65

Today is Friday the 13th. It's also my birthday! I was born in 1946. Do the math.

I have no plans to retire 'cause I'm having too much fun.

---

ZPE 177 (2011)

INHALT

Ameling, W., Epigraphische Kleinigkeiten

Antela-Bernárdez, B. – Verdejo Manchado, J., IG II2 1334: A Crown for Onaso and the Archon Athenion

Barja de Quiroga, P. L. – Carril, V. R., Vicarius en un nuevo altar a Edouius de Caldas de Reis (Pontevedra)

Benaissa, A., Two Slave Sales from First-Century Oxyrhynchus

Benaissa, A., An Anonymous Corrector Augustamnicae of the Sixth Century

Blumell, L. H., A Gold Lamella with a Greek Inscription in the Brigham Young University Collection

Boter, G. J., The Accentuation of Greek Forms of Latin Names Containing Non-Syllabic -u-

Bubelis, W. S. – Renberg, G. H., The Epistolary Rhetoric of Zoilos of Aspendos and the Early Cult of Sarapis: Re-reading P. Cair.Zen. I 59034

Butera, C. J. – Moffitt, D. M., P.Duk. inv. 727: A Dispute with “Proselytes” in Egypt

Carril, V. R. – Barja de Quiroga, P. L., Vicarius en un nuevo altar a Edouius de Caldas de Reis (Pontevedra)

Carter, M. J., Blown Call? Diodorus and the Treacherous Summa Rudis

Davenport, C., Iterated Consulships and the Government of Severus Alexander

Diethart, J. M. – Hasitzka, M., Eine ungewöhnliche koptische Schreibhelferformel in P.Gen. IV 189 und Korrekturen zum griechischen und koptischen Teil der Urkunde

Dorandi, T., Solon fr. 24 G.–P.2 = 26 W.2

Drago, A. T., Sofrone fr. 4d K.–A. = 4d Hordern

Eck, W., Neue Zeugnisse zu zwei bekannten kaiserlichen Bürgerrechtskonstitutionen

Eck, W., Longitudo pedes XXXII – latitudo pedes XXXII. Zu einer rätselhaften Inschrift aus Caesarea Maritima

Eck, W. – Pangerl, A., Verdienste um Kaiser und Reich? Zu einem Diplom aus der Regierungszeit Nervas mit dem Statthalter Iulius C[andidus Marius Celsus]

Faraguna, M., Legislazione e scrittura nella Grecia arcaica e classica

Gascou, J., Notes critiques: P.Prag. I 87, P.Mon. Apollo 27, P.Stras. VII 660

Graninger D., IG IX.2 1099b and the komai of Demetrias

Gronewald, M., P.Macquarie inv. 586 (1), ein neues Fragment zu P.Köln XII 467: Sibyllinische Orakel

Hagedorn, D., Bemerkungen zu Urkunden

Hasitzka, M. – Diethart, J. M., Eine ungewöhnliche koptische Schreibhelferformel in P.Gen. IV 189 und Korrekturen zum griechischen und koptischen Teil der Urkunde

Heinrichs, J., Athen und Argos in der Mitte des 5. Jh. – Ein Reflex des argivischen Münzbilds bei Aischylos

Hollmann, A., A Curse Tablet from Antioch against Babylas the Greengrocer

Kaltsas, D., Epigone-Angehörige in numerierten Hipparchien?

Luppe, W., Weswegen die Plutoi nach Athen kamen

Martinez, D., Two Documentary Second-Century BC Papyri

Martinez, D.,  P. Texas Inv. 2 Reconsidered

Meliadò, C., Un nuovo ‘commentario’ teocriteo (P.Monts. Roca inv. 316)

Meliadò, C., POxy XXXIX 2886: un cavaliere in cerca d’identità

Moffitt, D. M. – Butera, C. J., P.Duk. inv. 727: A Dispute with “Proselytes” in Egypt

Moralejo, J. L., Mumio vuelva a Itálica (de nuevo sobre CIL I2 630, II 1119)

Mugnai, N., Un nuovo diploma militare per le truppe della Dacia inferior

Nicolosi, A., P. Oxy. XXXVII 2811, fr. 5a–b rr. 9s. (= Adesp. Com. fr. *1114,66s. K.–A.)

Noy, D., The Epitaph of an Askalonite from Delos

Ollet, A., Memorandum of Receipt of Grain by a mesites

Pafford, I. A., IG I3 6 and the Aparche of Grain?

