Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives

[Elimentals]

We are 50% similar to a fruit fly too btw. How does that make you feel?

Hmmm so if I cross breed a banana with a fruit fly I can get a human

PS: Yes I know its not as simple as that but you have to admit there is some humor in that.

On Topic, does anyone know the overall percentage that one humans DNA varies from another, cause I am sure there must be some if I look at say Asian vs European looking at the fact that one mixed with Neanderthal and the other with something else(Dont recall the exact homo species, but I know it was a 3rd one)

Maybe if you include that % its 96 diff to chimp but if you exclude that then its 99% difference of Humans to chimps? Or am I understanding this wrong?

 

[Swa]

Ah yes take into account "all factors".

Please list your relevant degrees in this field (I'm not bothering to ask whether or not you are qualified to comment on the procedures involved in genetic comparisons because I know nobody would be stupid enough to call something 'fudging' when they don't have a TOTAL understanding of the procedures being performed).

If embarrassingly enough you don't happen to have qualifications associated with genetic analysis then I suggest you stop attempting to speak with authority with respect to a subject you are not an authority on.

And here we go with the ad hominems again...

 

[porchrat]

And here we go with the ad hominems again...

LOL no ad hominems required really.

In the end you are attempting to speak with authority on the subject of DNA analysis. I want to know how many degrees you have relating to the subject please.

Show me that you are an authority on the subject or stop pretending to be one.

 

[Geriatrix]

On Topic, does anyone know the overall percentage that one humans DNA varies from another, cause I am sure there must be some if I look at say Asian vs European looking at the fact that one mixed with Neanderthal and the other with something else(Dont recall the exact homo species, but I know it was a 3rd one)

Too many variables to consider. Race, ethnicity, family relation...

Maybe if you include that % its 96 diff to chimp but if you exclude that then its 99% difference of Humans to chimps? Or am I understanding this wrong?

Yes you are and I'm not even sure how to clear this up... someone? Help?

 

[porchrat]

Hmmm so if I cross breed a banana with a fruit fly I can get a human

PS: Yes I know its not as simple as that but you have to admit there is some humor in that.

On Topic, does anyone know the overall percentage that one humans DNA varies from another, cause I am sure there must be some if I look at say Asian vs European looking at the fact that one mixed with Neanderthal and the other with something else(Dont recall the exact homo species, but I know it was a 3rd one)

Maybe if you include that % its 96 diff to chimp but if you exclude that then its 99% difference of Humans to chimps? Or am I understanding this wrong?

There is, if memory serves, a fair amount of variation. Race groups really aren't that big a factor (I know you would think they would be) in many cases variation across race groups is less pronounced than variation within race groups themselves.

Look around we have humans that are lactose intolerant, all sorts of horrific genetic diseases, populations that refuse to interbreed with the rest of humanity (Amish and a lot of Jewish populations for example). We are a pretty diverse bunch.

Frankly I just don't think we have done enough sampling. There are a lot of us out there

 

[intel8080]

There is, if memory serves, a fair amount of variation. Race groups really aren't that big a factor (I know you would think they would be) in many cases variation across race groups is less pronounced than variation within race groups themselves.

Look around we have humans that are lactose intolerant, all sorts of horrific genetic diseases, populations that refuse to interbreed with the rest of humanity (Amish and a lot of Jewish populations for example). We are a pretty diverse bunch.

Frankly I just don't think we have done enough sampling. There are a lot of us out there

Where did you see that variations within race groups are wider then between races? So, you are saying, I am genetically closer to someone which looks and behaves differently then I am to the people from my own ethic group/race?

 

[Geriatrix]

Where did you see that variations within race groups are wider then between races? So, you are saying, I am genetically closer to someone which looks and behaves differently then I am to the people from my own ethic group/race?

Sometimes. This is a very complex subject so if you're really interested maybe start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

 

[porchrat]

Where did you see that variations within race groups are wider then between races? So, you are saying, I am genetically closer to someone which looks and behaves differently then I am to the people from my own ethic group/race?

I'm saying there can be people within your own race group that in terms of percentage similarities can be further away from you than people of other race groups. Note this obviously doesn't apply to close family members.

Race groups are in many cases just in our heads, in terms of genetics while there certainly are genetic elements present more or less in particular race groups we are all pretty close anyway.

I can't remember where I read it but it was relatively recent. I will at some point take a look through my history and see if I can't locate the article for you.

Before you get too excited about this awesome article keep in mind that I could be recalling wrong and have it all ass-backward.

Also remember that these will all be statistical studies extrapolating outward to the entire world population where the race groups studied are concerned and unless you have a pretty large sample under those circumstances your results are probably not going to be all that significant. Still it is a starting point for further study... which is what most scientific papers I've read end up saying

 

[intel8080]

Ok. I wish the ANC thinks that races are just in our heads, but yeah, Ok

 

[Swa]

LOL no ad hominems required really.

In the end you are attempting to speak with authority on the subject of DNA analysis. I want to know how many degrees you have relating to the subject please.

Show me that you are an authority on the subject or stop pretending to be one.

In case you haven't noticed we have a whole forum of self proclaimed "experts." So yes it's an ad hominem.

 

[porchrat]

In case you haven't noticed we have a whole forum of self proclaimed "experts." So yes it's an ad hominem.

