REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

I'm frickin' embarrasesed that I even bother to read this thread.

0 Replies

Do you think the original poster cares about our opinions?
His purpose here is not to debate with us, much less to convince us, but to post his propaganda where some other fool may fall and follow.

0 Replies

The burden of resentment taught from childhood... is sometimes amazing to see in print. I almost feel sorry for the guy, except for the hurt he can do.

0 Replies

Quote:

Chimps and humans have 99 percent of the same gene sequences.

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/04/12/hscout603639.html

Does the original article here mean we can at last classify chimps under "homo"? If not, what's the disagreement with the article going on here?

0 Replies

osso, I had ossobuco three times during the cruise on the Insignia at the Toscana restaurant from BA to Barcelona; very good twice, and one time - well, really bad. When I told the waiter that the last time I had ossobuco, he said to try it again, and if I didn't like it, he'll bring me anything else on the menu. It was very good. Wink

0 Replies

Want to hear more, CI, not here of course. Looking forward to photos.

0 Replies

From same link in Forbes:

Quote:

Macaque genes are about 97.5 percent similar to those of chimps and humans.

Neanderthal DNA was sequenced some time ago and found to be somewhere around 98 or 99 percent identical to the original homo sapiens genome; clearly all these are relatives, but where is the line we draw for classification under "homo sapiens sapiens"?

0 Replies

high seas

Quote:

Neanderthal DNA was sequenced some time ago and found to be somewhere around 98 or 99 percent identical to the original homo

That wasdone by Svante Paabo, whos now at the Planck Institute. He and Rich Stoneking of Penn State were able to sequence and compare only about 900+ base pairs of mtDNA from ancient nuclear material out of Neanderthal teeth (they described it as cutting up the Mona Lisa). The DNA differences for those mtDNA sequences were about 1 in 20 , (5%) OF the 16K mtDNA loops in the mitochondria. SO he didnt even come close to all the coding sequences , let alone the 3X10^9 base pair stretch of the human genome. Most of the differences were doubling, transpositions and single substitutions. Now, how much of thatn was significant and turned off or on entirely different processes? , The story isnt all done yet. (Theyve sequenced a teeny part of the genome of one Neanderthal specimen. So the genetic variability of Neanderthals isnt even a guess.

0 Replies

Farmerman - the issue isn't the genetic variability AMONG Neanderthals.

0 Replies

I think my post is clear on that. In order to compare "our genome" weve got a sense of the variability from multiple smaples both nuclear and mtDNA. We only have 1 teeny partial sample for Neanderthals and that resulted in a 5% difference tween us and them. Now, if we have more samples, Im sure the statistical variability will settle about some kernel.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

Do you think the original poster cares about our opinions?
His purpose here is not to debate with us, much less to convince us, but to post his propaganda where some other fool may fall and follow.

I can hope though that if some fool reads his drivil, he/she will realize how misinformed and backwards he is, and how his assertions can be easily countered.

I grew up in family where, while not as rabid as michael, had a rather ignorant outlook on most things related to other people.

Fortunately I always had a gut feeling, even as a child, that they were being backward and only thought that way to build themselves up.

Even if I had fallen in with their beliefs, I have every confidence I would have changed my mind once I got out in the world.

It might be michael is doing someone a service in laying out his stupdity in black and white. It looks even worse in writing.

0 Replies

Chai, I was also the "black sheep" of our family, because I didn't stay with the christian religion our mother converted to when we were children. I knew from very early on that the "message" and the "actions" were different; love thy neighbor had a very strange translation to me. I never bought into that while all my siblings continue to "believe."

0 Replies

Farmerman - your post was clear but irrelevant to the original issue here.

Who belongs to the genus "homo sapiens sapiens", or just plain the genus homo, and what is the cutoff point at which we admit some like the Neanderthals but exclude others like the chimps?

Quote:

Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene.

Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744

0 Replies

high seas, no its not. You need to understand that each protein can vary by thousands of specific nucleotiedes and those make up the 20 proteins coded for. methelinine has only 3 codons while serine , leucine and arginine have 6 each codon is a multiple of 3 nucleotides, so simple substitution counts as an error but isnt the end of that nucleotide..
If your referring to Paabo's work, he only sequenced about 0.005% of the genome. The assumption mad is that every other part of the genome is exactly the same in variance. This has no way of being proven correct at this point. It makes good redaing but Im not paying it serious mind till the math is in. (If we ever find neandertha soft tissue encrusted in a phosphatic matrix xl like the T-Rex, maybe we can see further into the neanders DNA.

Anyway, Paabos methodology and Stolelake himself have been cautious about implications of their own work. Goodman is merely using data from others. He didnt do any original sequencing.

PS-weve never established Homo neanderthalensis by DNA. We havent even established the genome of Homo sapiens (italdu

0 Replies

Farmerman - then I have to be clearer. My background is in mathematics, and the genome sequencing programs need very little adaptation from other 3-dimensional programs like those simulating nuclear explosions, for instance; the mathematics are certainly identical.

So, therefore, once again: who decides the cut-off point for who is a close relative of ours and who is not? Going by the numbers, the chimps appear to be closer to us than lots of others in the genus homo.

0 Replies

For anyone who doesn't know what idaltu looks like, go down this page:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

0 Replies

Where to draw the line? That Is a great question. The genetic variability (which really is what the original article was spouting) is as great, between members of a clade as it is between members of different clades. (Im always wondering about how we miss that point when discussing evolution). The seeds of adaptive evolution are "often "Built in" to the existing genome by such variability. AS Gould said.'genes are merely the bookkeepers of evolution, not necessarily the cause"

0 Replies

Michael, I've never had the pleasure before now, to see your red-neck way of thinking.

Chai, we might have common ancestors. Some of my red-neck relatives came from Texas. Like you, I learned at a very early age to be skeptical of their screeds. Mainly my two brothers who both have mental retardation taught me this valuable lesson. When a nice Christian lady asked me when I was four or five, if I thought my brothers were retarded because God was punishing us, I crossed orgainized religion right off my list of priorities.

Someone asked why we read these idiotic threads. My reason is to read the asides by clever posters like Setanta and fbaezer, with farmerman thrown in to provide good science to keep me from feeling too surreal while reading the sci-fi of people like Michael

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

this is interesting reading but I think Michaels preamble statement and his avatar shows that the main reason for this post is to push creationsim versus eveolution.

It's hard enough to get through life as a decent human being without getting a highpowered rifle and locking myself in a clock tower. I don't need to worry about whether I was created whole from the dust or evolved from blacks in Africa or came on a spaceship in a damn egg.

Who cares? We're here now.

I think you was definitely hatched, bro.

0 Replies

I love it when FM comes into an abortion of a thread such as this, and begins discussing alleles and clades, and the differing bases for the comparison of genomes which leads to conflicting allegations of percentiles of divergence--because it is so far over the head of someone like the Nazi boy, that there is no way in hell that he can ever coherently respond. It's way over my head, too--but then, i don't have a stake in attempting to claim that there are different races, and that some races are more equal than others.

0 Replies

REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know