Article

2005-01-30 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by MacNails 2005-01-30 12:32|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As has been pointed out, humans and chimpanzees share about 99.8% of their DNA. You can legally experiment on chimpanzees, but not humans. But what if you make a hybrid that starts with 99.8% chimpanzee DNA and adds a .1% human DNA? It may look like a person, and think and feel like a person, but *legally* be a patentable animal. It is *only* .1% human, anyway.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-30 12:42:19 PM|| 2005-01-30 12:42:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Does it believe and understand the Bill of Rights?

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-30 12:59:56 PM|| 2005-01-30 12:59:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Humans and sponges have 50% of their genes in common. So what? Well genes are not human or non-human (although a few are unique to humans). Banning these kinds of experiments becuase they cause some people moral/religous issues is no better than preventing immunizations and similar actions we decry all the time.

Posted by phil_b 2005-01-30 2:14:32 PM|| 2005-01-30 2:14:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 The Chimp human DNA similarity is actually lower. The 99% figure was little more than a guess. The similarity is around 95% -- which sounds like a lot, until to realize that all living beings will have points of genetic similarity. Genes are only templates for very small parts -- like nuts and bolts. A car and a rocket have a great deal common at the level of parts, but they are quite different things. In addition, you can't just "add" DNA.

Posted by Jonah 2005-01-30 4:48:04 PM|| 2005-01-30 4:48:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Viva la difference!

Posted by eLarson 2005-01-30 5:10:59 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-01-30 5:10:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 As has been pointed out, humans and chimpanzees share about 99.8% of their DNA.

Actually, that is really not the case. Where did the "97%/98%/99%/99.8% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts (not necessarily genes, just random sequences of nucleotides) of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. This figure (actually 97% homology) comes from Sibley and Ahlquist's paper. However, there has been no replication and it also seems that the analysis contains a statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure.

You would have to compare sequenced DNA to get the actual figure of shared base. Chimpanzee DNA has not been fully sequenced yet, so any figure that is floating around is just a guess, nothing more or nothing less.

BTW, sequenced human DNA has quite a bit of variations. If you pool a large number of full sequences, about 96% are shared, the rest are variations. Of course, making a pool of full sequences would be prohibitively expensive, but you can pool partial sequences that would cover the full genome and statistically correlate variations within each partial sequence pool with the ideal full sequence of base pairs.

From that follows that figure given for similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA is incorrect.

Beside DNA itself, human cell differs in the count of chromozomes. We have one less pair than apes. It is not that it is really "missing", rather the #2 and #3 seem to be similar to #'s 2,3,4 of chimp chromosomes. For the lack of a better word, if you look at the #2 and 3 human chromosomes strictly from the microbiological POV, you would probably come to a conclusion that # 2 & 3 were "spliced", whatever the agent that caused it may have been.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-30 5:25:02 PM|| 2005-01-30 5:25:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Too heavy for me.

Where's the chupacabra?

Posted by nada 2005-01-30 7:40:50 PM|| 2005-01-30 7:40:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Gonna keep an eye on this newbie Sobiesky... :)

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-30 8:21:36 PM|| 2005-01-30 8:21:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Sobiesky for Rantburg Scientific Advisor!! ;)

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-30 10:50:45 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/] 2005-01-30 10:50:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Don't get me started! LOL!

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-30 10:59:50 PM|| 2005-01-30 10:59:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Rock on, Sobiesky, lol!

And DNA is merely the cookie - RNA is the cutter... Lol! Mebbe maternal mitochondria or Golgi bodies, or Swamp Thing should come next, heh. Mmmm, Adrienne Barbeau... scroll down... yumm...

Symbiote? Whazzat? Heh, heh.

Posted by .com 2005-01-30 11:16:44 PM|| 2005-01-30 11:16:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Oops - NSFW!!!

Posted by .com 2005-01-30 11:18:28 PM|| 2005-01-30 11:18:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 .com, yumm it is. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-30 11:54:34 PM|| 2005-01-30 11:54:34 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 CrazyFool
23:54 Sobiesky
23:43 Steven Den Beste
23:37 Barbara Skolaut
23:27 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 .com
23:16 .com
23:12 someone
23:03 CrazyFool
22:59 Sobiesky
22:59 .com
22:57 Jarhead
22:57 Pepe Lopez
22:52 .com
22:51 Jarhead
22:51 Matt
22:50 Desert Blondie
22:50 Hans Averdung
22:46 Jarhead
22:30 BH
22:22 BH
22:14 Pappy
22:12 Barbara Skolaut