Pangerl, A. – Eck, W., Verdienste um Kaiser und Reich? Zu einem Diplom aus der Regierungszeit Nervas mit dem Statthalter Iulius C[andidus Marius Celsus]

Parker, R., The Thessalian Olympia

Petzl, G., Keine Szepter an Gräbern

Povalahev, N., Eine Bauinschrift aus Phanagoreia von 220/1 n. Chr. und ihr historischer Hintergrund: Text und Kommentar

Remijsen, S., The So-Called “Crown-Games”: Terminology and Historical Context of the Ancient Categories for Agones

Renberg, G. H. – Bubelis, W. S., The Epistolary Rhetoric of Zoilos of Aspendos and the Early Cult of Sarapis: Re-reading P. Cair.Zen. I 59034

Tansey, P., C. Marius and the fasti of Urbs Salvia

Tribulato, O., The Stone-Cutter’s Bilingual Inscription from Palermo (IG XIV 297 = CIL X 7296): A New Interpretation

Verdejo Manchado, J. – Antela-Bernárdez, B., IG II2 1334: A Crown for Onaso and the Archon Athenion

Wilson, P., Dionysos in Hagnous

Zago, M., Un portrait de Pythagore dans la Liturgie de Mithra 53

Corrigendum zu ZPE 175 (2010) 161 (gladiator Dareios)

What's in Your Genome?

The total size of the human genome is estimated to be 3.2 × 10⁹ bp [How Big Is the Human Genome?]. Here are the major components.

Transposable Elements: (44% junk)

   DNA transposons:

• active (functional): <0.1%
• defective (nonfunctional): 3%

   retrotransposons:

• active (functional):<0.1%
• defective transposons
              (full-length, nonfunctional): 8%
              L1 LINES (fragments, nonfunctional): 16%
              other LINES: 4%
              SINES (small pseudogene fragments): 13%
• co-opted transposons/fragments: <0.1% ^a

  ^aCo-opted transposons and transposon fragments are those that have secondarily acquired a new function.

Viruses (9% junk)

   DNA viruses

• active (functional): <0.1%
• defective DNA viruses: ~1%

   RNA viruses

• active (functional): <0.1%
• defective (nonfunctional): 8%
• co-opted RNA viruses: <0.1% ^b

  ^bCo-opted RNA viruses are defective integrated virus genomes that have secondarily acquired a new function.

Pseudogenes (1.2% junk)

• (from protein-encoding genes): 1.2% junk
• co-opted pseudogenes: <0.1% ^c

  ^cCo-opted pseudogenes are formerly defective pseudogenes those that have secondarily acquired a new function.

Ribosomal RNA genes:

• essential 0.22%
• junk 0.19%

Other RNA encoding genes

• tRNA genes: <0.1% (essential)
• known small RNA genes: <0.1% (essential)
• putative regulatory RNAs: ~2% (essential)

Protein-encoding genes: (9.6% junk)

• transcribed region:
              essential 1.8%
              intron junk (not included above) 9.6% ^d

  ^dIntrons sequences account for about 30% of the genome. Most of these sequences qualify as junk but they are littered with defective transposable elements that are already included in the calculation of junk DNA.

Regulatory sequences:

• essential 0.6%

Origins of DNA replication

• <0.1% (essential)

Scaffold attachment regions (SARS)

• <0.1% (essential)

Highly Repetitive DNA (1% junk)

• α-satellite DNA (centromeres)
• essential 2.0%
• non-essential 1.0%
• telomeres
• essential (less than 1000 kb, insignificant)

Intergenic DNA (not included above)

• conserved 2% (essential)
• non-conserved 26.3% (unknown but probably junk)

Theme Genomes & Junk DNATotal Essential/Functional (so far) = 8.7% Total Junk (so far) = 65% Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%

For references and further information click on the "Genomes & Junk DNA" link in the box

LAST UPDATES: May 10, 2011 (fixed totals, and ribosomal RNA calculations)
June 3, 2011 (added total genome size)
February 5, 2013 (reformatted)

---

Images of Nag Hammadi papyri

April DeConnick's blog

GREat Manchester: Graeco-Roman Egypt in Manchester

Colloquium: Graeco-Roman Egypt in Manchester

May 4, 2011 by egyptmanchester

Friday 10th June 2011

John Rylands Library, 150 Deansgate, Manchester

This colloquium will discuss and explore the Graeco-Roman collections held in the Manchester Museum and the John Rylands Library special collections, an immensely rich collection of material including everything from documentary papyri to the famous Fayyum portraits excavated by Flinders Petrie over a hundred years ago. The colloquium is organised by Dr Roberta Mazza, from the Religions and Theology Department of the University of Manchester.

There is no registration fee, but £15  for joining the lunch if interested. Because of organizational matters, if you would like to attend please contact Roberta Mazza by 20 May at the following e-mail address:roberta.mazza@manchester.ac.uk.

