@sapinker There has been quite some discussion on that number and what "functional" means - a good overview: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/09/most-of-what-you-read-was-wrong-how-press-releases-rewrote-scientific-history/ …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@sapinker It is + interesting to simply argue that 80% of the genome is biochemically active => can potentially do something: adaptability?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@sapinker to be fair, there's some interesting arguments about what functional means. People were wrong the second they put "therefore" inThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@sapinker Not a real argument either way really. Number of genes not relevant to innate behaviorThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@sapinker Time to watch for creationist claims that 80% of genome is functional; therefore God.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@sapinker Larry Moran has had some good comments on the Encode work. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.