This womyn
shared more DNA with this man
than she does with this guy.
I don't think DNA is a very accurate measure of a man.
Posted on 08/31/2005 6:18:11 PM PDT by neverdem
i'm pretty sure we share about 98% with an earthworm. This is what you get when the financial times reports biology.
This womyn
shared more DNA with this man
than she does with this guy.
I don't think DNA is a very accurate measure of a man.
(proposed by Richard Owen on the PBS dramatization of his encounter with Darwin) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.
And I'm certain that you're 100% wrong in that.
This is what you get when the financial times reports biology.
Actually, the article is accurate.
Okaay...
That first RNA strand. Or as the Discovery channel put it so eloquently last weekend " Someplace the first chemical reaction occurred." So that first RNA strand coming together in the early waters of the earth. Was that first RNA strand part of the 20th stanza of a symphony. Or just by accident?????
If you could attempt to be coherent, I might be able to address your question. In any case, it obviously has nothing to do with the point I was making in the post to which you were responding.
Prove the accident.
I'm sorry, science does not deal in proofs.
"Actually, the article is accurate."
My point wasn't that they were inaccurate, dickhead. It was that a chimp having 95% DNA match is neither surprising, nor big news considering how close dozens of species are to us.
Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64 –69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.This is lying to the ignorant about what a tree-structured evolutionary divergence predicts. All the eukaryotes whether "higher" or "lower" diverged from the eubacteria at the same point. All the vertebrates whether "higher" or "lower" diverged from the arthropods (where the silkmoths belong) at the same time. All the post-fish vertebrates diverged from the fish at the same time. The relationships are exactly what evolution would predict.The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird.
No wonder there's a web page asking Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati Have Any Integrity?
Look at it this way. Do you have a sibling of the opposite sex? Just think how similar your DNA is. Yet I will bet there have been times when you have wondered whether you live on the same planet.
It only took one gene to set this process in motion.
I can load my revolver, start a fire, and cook monkey boy medium rare before he could figure out how to pull a turd from his diaper.
Right. Its a critical 4%!
(But why medium rare? Good meat should never be overcooked!)
That might be true with Democrats, but couldn't possibly be true for conservatives!
Can we say "David Gregory", I know his DNA would match any Monkey. I think Chris Matthews may have Camel DNA because he spits like one. LOL.
The sheets on my bed have the exact same thread count as my pillow cases. They are the same color. They smell the same. They feel the same. They have the exact same pattern. They are made from the same material. They are identical in nearly every measurable way. Using your logic, I am convinced that my pillow cases evolved from my sheets. I used to believe that the similarities could be explained away by assuming they were just designed by the same person, but I now know better.
Mostly in the feet. Hasn't there been a time when you could have used an extra hand?
No it isn't, but thanks for playing.
[rottndog:] WHOOOPEEEDOOOO!!!!
Thank you for your, um, enlightening contribution to a complex and technical topic.
[ikka:] Oranges and human beings share 75% of DNA .
Wrong again.
Are you guys cribbing from the same creationist propaganda, or what?
The human genome is 3.50 picograms in size (a picogram is a measure of weight, equivalent to roughly a billion basepairs).
The tomato genome is 1.01 picograms in size (average across several species of tomato).
The orange genome is 0.44 picograms in size (average across several species of citrus).
Given the size differences in the genomes, the absolute maximum possible amount of match between the DNA of humans and tomatoes would be 1.01/3.50 = 28.9%, and that high-end figure would be reached only if *EVERY* single basepair sequence in the 1.01pg tomato genome had a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IDENTICAL MATCH in the human genome (leaving the other, additional 2.49pg of the human genome unmatchable). And needless to say, that "best case" match isn't actually true. The actual degree of match is far, far less than that.
Similarly, the maximum possible match between the DNA sequences of humans and oranges would be 12.6%.
Whoever told you that somehow human DNA is "50% identical" to that of a tomato, or that human and oranges "share 75% of DNA", either didn't know what in the heck they were talking about, or were being dishonest.
Have scientists given up trying to splice a pig and an elephant's DNA? Maybe Loverboy was right.
And what would "the most significant features" be?
Actually, the title of the thread is somewhat misleading. If you look only at the coding regions of the DNA, the similarity is 99%. It's when you add the introns etc. that it drops down to 96%.
I thought my neighbor's kid looked an awful lot like Bonzo.
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.