Chimps, Humans Differ More Then Thought 33
DrLudicrous writes "CNN is carrying an article about a researcher at CalTech. Biologist Roy Briton undertook a comparison of human and chimp genomes, and came up with a 5% difference, versus the usual 2% cited in the literature. You can read the article
at CNN.
This seems to point out that chimps and humans most likely had a more distant ancestor than thought- but the results also need to be examined and redone by 3rd parties to ensure objectivity. Interesting stuff."
Re:um, clarification please (Score:1)
"Than thought" is the correct phrase.
Re:um, clarification please (Score:1)
Sami [google.com]. But some people call it lapp.
- Sam
Re:um, clarification please (Score:1)
We are both an argumentative bunch you know, smashing rocks and shooting rockets and such.
Re:optimistic (Score:1)
Re:um, clarification please (Score:2)
Uh, yeah.
Uhuh. Because that extra 3% is all God's Work? Right?
Re:um, clarification please (Score:1)
Then / Than (Score:2, Funny)
After recently visiting... (Score:2, Funny)
-psyco
How hard is it to figure out? (Score:3)
print system('diff chimps.genome humans.gnome | wc -l') / system('cat chimps.genome humans.gnome | wc -l');
Re:Chimp/Gorilla Genome project (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that there is a baseline sequence for humans, we need to do the same for all the great apes. I would think this would be valuable on a number of levels.
This is why we can't just do the diff, although I would think order of billions would be a bit big on most platforms as well.
Yeah, but are we the same parity? (Score:2)
Slashdot discussed a newly recognized difference between human chimp DNA [slashdot.org] last August.
Percent? (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a different number of chromosomes.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We have a different number of chromosomes.... (Score:4, Informative)
Genetic difference is usually measured by comparing sections of the DNA that perform the same function (e.g., produce the same protein). The rationale for doing it this way is that if you assume that there is a common ancestor, then the section of DNA would have been identical when the divergence began. Since individuals who have the section that produces a required protein (e.g., hemaglobin) isn't going to survive, you can count on that section having been continguous in both animals since the genetic divergence began.
-Esme
Re:We have a different number of chromosomes.... (Score:1)
Re:We have a different number of chromosomes.... (Score:2)
Could you please clarify this? I don't follow. Chimps are not bipeds (without extensive training).
Introspective title (Score:1)
Re:Introspective title (Score:2)
Thanks.
CowBoyNeal (Score:2)
Evolution........problemo (Score:1)
Re:Evolution........no problemo (Score:1)
2. Natural selection is a theory that attempts to explain the fact of evolution- it is a possible mechanism, not an example of circular reasoning
3. Evolutionary theory is a prime example of science- it is indeed 'falsifiable', and has undergone significant revision in the last 150 years.
4.Scientists support evolution over those that support alternate ideas (such as creationism or Intelligent Design) in a 1000:1 ratio. A thousand to one. That is 99.9% of scientists. There is NO controversy within the scientific community- only creationists and ID'ers will tell you that there is.
5. Disagreements between scientists do not invalidate the major points of a theory. For instance, many particle physicists disagree with one another about such things as neutrino mass and the various grand unification theories. Yet, this does not mean that electroweak theory is wrong, or that it will never be unified with gravity in both the quantum and relativisitic regimes. The main tenets of evolution are indeed agreed upon by the great majority of scientists (see point 4), though some details (such as which ancient primates were our ancestors) must be disagreed upon
6. Modern monkeys and humans descended from a common ancestor. Humans did not come from monkeys. This is a common misconception among those who do not clearly understand evolutionary theory. In a familial sense, humans and monkeys are distant cousins, not grandparents and grandchildren.
7. Evolution is about the speciation of organisms. The origins of life is a science called abiogenesis, and is not part of evolution.
8. Unsubstantiated. Furthermore, speciation has occured, so it is obviously quite possible.
9. Another common misconception for those who don't understand both evolutionary theory and thermodynamics. The 2nd Law only applies to closed systems which are not receiving energy, whilst the Earth/Solar System is an open system receiving energy. This argument was more or less retired 20 years ago by the leading creationists.
10. Mutations can, without doubt, generate new traits. See work on drosophila (fruit flies), anti-bacterial resistance, people with sickle-cell anemia, people with six fingers, etc.
11. Natural selection is a mechanism by which those best able to survive and reproduce do so. There genome gets passed along to offspring, and the cycle repeats itself. In the long term, certain phenotypes will become more frequently represented. How is this limiting?
12. Nobody saw the Revolutionary War either, but we have an enormous amount of evidence that it took place, yet everyone believes it happened. Nobody saw the Great Flood happen, and there is little to no evidence to support it, yet billions believe in it. That species have evolved is fact- look at the fossil record.
13. False. I don't know what else to say here. There are thousands upon thousands of fossils in museums and institutions throughout the world. There are plenty of examples of "transitionals", as well as evidence for punctuated equilibrium.
14-15. This is the classic "awe" argument. Things are too hard to understand at first glance, so God must have done it. The same thing was said about disease, and flies spontaneously generating on meat left out at room temperature. But science was able to dispel those notions and replace them with valid theories that bettered the human condition. The origins of life is no different- opposition to science comes once again from religious conservatives unwilling to change their worldview or accept two worldviews that may conflict in some aspects (this is usually given as a hallmark of intelligence- the ability to hold two conflicting opinions at the same time). Awe is bogus- science is real.
Chimps can spell? (Score:2)