Este nevoie de BOR? De ce sunt ateu?

[gn77b]

Vezi de ce nu e buna 'Onda?

 

 

Din experienta mea, moldovenii sunt cei mai sensibili la glume. Asta ca sa folosesc un eufemism

acuma nu stiu ce sa zic, da' in Moldova prin gluma se intelege lucru la care se ride. si Data credea ca stie sa glumeasca si se mira ca nu se distreaza nimeni

 

vad ca ateismul si ABS-ul sint intrepatrunse in moduri pe care mintea mea nu le poate descilci.

 

nici nu mai mentionez faptul ca in momentul in care-o dai pe de-astea se cheama ca-i doar o alta tactica de trolaj

 

Cesare, hai, tu zi-i de moldoveni, eu ii mai zic despre religie, stiu ca putem coexista pe acest topic fara sa ne bagam unul pe altul in seama

Editat Septembrie 6, 2012 de CalinD

[B.B.]

Eu cand eram mic auzeam numai bancuri cu olteni.

DE genul:

 

de ce umbla oltenii cu scara dupa ei - pentru ca-s prosti de dau in gropi si trebuie sa si iasa.

[Budd]

acuma nu stiu ce sa zic, da' in Moldova prin gluma se intelege lucru la care se ride.

Corect. Asta inteleg si eu. Moldovenii au un extra check: depinde cine rade.

Hai ca o dam in diverse. Sa trecem la Iisus Nazarineanul.

[B.B.]

Nu erau nici cu bucuresteni, nici cu ardeleni, nici cu moldoveni. Erau toate cu olteni. (ma refer pe vremea lu' ceausescu)

[Budd]

Nu erau nici cu bucuresteni

Cu astia nu erau ca oricum nu le pricepeau.

nici cu ardeleni

Oho! Si inca destule.

nici cu moldoveni

Ei nu! In Brasov erau cele mai populare pe vremea lui Ceausila.

[B.B.]

Aveam si eu o dilema acu cateva zile: Maria a ramas virgina dupa ce l-a nascut pe Isus? Adica nu in sensul de rupt himenul, e evident ca s-a rupt devreme ce-a iesit Isus cel mic pe-acolo, dar in sensul de sex cu barba-su, Josef. Ala era barba-su, nu? Dupa ce s-a nascut Isus tot n-au facut secs?

Daca nu, de ce? Iosef se ducea numa la curve sau cum?

Daca da, atunci de ce i-a ramas numele de fecioara daca pana la urma tot a facut sex?

 

Ei nu! In Brasov erau cele mai populare pe vremea lui Ceausila.

Cred ca erau tot cu olteni, acu bagi de la tine. Am fost prin tabere pe langa brasov cand eram mic si tot bancuri cu olteni an auzit printre copii.

[Cesar]

stii ce mi-a povestit un prieten moldovean?

"ba, doar ma stii, am umor si-mi dau seama de asta. da' cind mai fac o gluma cu bucurestenii astia se uita la mine ca niste drone".

 

mie mi-e clar ca faci un trolaj micut acolo, nu-i problema, sa ricice tasta primul care se simte nevinovat. da' pina si trolajele astea pot fi mai simpatice sau mai de taranel, mai amuzante sau mai de bucurestean, etc, intelegi tu

 

nu mai spun ca-i amuzant ca un tip asa relax ca tine s-a zbirlit asa, fara sens

 

Ti-am zis ca esti falsificat

Eu sunt moldoveam 100%. Din Bacau, da chiar din oras, cum sunt nevoit sa precizez cand aud acea intrebare stupida

 

Nu boss... este vorba despre o specie de moldoven care nici in ruptul capulului nu vrea, dar nu vrea frate sa priceapa poanta. Pricepi?

Vreo luna de zile, dupa ce am intrat la facultate am avut si eu complexul bucuresteanului scarbos. Era o iluzie. N-am avut niciodata complexul moldoveanului la mare care nu poate sa vorbeasca cu vreo futeusa, ca fuge aia daca deschid gura. Si nici n-am renuntat la accentul meu de-acasa. Cum sa nu existe Dumnezeu?

