That is your sides faulting reasoning because something is similar they must be the same. Same argument as Dna similarity.
bullshit!
Humans share the most similarities with the bonobos, and then chimpanzees. Mice share many genes, but not 98%.
It's important to remember that DNA similarities will be relatively high within the mamalian class simply because DNA is largely a recipe for protein manufacture. Since mammals all use similar proteins, they're going to be using similar DNA. It's also helpful to remember that DNA is not destiny. There are also epigenes, RNA and mDNA to consider.
One of the stronger arguments for common descent comes from endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) that appear in exactly the same place within closely related species. ERVs are ancient deactivated viruses that made it into the germ-line and was therefore carried by all future generations. Since the insertion of an ERV in the germ line is a rare occurance and having the same ERV occur in the same place on the chromosome in different species is damn near impossible, you can calculate relatedness based on how many ancient ERVs you can find between species.
So far, based on multiple lines of evidence (including the two cited here) common descent continues to stand up.
Can someone clarify something for me about genetic similarity and evolution? - Yahoo! Answers
Starting with bullshit remains bullshit dummy.
The graph at the top of this post shows his results. Notice that the similarity hovers around 70% for all chromosomes except the Y chromosome. The size of the “slice” affects the result a bit, but really not much. In the end, this leads Dr. Tomkins to conclude:
Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
Is this the last word on the subject? Most certainly not. I think it is probably the best comparison attempt made so far. Also, the fact that the Y chromosome has a remarkably low level of similarity compared to the other chromosomes is consistent with another study. In addition, the results essentially agree with Dr. BuggsÂ’s analysis, which was based on a completely different strategy. At the same time, however, there is a huge discrepancy between this analysis and Dr. WoodÂ’s analysis. In addition, as we learn more about genomes and how they work, we will probably find better ways to compare the genomes of different organisms.
For right now, however, it seems clear that humans and chimpanzees are not nearly as genetically similar as most evolutionists would have us believe.
Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion
Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range
Posted on December 31, 2010 by Denyse
Not 98% or 99%, as every motor mouth on Hoax TV can tell you, between 9-11 hair fixes. A friend writes to say:
In 2008 I made the prediction (based on data available from the draft chimpanzee genome) that the human and chimpanzee genomes were about 70% the same overall. This has now been confirmed for the Y chromosome in a detailed study.
The study found
As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)15. Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa (Supplementary Fig. 8 and Supplementary Note 3). In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in the chimpanzee and human lineages, respectively, is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units (Table 1).
He cautions that the authors of the Nature paper do not think that their findings for the Y chromosome are true for the whole genome. Perhaps not, but it is nice to see sane people working on genetic similarity issues for once. The paper is: Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08700
- See more at:
Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times
Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times
