Interesting: Humans and Chimpanzees- Our DNA compared.

[riff]

Yes, yes... I know that I recently posted a link to http://www.bushorchimp.com ....

But this is different: did you know that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more similar than gorillas and chimpanzees?

You wouldn't think so, but it is true.

"Dragons of Eden" Carl Sagan, et al

 

[MunchinMark]

Yeah, 99.9% the same. But bear in mind that you share almost half your DNA with Esrichia coli, a gut bacteria. DNA just codes for proteins, and most of that stuff is the same for everything.

But that means that there is 0.1% of your DNA which is uniquely human. And far, far less than that which is uniquely you.

 

[Laurel]

"The Dragons of Eden" - I read that a few years ago, and I really oughtta read it again. Excellent book. Sagan was a genius. "Broca's Brain" is awesome as well, though not on topic.

That BushOrChimp link makes me laugh every time I see it. I'm silly, and silly stuff puts me in fits.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Well, being a biochem person, I can tell you that the small percentage that makes us unique to any other animal is quite remarkable! It's amazing all the little things that go on inside of us like enzyme uptake and protein gradients... it's actually quite incredible! DNA consists of billions of genetic codes, and the small percentage of code that makes up human is still about 100,000 codes more/different than chimps. If you really want to blow your mind, look at cats! They're right behind primates! THey're also the most evolved species on the planet. No kidding, I wrote a thesis paper on it. Did you know they can get feline HIV?

 

[Pyper]

Really about the cats Myst? I study biological anthropology, and I thought rats were right behind the primates. (Part of the reason they are the guinea pigs of the scientific world, so to speak.)

Here's another bit of interesting chimp/human data. Chimpanzee colonies only a hundred miles apart from each other are more genetically dissimilar than any so called human "race" is to another. In other words, we humans are more related to each other no matter where we come from than a couple of chimps in the same country are to each other.

 

[bluntforcemama]

It's true! The cats really are right behind the 'mates. There's an article in "National Geographic" about it... something titled Cats, obviously. You might be able to find it in the NGS archive.

 

[riff]

Well, being a biochem person, I can tell you that the small percentage that makes us unique to any other animal is quite remarkable! It's amazing all the little things that go on inside of us like enzyme uptake and protein gradients... it's actually quite incredible! DNA consists of billions of genetic codes, and the small percentage of code that makes up human is still about 100,000 codes more/different than chimps. If you really want to blow your mind, look at cats! They're right behind primates! THey're also the most evolved species on the planet. No kidding, I wrote a thesis paper on it. Did you know they can get feline HIV?

Wow. A Biochem person. Did you ever read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins (I think)? If so, do you know how his theory is looked upon today? When I read it in college (early 80s) it was the rage.

Yes, I know about feline immunodeficiency virus. Just this past week I heard about it on a documentary about cats.

 

[RonG]

The sledgehammer-like linear approach to genetics is awfully disappointing to someone not in the field. There really isn't anything creative or nonlinear to the approaches being taken in the analysis of reams of computer data generated through chemical sampling and ranking critters based on numbers of genes or chemical arrays.

What seems to be missing is some notion of efficiency or, for lack of a better term, robustness of design (not to imply an omniscient creator).

For two centuries, Fermat's Last Theorem laid unproven in Mathematics. He referenced the proof he developed as being slighly longer than what he could fit in the margin of his journal. About five years ago, an accepted modern proof was generated. Taking over 1000 pages, it met the requirements of the proof but certainly is not elegant nor superior to the original lost proof. A rough analogy but as reasonable as I could come up with approaching midnight.

So, to attempt to make a point, housecats are actually somewhat pathetic from my evolutionary viewpoint. For example, their color and fur genetics are far more complex than a human or ape for relatively little benefit. Their awkward developmental cytology makes them prone to all sorts of bad mutations, polydactylism for one, that seem rather a step backward than forward.

But I own two of the furry beasts and I must admit that I would rather clean up the occasional hairball than own a chimp that flings feces around the house