 

Cesare, hai, tu zi-i de moldoveni, eu ii mai zic despre religie, stiu ca putem coexista pe acest topic fara sa ne bagam unul pe altul in seama

 

brrr... esti bonus la categorie? Dintr-aia ofticosi? un raspuns cu da sau nu este suficient.

Editat Septembrie 6, 2012 de Cesar

[Budd]

Cred ca erau tot cu olteni, acu bagi de la tine. Am fost prin tabere pe langa brasov cand eram mic si tot bancuri cu olteni an auzit printre copii.

Sigur. Mai ales dupa ce juma' de Moldova populase Tractorul si Steagu' Rosu De unde crezi ca vine "sarma"? Ca ai fost tu in tabere cateva zile pe langa brasov zice jack shit despre ce era cu adevarat acolo. Oricum, flexx. Unii din cei mai buni prieteni ai mei vin de prin Moldova (si Dobrogea). Cu unii am facut facultatea, cu altii armata. Tough shit.

Editat Septembrie 6, 2012 de Budd

[zaelu]

Aveam si eu o dilema acu cateva zile: Maria a ramas virgina dupa ce l-a nascut pe Isus? Adica nu in sensul de rupt himenul, e evident ca s-a rupt devreme ce-a iesit Isus cel mic pe-acolo, dar in sensul de sex cu barba-su, Josef. Ala era barba-su, nu? Dupa ce s-a nascut Isus tot n-au facut secs?

Daca nu, de ce? Iosef se ducea numa la curve sau cum?

Daca da, atunci de ce i-a ramas numele de fecioara daca pana la urma tot a facut sex?

 

 

Tehnic vorbind primul madular care a trecut prin pasaroiul Mariei a fost cel a lui isusel... e adevarat ca a trecut cu totul dar... Gol valabil frate. 1-0... isus a deschis scorul in ceasul al doispelea

Editat Septembrie 6, 2012 de zaelu

[B.B.]

:crack:

 

 

Nu, eu vreau sa stiu daca Maria a facut sex cu barba-su dupa ce l-a nascut pe Isus cel mic. Daca da, de ce dracu i s-a mai zis fecioara si dupa aia.

[Budd]

Daca da, de ce dracu i s-a mai zis fecioara si dupa aia.

E ca la presedintie. O data presedinte ti se zice toata viata dom'/doamna president. Acuma nu intreba si tu de ce celorlalte femei nu li se zice fecioare pt ca nu am raspunsul pregatit.

[zaelu]

Eu il am pregatit... l-am citit in biblie.

[gn77b]

Hai ca o dam in diverse. Sa trecem la Iisus Nazarineanul.

intrebarea cu musulmanii si iudeii e una din cele mai legitime vis-a-vis de religie. a raspuns si el cu un fel de gluma acolo, la care eu trebuia sa ma zbirlesc, da' eu totusi sper ca odata si-odata un bun crestin o sa scrie negru pe alb, direct, fara ocolisuri ce gindeste despre adeptii unor religii foarte diferite dar care sint la doi pasi de noi. cred ca e prima curiozitate pe care mi-a stirnit-o religia de cind ma stiu, as putea sa ma duc la tara sa-ntreb babele cu 4 clase dar sper la un raspuns de la un om care intelege cit de cit ce se intimpla pe lumea asta. macar musulmanii (unii, nu toti) spun direct: moarte crestinilor. bravo frate, macar n-o dai cotita ca un politician.

 

petrecind vreo 8 luni in "Tara Sfinta" (n-am gasit multe lucruri sfinte la ea) intrebarile astea mi le-am pus si mai des, gindindu-ma ca-s la 2 ore de tara dar totusi inconjurat de oameni care cred in cu totul altceva decit ce scrie-n Noul Testament.

 

acum, revenind la oile noastre (pun not intended)...

 

am dat pe un website evanghelist: http://www.christianpost.com/news/exclusive-rick-warren-flat-out-wrong-that-muslims-christians-view-god-the-same-70767/

 

"Building a bridge has nothing to do with compromising your beliefs," Warren says in an interview done in collaboration with Pastors.com Editor Brandon Cox and The Christian Post. "Because Jesus commanded us to take the Gospel to everyone, I spend much of my time with groups of people who completely disagree with what I believe. I'm constantly trying to build a bridge of love to nonbelievers, to atheists, to gays, to those I disagree with politically, and to those of other faiths."