A. Boud'hors, C. Heurtel, Les ostraca coptes de la TT 29 Autour du moine Frangé

Anne Boud’hors & Chantal Heurtel

Les ostraca coptes de la TT 29 Autour du moine Frangé

Entre 1999 et 2006, les campagnes de fouille menées par la mission archéologique de l’Université libre de Bruxelles dans la tombe thébaine n° 29 du vizir Aménémopé (règne d’Amenhotep II, vers 1425 avant J.‐C.) ont révélé les traces d’une réoccupation du monument à l’époque copte (viie‐viiie siècles) et mis au jour plus d’un millier d’ostraca de cette période, tessons de poterie et éclats de calcaire couverts de messages rédigés en copte, dont un peu plus de huit cents sont publiés ici (textes et traductions commentées). Cette documentation a un aspect exceptionnel du fait que les trois quarts des ostraca concernent un même personnage, un ascète au nom étrange de Frangé, qui vivait et travaillait dans la tombe dans la première moitié du viiie siècle. En plus de ses activités principales, tissage, tressage et fabrication de livres, Frangé écrivait beaucoup aux gens de son entourage plus ou moins proche, en utilisant ces supports peu coûteux qu’étaient les débris de vaisselle cassée et le calcaire environnant. Ce sont ces lettres‐là qui ont été majoritairement conservées. Elles fournissent un aperçu exceptionnel sur ses conditions matérielles de vie (alimentation, approvisionnement, travail, circulation, échanges) et sur sa situation probable de dirigeant d’une petite colonie ascétique, ce qui amène de nouvelles questions sur l’organisation de la vie monastique à cette période et dans cette région. Inquiétude, déception et rancœur s’expriment souvent dans ces messages, dans une langue marquée de traits régionaux et de tournures familières. Se dessine ainsi l’image d’une société où la confiance en Dieu et en ses ministres est parfois mise à mal par les difficultés de la vie quotidienne.
Ce double volume constitue le premier volet de la publication finale des recherches menées par le Centre de Recherches en Archéologie et Patrimoine de l’ULB dans la tombe thébaine n° 29 à Cheikh Abd el‐Gourna.
Coll. Études d’archéologie thébaine 3, Bruxelles, 2010 2 vol. reliés sous jaquette vol. 1. Textes (432 p.) ISBN 978-9461360038 vol. 2. Index et planches (86 p. + 133 pl. N/B) ISBN 978-9461360045 Prix de vente: 88,00 Eur TTC + frais de port

Thanks to Prof. Dr. Laurent Bavay for drawing this to my attention.

Junk & Jonathan: Part 3—The Preface

Here's the preface to The Myth of Junk DNA by the IDiot, Jonathan Wells. After each paragraph I've inserted a short version of the truth just so you don't get misled by all the untruths and distortions that are found in creationist books.

See:

Junk & Jonathan: Part I—Getting the History Correct

Junk & Jonathan: Part 2— What Did Biologists Really Say About Junk DNA?

Jonathan, Moonies, and Junk DNA

The discovery in the 1970s that only a tiny percentage of our DNA codes for proteins prompted some prominent biologists at the time to suggest that most of our DNA is functionless junk. Although other biologists predicted that non-protein-coding DNA would turn out to be functional, the idea that most of our DNA is junk became the dominant view among biologists.

• It's true that in the 1970s the experts in the study of genomes proposed that most of our genome is junk.
• It's not true that they thought non-coding DNA had no function. Functions of non-coding DNA were well-established by 1970.
• The idea that most of our genome is junk was never the "dominant" view among biologists even though it's correct.

That view has turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Since 1990--and especially after completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003--many hundreds of articles have appeared in the scientific literature documenting the various functions of non-protein coding DNA, and more are being published every week.

• It's not true that the idea of a large amount of junk DNA has turned out to be "spectacularly wrong."
• It's true that there have been lots of examples of of novel functions for small pieces of the genome that were previously lumped into the junk DNA category. These dozens of functional parts of the genome may amount to as much as 1-2% of the genome (probably less).

Ironically, even after evidence for the functionality of non-protein coding DNA began flooding into the scientific literature, some leading apologists for Darwinian evolution ratcheted up claims that "junk DNA" provides evidence for their theory and evidence against intelligent design. Since 2004, biologists Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne and John Avise have published books using this argument. So have philosopher of science Philip Kitcher and historian of science Michael Shermer. So has Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and present director of the National Institutes of Health, despite the fact that he co-authored some of the scientific articles providing evidence against "junk DNA."

• It's true that well-established bits of junk DNA—like known pseudogenes—have been effectively used to challenge the idea that our genome appears designed. Those examples remain powerful, and true, examples of evolution that cannot be explained by Intelligent Design Creationism. They have not been refuted and they have not been explained by the IDiots.

These authors claim to speak for "science," but they have actually been promoting an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence and relies on theological speculations instead. For the sake of science, it's time to expose the myth for what it is.

• The truth is that those authors still speak for science and truth and their evidence is sound.
• Wells, on the other hand, speaks for the other side.

Theme

Genomes
& Junk DNA

Far from consisting mainly of junk that provides evidence against intelligent design, our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions. If anything, it provides evidence for intelligent design. Even apart from possible implications for intelligent design, however, the demise of the myth of junk DNA promises to stimulate more research into the mysteries of the genome. These are exciting times for scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

• It's certainly true that non-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions. Some of them are listed in various postings under Genomes & Junk DNA
• It's certainly not true that the organization of our genome—the majority of which is junk—provides evidence of intelligent design.
• It's certainly not true that the idea of junk DNA is a myth.
• It's true that these are exciting times and that smart people must follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it refutes cherished religious beliefs.

---

[Hat Tip: Preface to The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells]