>>Click here
>Posted on 08/31/2005 6:18:11 PM PDT by neverdem
The first detailed genetic comparison between humans and chimpanzees shows that 96 per cent of the DNA sequence is identical in the two species. But there are significant differences, particularly in genes relating to sexual reproduction, brain development, immunity and the sense of smell.
An international scientific consortium publishes the genome of the chimpanzee, the animal most closely related to homo sapiens on Thursday in the journal Nature. It is the fourth mammal to have its full genome sequenced, after the mouse, rat and human being.
Some of the scientific analysis of the 3bn chemical "letters" of the chimp's genetic code focused on its remarkable closeness to the human genome. After 6m years of separate evolution, the differences between chimp and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than those between rats and mice.
But most scientists are concentrating on the differences. The vast majority of these probably have little biological significance, said Simon Fisher of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford: "The big challenge for the future is to pinpoint the tiny subset of differences that account for the origins of unusual human traits, such as complex language."
| > |
| External website: Read Nature's interactive report on the chimp genome >Click here |
| > |
The preliminary evidence suggests that the outstanding size and complexity of the human brain owes less to the evolution of new human genes than to the different way existing genes produce proteins as the human brain grows in the foetus and during infancy. 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.
Three key genes involved in the human inflammatory response to disease are missing in chimps, which may explain some of the differences between the two immune systems. On the other hand humans have lost a gene for an enzyme that may protect other animals against Alzheimer's disease.
The clearest differences to emerge from the analysis are in the Y (male) sex chromosome. 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.
This finding contradicts the popular view that the human Y chromosome is withering away because it has no genetic "mate" with which to swap genes - a process that repairs damaged DNA on other chromosomes. Presumably an alternative repair mechanism has evolved in humans but not in chimps.
David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research suggested that mating habits in the two species might explain the difference. 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.
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.