Please stop trying to excuse your stupid behaviour with "but but but THEY DO IT TOO MOMMY!!!".

Please feel free to point out where in this thread others have accused scientists of something without having knowledge on the subject so that I can say the same to them.

Now that that is out of the way list your relevant qualifications please.

 

[Swa]

Oh my ***. Are you really so dense you don't get it. This is a public forum with thousands of people posting and people don't keep asking "hurr durr give me your references."

As you are seemingly incapable of understanding what an ad hominem is I'll say it in plain simple english, you're playing the man here and not the ball.

 

[porchrat]

Oh my ***. Are you really so dense you don't get it. This is a public forum with thousands of people posting and people don't keep asking "hurr durr give me your references."

As you are seemingly incapable of understanding what an ad hominem is I'll say it in plain simple english, you're playing the man here and not the ball.

I know what an ad hominem is.

You have made an apparently baseless claim about the comparison of DNA. In order to demonstrate that this is not just an uninformed opinion that nobody should bother to pay any attention to you need to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about.

Otherwise you are an ignorant man ranting about things you don't understand... which strikes me as a rather silly thing to do.

An ad hominem is a logical fallacy. What I am doing here is not fallacious at all. If you don't have any experience of DNA analysis then your opinion is uninformed and hence about as useful as my opinion on quantum physics.


EDIT: Are you perhaps too proud to admit that you are ignorant of a subject and that therefore your opinion on the subject is largely meaningless? I certainly am not. Look I just admitted quite happily that I am ignorant of quantum physics. I therefore don't go around claiming that quantum physicists are fudging results because they haven't taken all factors into account (factors that I am pretty much entirely ignorant of). That would be very foolish of me.

 

[Swa]

I know what an ad hominem is.

You have made an apparently baseless claim about the comparison of DNA. In order to demonstrate that this is not just an uninformed opinion that nobody should bother to pay any attention to you need to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about.

Otherwise you are an ignorant man ranting about things you don't understand... which strikes me as a rather silly thing to do.

By apparently you assume it's baseless. I have demonstrated on many occasions that it's not an uninformed opinion. Dear reader, Porchrat did not ask me to do the same here. Instead of asking for proof or references he chose to ask for my qualifications and degrees to prove my assertion. A fallacy right there to assume something is true if an expert says so and not true if an expert doesn't say so. Seems we're having a twofer on fallacies again.

An ad hominem is a logical fallacy. What I am doing here is not fallacious at all. If you don't have any experience of DNA analysis then your opinion is uninformed and hence about as useful as my opinion on quantum physics.

I just showed it is fallacious. Why not just move on from it instead of perpetuating your own ignorance?

EDIT: Are you perhaps too proud to admit that you are ignorant of a subject and that therefore your opinion on the subject is largely meaningless? I certainly am not. Look I just admitted quite happily that I am ignorant of quantum physics. I therefore don't go around claiming that quantum physicists are fudging results because they haven't taken all factors into account (factors that I am pretty much entirely ignorant of). That would be very foolish of me.

Ever heard every time you point a finger three are pointing back? You have quite effectively shown you are more ignorant than me. You are quite welcome to claim that about quantum physics if you can show what some of those factors are or that there are others like I was able to do.

 

[Geriatrix]

LOL. You guy's are fighting about how you're fighting. Love it!

 

[porchrat]

LOL. You guy's are fighting about how you're fighting. Love it!

Meh I'm just tired of uninformed muppets making claims about scientists actions as though they are experts in the field.

It is like being told about how germ theory is wrong by a 2 year old.

 

[Swa]

Something to educate your ignorance with:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Still want to maintain I'm an uninformed muppet? Anything BUT being told germ theory by a 2 year old. I'll say it one final time. Any scientist maintaining we share more than 97% DNA is being deceptive in fudging the results. It would be like a business telling someone it's a good investment to buy shares because they made R1 million profit last year but not mentioning the R2 million debt they have. It's FRAUD. YOU have been pwned.

 

[Ekstasis]

Something to educate your ignorance with:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Still want to maintain I'm an uninformed muppet? Anything BUT being told germ theory by a 2 year old. I'll say it one final time. Any scientist maintaining we share more than 97% DNA is being deceptive in fudging the results. It would be like a business telling someone it's a good investment to buy shares because they made R1 million profit last year but not mentioning the R2 million debt they have. It's FRAUD. YOU have been pwned.

No no, the 97% is quite accurate. What I would like to know from you is this. On face value, do you differ from a chimpanzee? And in what respects other than being less hairy?

 

[alloytoo]

Something to educate your ignorance with:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

You do realize that the newest reference in this article is :

1.Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635. Back (1) Back (2)

Whereas the draft Chimp Genome sequence was released in 2005.

An absolute percentage is largely meaningless. It depends entirely on what is being measured in the genome.

 

[Swa]

No no, the 97% is quite accurate. What I would like to know from you is this. On face value, do you differ from a chimpanzee? And in what respects other than being less hairy?

How do we differ? Well let's see...
intelligence
movement
strength
speech (it's not just intelligence that makes this possible)
...

I don't know what you mean by "face value." There are many more outward and inward characteristics.

An absolute percentage is largely meaningless. It depends entirely on what is being measured in the genome.

I know.