil Shah >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. >> >> Well, your prediction is wrong. >> >> Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But >> who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? >> >> First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers >> (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend >> to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that >> they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are >> most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong >> mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things >> like "Life", we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. >> They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? >> Try this: >> http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409140674&sr=1-1 >> >> You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely >> accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most >> science doesn't work like that. >> >> Best Regards, >> Sunil >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. >> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 >> >> OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian >> Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by >> chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with >> 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic >> particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you >> say? >> >> This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the >> math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't >> happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something >> >> Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing >> yourself. >> >> *http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability >> <http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability>* >> >> http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS: I can already predict your reaction. >> >> You: "Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going >> to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept >> basic science." >> >> Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Sunil Shah >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. >> >> This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have >> ever seen. >> Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. >> And stop misusing the "proof" word all the time : D >> >> I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again >> in arguments like these: >> The failure to realize what a "big number" is. >> >> First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. >> Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. >> Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just "proved" something". >> May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. >> >> So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. >> >> (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why >> one change every 140 hours is fast.) >> >> Why are you assuming changes are sustained? >> Why are you assuming changes are observable? >> The math would say: A very small change x A rather "long time" (from your >> perspective) = An unobservably small change. >> >> /Sunil >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. >> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 >> >> Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being >> 16,000,000,000 years. (504576000000000000 seconds) >> >> Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell >> lifeform. >> >> Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell >> lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences >> between man and single cell lifeform.) >> >> This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 >> days (504576000000000000/1000000000000) for it to evolve into Man. >> >> This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be >> observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? >> >> Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, >> yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why >> that is the case. >> >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jed Rothwell >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots >> >> Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: >> >> I have a simple question: >> >> 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? >> >> >> There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian >> evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly >> like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes >> disease. >> >> I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this >> level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- >> and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of >> religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God >> as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of >> evolution just as a trick to fool us. >> >> If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't >> annoy people who know the subject. >> >> I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have >> learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions >> about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time >> trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how >> the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and >> energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste >> of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, >> including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's >> guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. >> As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! >> >> - Jed >> >>