 

insasi ideea de-a fi convins ca doar tu ai norocul sa ai acces la adevaratul cuvint al lui dumnezeu mi se pare o aroganta jegoasa. biblia e corecta, Coranul nu, simplu, hai la cruciada. cea mai amuzanta parte e "to those I disagree with politically". asta suna a "Iisus te vrea republican, democratule"

 

 

devine si mai interesant: http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-why-can-i-trust-the-bible-67791/

 

de ce pot sa am incredere in biblie?

 

Pastor Rick Warren launched his "40 Days in the Word" biblical literacy campaign over the weekend by preaching that the Bible is not only historically and prophetically accurate, but scientifically trustworthy as well.

 

biblical literacy campain. booon...

 

"You will find as we look at the word of God that it is unlike any other book. It's not only the best-selling book of all time; it's not only the most translated book of all time; it's not only the most read book of all time; it's also the most debated book of all time and it has survived all kinds of disputes and disagreements and denial ... and it's still here"

 

acum, care credeti voi ca e virsta intelectuala minima care-i poate permite cuiva sa demonteze acest pseudoargument? 6 ani, 4?

 

 

"The Bible was not given to be a science text book and it doesn't use scientific language, but it never uses bad science," he said. "In fact, the Bible is always ahead of scientific discoveries. Things have been told in the Bible thousands of years before scientists actually discovered it, confirmed it, or even paid attention to what the Bible had already said about it."

 

"se stie ca", "toata lumea considera ca". dar citeva exemple poate n-ar strica, domnu'.

 

 

"The reason the Bible is scientifically accurate is because the laws of the universe were invented by God," Warren continued. "God knows the scientific laws of the universe better than we do."

 

se pare ca exista o legatura intrinseca intre credincios si argumentul ciclic. probabil argumentul ciclic e dat tot de Dumnezeu, deci valid. de ce sa complicam lucrurile cind poate fi atit de simplu?

 

 

"Science is constantly changing. In fact, it's frequently obsolete about every five years," he pointed out. "I guarantee that the science text book that you had in the 3rd grade they are not using today. Some of the things you were taught in the 3rd grade are flat out wrong and science no longer believes it."

 

nu stiu ce invata domnu' asta in clasa a treia, invatamintul primar trebuie sa fie foarte avansat in America de au ajuns sa studieze mecanica cuantica la asa o virsta. cind eram eu in clasa a treia invatam sa impartim numere, multi ani dupa vad ca restul la magazin se calculeaza la fel.

 

 

Among the examples Warren gave of the Bible not containing the prevailing scientific thought of the time, which proved to be wrong later, was the shape of the earth.

 

"You might expect the Bible to say the world is flat because for thousands of years, everybody thought the world was flat," he explained. "But, 2,600 years ago the Bible said in Isaiah 40:22, 'God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth.' Two-thousand, six-hundred years ago, the Bible said the world is not flat. It's a sphere. It's a globe. It said it long before anyone started coming up with that idea. Nowhere in the Scripture does it say the world is flat."

 

asta e una interesanta.

citind cele de mai sus mi-a trecut prin cap un lucru. limba araba si posibil toate limbile semite (aramaica, ebraica etc) sint foarte diferite de cele vestice. exista nuante si sensuri subtile, care nu pot fi traduse direct in limbile vestice. oare acest nene Warren e un teolog autentic, o fi studiat limbile astea serios, sau a citit doar o traducere (a se citi: interpretare) a Bibliei in limba engleza? drept pentru care am incercat sa aflu cum sta treaba de fapt si am gasit acest site, culmea, tot crestin http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/misreading-the-bibles-scientific-accuracy

sa vedem.

 

When Warren quotes Isaiah 40:22 as saying, “God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth,” he translates and interprets the text in contradiction to how all major English versions understand the Hebrew word chûg. What Isaiah said was that God’s throne sits above “the circle of the earth.”

 

interesant, crestinii astia incep sa-mi aduca aminte de politica, 1000 de partide, factiuni si doctrine, da' cam aceeasi treaba-n final.

 

 

mai jos, argumentul circular loveste din nou:

 

Warren also backed up his message of the Bible being scientifically, historically, and prophetically accurate by giving Scripture references.

 

Among them were, "The Word of the Lord is right and true" (Psalm 33:4 NIV); "Every word of God is flawless" (Proverbs 30:5 NIV); and "No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction" (2 Peter 1:21 GW).

 

 

more fun with religion: http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-bibles-cohesiveness-proves-it-true-70274/

 

"Only God could have put the Bible together. It is 66 books written over 1,600 years by 40 different authors – and it has one theme," Warren stated. "It is one of the reasons we know that the Bible is God's Word: It has a single unified theme. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is all about God redeeming man. Jesus is its star."

 

putea sa spuna "hocus pocus blablabla deci rezulta ca Biblia e cuvintul lui Dumnezeu".

singurele lucruri care mi se par consecvente si coezive in biblie, coran si alte carti sfinte sint ambiguitatea si interpretabilul.

 

Tehnic vorbind primul madular care a trecut prin pasaroiul Mariei a fost cel a lui isusel... e adevarat ca a trecut cu totul dar... Gol valabil frate. 1-0... isus a deschis scorul in ceasul al doispelea

nea, nu numai. uita-te la "The Last Temptation of Christ", de Scorsese. da la buci Iisus in film, exista chiar si niste sugestii ca ar fi luat-o si la laba.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095497/

 

E ca la presedintie. O data presedinte ti se zice toata viata dom'/doamna president. Acuma nu intreba si tu de ce celorlalte femei nu li se zice fecioare pt ca nu am raspunsul pregatit.

hihihihi. am putea sa inlocuim doamna cu fosta domnisoara, a la Carlin.

 

Sigur. Mai ales dupa ce juma' de Moldova populase Tractorul si Steagu' Rosu De unde crezi ca vine "sarma"? Ca ai fost tu in tabere cateva zile pe langa brasov zice jack shit despre ce era cu adevarat acolo. Oricum, flexx. Unii din cei mai buni prieteni ai mei vin de prin Moldova (si Dobrogea). Cu unii am facut facultatea, cu altii armata. Tough shit.

n-are moldoveanu' cu bucuresteanu' autentic nimic si nici vitavercea.

in schimb are bucuresteanu' venitura de prin cine stie ce sat, care crede ca-i creste inca un coi cind a pasit in Bucale. aia-s niste animale simpatice.

 

revenind la The Last..., filmu' il prezinta pe Jesus ca pe-un tip plin de intrebari, nesigur pe el, pe menirea lui. se simte om normal care vrea sa bea o bere cu baietii si sa puna mina pe-o tita da' the big guy il freaca la cap cu tot felul de aiureli marete. merita vazut.

 

 

"sometimes I think I feel him but I'm never sure". but I'm never sure, povestea religiei

Editat Septembrie 6, 2012 de CalinD

[Budd]

but I'm never sure, povestea religiei

 

Pai e ca in cercetare. Biserica are nevoie de bani ca sa il arate cu degetu' in final Banii misca totul

[gn77b]

Pai e ca in cercetare. Biserica are nevoie de bani ca sa il arate cu degetu' in final Banii misca totul

nu stiu citi bani faci tu in Olanda da' sa stii ca ai avea o piine de mincat prin clerul asta de la noi, cred ca argumentul asta nu le-a trecut prin cap. Catedrala Mintuirii Neamului - institut de cercetare religioasa.

[viosss]

Am citit demult (2007) si nu intr-un blog, dar nu am obiceiul sa ma hazardez in speculatii.

 

Scuze pt ce, pt ca nu am nici interesul nici energia sa fac ce nu au reusit toti profesorii pe care i-ai avut in ** ani de scoala? Sa o iau de la zero cu tine...

Am mai zis ca imprumuti niste concepte (titlurile doar) de pe diverse siteuri si bloguri (de data asta unul decent, ed young) si le faci praf si tandari in 5 secunde.

 

ENCODE e un proiect destul de controversat ca "ideologie", dar acumuleaza un volum impresionant de date. Simplificand si rezumand, incearca sa modifice definitia genei in asa fel incat orice proces de transcriptie trece drept activitate biologica -> secventa codificatoare.

 

Problema e ca de cel putin 20 ani se cunoaste ca DNA biding proteins -complexe proteice care se leaga specific de anumite secvente ADN- au si o componenta nespecifica, cu o afinitate generala pt ADN. Motivul pt care se intampla asa este eficientizarea procesului de gasire a secventei tinta prin -difuzie facilitata-. Afinitatea pt ADN si nu doar pt o secventa anume, permite complexelor proteice sa se plimbe in sus si in jos pe catenele de ADN reducand practic volumul tridimensional la o banda bidimensionala. Altfel viteza de identificare a tintei ar fi fost cu cateva ordine de marime mai mica.

Interesant este ca se intampla si in cazul promotorilor (activatorilor) transcriptiei care fac parte din aceeasi categorie de proteine, si pot declansa uneori -daca zabovesc un pic mai mult, incetiniti si de o secventa partial complementara- transcriptia in mod aleator, in timp ce isi cauta tinta. Sansele cresc si mai mult atunci cand dau accidental si peste ARN polimeraza.

Se cunoaste de mult timp ca seventele junk sunt transcrise si ele, rezultant un nr insignifiant de transcripti care sunt eventual degradati...

 

ENCODE nu a detectat nicio proteina cu secventa complementara si nici nu a stabilit vreo functie reglatoare ori catalitica pt vreun transcript ARN. De vreo 20 ani sunt considerati artefacte, si nu s-a schimbat.

 

Felicitari. Este remarcabil cat de multe cunostinte ai.

Dar trebuie sa accepti ca ai scapari.

ENCODE caruia nu-i dadeai sanse in 2007 s-ar putea sa cam aiba dreptate iar atunci trebuie sa-ti schimbi argumentatia.

Asa ca te rog cand mai ai de gand sa ma jignesti sa o faci intemeiat si sa vii cu argumente solide, care nu sunt contrazise de breasla. Sau si astia sunt ID-ioti?

 

"During the early debates about the Human Genome Project, researchers had predicted that only a few per cent of the human genome sequence encoded proteins, the workhorses of the cell, and that the rest was junk. We now know that this conclusion was wrong," said Eric D. Green, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., a part of the National Institutes of Health, which funded the ENCODE project to the tune of $288 million since 2003.

 

"ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome is involved in the complex molecular choreography required for converting genetic information into living cells and organisms."

 

The effort to identify the functions of the genetic material that lies between the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes involved hundreds of scientists at dozens of institutions in the U.S., U.K., Japan, Singapore and Spain.

 

 

[gn77b]

How Americans View God http://abcnews.go.com/WN/book-religion-examines-ways-americans-perceive-god/story?id=11825319#.UEjKV2JFalg

 

The survey showed that about 28 percent of Americans believe in an "authoritative God."

 

For 22 percent of Americans, mostly evangelical women, they characterize the almighty as a "benevolent God" who is thoroughly involved in their lives but is loving, not stern.

 

Others believe in a "critical God" who is removed from daily events but will render judgment in the afterlife.

 

The fourth and final way that those surveyed view God is a "distant God" who set the universe in motion, but then disengaged.

 

 

Froese and Bader argued that such questions are not merely academic. They claimed that the way a person views God profoundly impacts one's morals, behavior and politics.

 

"A person's conception of God is central to how they perceive their world and behave in it," said Froese.

Editat Septembrie 6, 2012 de CalinD

[Vizitator 9fingers]

ENCODE caruia nu-i dadeai sanse in 2007 s-ar putea sa cam aiba dreptate iar atunci trebuie sa-ti schimbi argumentatia.

Asa ca te rog cand mai ai de gand sa ma jignesti sa o faci intemeiat si sa vii cu argumente solide, care nu sunt contrazise de breasla. Sau si astia sunt ID-ioti?

 

"During the early debates about the Human Genome Project, researchers had predicted that only a few per cent of the human genome sequence encoded proteins, the workhorses of the cell, and that the rest was junk. We now know that this conclusion was wrong," said Eric D. Green, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., a part of the National Institutes of Health, which funded the ENCODE project to the tune of $288 million since 2003.

 

"ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome is involved in the complex molecular choreography required for converting genetic information into living cells and organisms."

Cam in fiecare an se gaseste cate un cercetator care formuleaza titluri de genul "central dogma of molecular biology overturned", in spatele lucrarii ascunzandu-se niste rezultate obscure, banale, fara legatuea cu afirmatiile din presa. la fel se intampla si cu ENCODE. Titlurile, subtitlurile si comentariile de genul asta sunt simple "zorzoane" de presa care nu duc nicaieri.

 

Fragmentul pe care l-am bolduit mai sus e un exemplu perfect. Nr de secventele codificatoare de proteine a ramas acelasi, la fel si cantitatea de transpozoni disfunctionali (50% din genom) etc... vor doar sa redefineasca junk ul, extizand definita genei.

 

 

It’s clear that 80% of the genome has a specific biochemical activity – whatever that might be. This question hinges on the word “functional” so let’s try to tackle this first.

http://genomeinformatician.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/encode-my-own-thoughts.html e destul de evident cum se evita raspunsul la o intrebare simpla si directa, insistand pe interpretarea termenului de "functional".

Nu au detectat nicio functie noua, in schimb se joaca cu termenii (functional, gena, junk).

 

 

ENCODE reprezinta un volum de date (impresionant), dar pana acum nu a aparut vreun studiu care sa schimbe concluzii anterioare. Articolele de presa sau blog nu au nicio greutate.

[zaelu]

 

Mare cercetator din .... descopera ca omul nu se trage dintr-un maimutzoi ci dintr-o balega...

 

pirtz.

[gn77b]

just because I say so.

[Vizitator 9fingers]

@ oricine e curios. Aveam de gand sa fac o lista cu toate atitudinile critice dar vad ca pana si Ed Yong (sursa lui vioss) isi corecteaza naivitatea initiala, mustrat din toate partile...

...A editat articolul initial, adugand si vocile rationale (critice).

Folks, given some of the critiques and commentary from across the blogosphere, I’ve updated this post with around 700 extra words. Two reasons for this. First, some have expressed the view that I didn’t give enough space to skeptical views first time round, and there is truth in this.

 

Second, and more importantly, I want *this* post to continue being a useful resource about ENCODE. I could do a fresh update post, but any new reader to this one would have to click over to that as well. Which is why I’ve edited straight into this one.

 

The downside is that it’s harder to track what’s new, but each new bit has a date and timestamp on it. For the record, the new bits are stamped [update 07/09 23:00] and include three paragraphs in the first section and four paragraphs in the second section.

 

I don’t know if this works or not. Somewhere out there, there’s a curmudgeon saying that this is a news piece, not Wikipedia, but I’m trying something a little different.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/05/encode-the-rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/#comment-94974

 

De exemplu, pt oricine e interesat de argumente si citeste mai mult decat niste subtitluri:

[update 07/09 23:00] Indeed, to many scientists, these are the questions that matter, and ones that ENCODE has dodged through a liberal definition of “functional”. That, say the critics, critically weakens its claims of having found a genome rife with activity. Most of the ENCODE’s “functional elements” are little more than sequences being transcribed to RNA, with little heed to their physiological or evolutionary importance. These include repetitive remains of genetic parasites that have copied themselves ad infinitum, the corpses of dead and once-useful genes, and more.

 

To include all such sequences within the bracket of “functional” sets a very low bar. Michael Eisen from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute said that ENCODE’s definition as a “meaningless measure of functional significance” and Leonid Kruglyak from Princeton University noted that it’s “barely more interesting” than saying that a sequence gets copied (which all of them are). To put it more simply: our genomic city’s got lots of new players in it, but they may largely be bums.

 

This debate is unlikely to quieten any time soon, although some of the heaviest critics of ENCODE’s “junk” DNA conclusions have still praised its nature as a genomic parts list. For example, T. Ryan Gregory from Guelph University contrasts their discussions on junk DNA to a classic paper from 1972, are concludes that they are “far less sophisticated than what was found in the literature decades ago.” But he also says that ENCODE provides “the most detailed overview of genome elements we’ve ever seen and will surely lead to a flood of interesting research for many years to come.” And Michael White from the Washington University in St. Louis said that the project had achieved “an impressive level of consistency and quality for such a large consortium.” He added, “Whatever else you might want to say about the idea of ENCODE, you cannot say that ENCODE was poorly executed.”

 

[update 07/09 23:00] Birney was right about the scepticism. Gregory says, “80 percent is the figure only if your definition is so loose as to be all but meaningless.” Larry Moran from the University of Toronto adds, “Functional” simply means a little bit of DNA that’s been identified in an assay of some sort or another. That’s a remarkably silly definition of function and if you’re using it to discount junk DNA it’s downright disingenuous.”

 

This is the main criticism of ENCODE thus far, repeated across many blogs and touched on in the opening section of this post. There are other concerns. For example, White notes that many DNA-binding proteins recognise short sequences that crop up all over the genome just by chance. The upshot is that you’d expect many of the elements that ENCODE identified if you just wrote out a random string of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts. “I’ve spent the summer testing a lot of random DNA,” he tweeted. “It’s not hard to make it do something biochemically interesting.”

 

Gregory asks why, if ENCODE is right and our genome is full of functional elements, does an onion have around five times as much non-coding DNA as we do? Or why pufferfishes can get by with just a tenth as much? Birney says the onion test is silly. While many genomes have a tight grip upon their repetitive jumping DNA, many plants seem to have relaxed that control. Consequently, their genomes have bloated in size (bolstered by the occasional mass doubling). “It’s almost as if the genome throws in the towel and goes: Oh sod it, just replicate everywhere.” Conversely, the pufferfish has maintained an incredibly tight rein upon its jumping sequences. “Its genome management is pretty much perfect,” says Birney. Hence: the smaller genome.

 

But Gregory thinks that these answers are a dodge. “I would still like Birney to answer the question. How is it that humans “need” 100% of their non-coding DNA, but a pufferfish does fine with 1/10 as much [and] a salamander has at least 4 times as much?” [i think Birney is writing a post on this, so expect more updates as they happen, and this post to balloon to onion proportions].

Editat Septembrie 9, 2012 de 9fingers

[B.B.]

Poate ati citit pe Hotnews, daca nu luati de cititi si va minunati:

 

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-13195209-manuale-religie-care-promoveaza-intoleranta-religioasa-ong-cere-ministerului-educatiei-retragerea-urgenta-cartilor-din-scoli.htm

[SRJN]

Un comentariu de la sfarsitul articoulului

 

Majoritatea citatelor de mai sus creeaza imaginea unei religii asupritoare, a unui zeu crud, care ii pedepseste (nu oricum ci vesnic) pe cei care nu asculta, ii omoara, ii imbolnaveste... Ce legatura au aceste aberatii cu religia crestina?...

 

:crack:

[gn77b]

nici macar nu mai e de ris.

 

nu zic nimic de faptul ca-i imbuibi unui copil capul cu rai si iad si alte mizerii de genul. dar cind ii zici ca daca esti bolnav tre' sa te rogi si sa te ungi cu nu stiu ce zeama, deja meriti batut. macar daca i-ar zice "dumnezeu nu te vindeca decit daca te duci la doctor". ce o sa inteleaga un copil din asta? ca doctorul e facultativ. nu degeaba sintem tot pe ultimele locuri si la sperata de viata, cu vreo 7-8 ani in urma tarilor cu apa calda. sigur e si asta o coincidenta, primii la credinta, ultimii la orice altceva.

 

cica credinta nu poate face rau. apai frate, daca ti se baga aberatii ca cele din articol in cap la virsta cind inca mai crezi ca tot ce zboara se maninca, o sa ramii tarat toata viata. dar probabil o sa vina vreunul sa spuna ca e tot vina copilului ala ca intelege gresit. sa nu uitam, credinciosul are raspunsurile.

[Old]

eu am aflat azi, vizitand-o pe bunica-mea in spital, ca spitalul are angajat preot pentru spovedanii si miruiri.