And I thought he was the missing 4%.
Posted on 08/31/2005 6:18:11 PM PDT by neverdem
But we know that if one or two genes are out of place it can have horrible results. I have a genetic condtion that is caused by one faulty gene. And because of that I have to deal with benign tumors for the rest of my life.
So a 4% difference is huge.
Significant but remember, Kool-Aid and Wine Coolers are about 96% identical too.
Same thing as saying: Democrat and Republican DNA is 96% identical but it's the missing 4% which makes all the difference in the world.
And I thought he was the missing 4%.
Depends on how you look at it. The differences between chimp and human are of degree, not kind. Physically, everything a human has a chimp also has, and pretty much in the same location.
I was taught while at university, that Chimps and Humans were only 1 to 1.8% different (results from the inference given in nucleotide hybridization were used), so I have always thought it was a 98 to 98.2% match. I wanted to make sure so I looked at years of notes including notes from 1992 and 93 after graduating and attending several lectures by the great Stephen J. Gould, Vince Sarich and Karl Sigmund. They all said 98 or higher. In fact I remember Sarich insisting upon a 99% match while debating some creationist clown just a few years ago.
Four percent difference is too large and is much more than it appears to me using observation with the naked eye. Some Chimps seem quite Human, much closer than the looters we witness in NOLA, and I think the findings are not the last word, it has to be closer.
No doubt, I just could not find as "precious" a picture to make my point ;)
Are you too smug to notice the irony in your post? You've continually whined about the use of sarcasm in response to your posts, yet you use an equal amount of sarcasm in those same posts. I'm sure you'll contend that you were being ironic, but you clearly lack the subtlety for that to be true.
Not as such. However, I can go back to where my sheets originated, and there are more of them. They are a few years old, so the exact same ones won't be there. Instead, it is more likely that the manufacturer will have taken the most successful attributes of my sheets into account when designing the next generation of sheets. Perhaps consumers liked the pattern but preferred the thread count of a different set and the color of yet another set, thus causing the manufacturer to create a new style of sheets that more reflect the tastes of consumers. In essence, the sheets would evolve based on natural selection. If the customers love the new sheets, more of the same will be produced. That doesn't mean they don't require a designer working the controls.
[Because male and female chimps mate with multiple partners there is stronger selective pressure on sperm-producing genes and conversely less pressure on evolution to preserve other genes on the Y chromosome in the apes than in largely monogamous humans.]
All right! This is my new excuse to be promiscuous.
Great post!
They were probably refering to transcribed DNA which would be in the 99% range, while this article is refering to all the DNA, which is 96%.
Yes, but I wouldn't have traded a foot for it.
I will look into it, but you might have something.
Has Chimp DNA even been completely sequenced yet? If not, how can one say with certainty that the coding regions are almost identical? One would have to resort to statistical analysis, which in this case is fraught with difficulties.
That near identity speaks volumes about the relationship between us and chimps.
The 'volumes' in that 4% contain probably around 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or about 40 large volumes of information. 'Near identity' and 'the relationship between us and chimps' is in the eye of the beholder.
Cordially,
...Genes for transcription factors - molecules that regulate the activity of other genes and play a vital role in embryonic development - are evolving more quickly in humans than in chimps.... While the human Y chromosome has maintained its count of 27 active gene families over 6m years, some have mutated and become inactive on its chimp counterpart.
Does this mean that Fast (E)evolution produces Slow (E)evolution? How does a putative single, self-same Evolutionary power purportedly produce such remarkable degrees of contrarian stasis and change?
Cordially,
The actual gram amount of DNA has nothing to do with anything relating to base pair similarities between species, or with any sort of strutcural functional considerations.
You win the prize for most off the wall meaningless comment that demonstrates absolute ignorance on a subject.
Prior to this I actually thought you knew what DNA was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.