tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5019617825726044687.post833576949522048626..comments2024-03-28T09:25:26.846-07:00Comments on The Stochastic Scientist: Introducing ENCODEAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15328719893067978848noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5019617825726044687.post-7437118085354715962012-09-13T11:04:18.244-07:002012-09-13T11:04:18.244-07:00Good point. That's partly why I didn't inc...Good point. That's partly why I didn't include the 80% figure; I don't think that will stand. Obviously, our genomes do have a lot of nonfunctioning pseudogenes and defective transposons, as Moran and others have stated. However, ENCODE confirms that much of our noncoding DNA is definitely not useless.<br /><br />One reason I chose to link to Yong's post was because he includes updates and links to other commentary, including several from Moran.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15328719893067978848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5019617825726044687.post-75733170029301882062012-09-13T10:33:52.250-07:002012-09-13T10:33:52.250-07:00The results are not quite so conclusive as Ed Jong...The results are not quite so conclusive as Ed Jong first explained. The problem appears to rest around the ENCODE's definition of 'function'. Have a look at Larry Moran's site for a far better explanation than I can give. http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/Acleronnoreply@blogger.com