pseudobug

<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm" target="_blank">DO HUMAN AND CHIMPANZEE DNA
INDICATE AN EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIP?</a>

tgamble

Maybe someone with a biology background can explain in more detail why it's nonsense. I can only say that it's nonsense because it's from cretinists. :=)

I see a few quotes there. Any bets on them being taken out of context? :=)

Coragyps

Which suggests to me that Harrub and Thompson are closely related to Clupea rubrus, my new binomial for the well-known Red Herring.


Edited to add: Notice, too, how they quote The Aquatic Ape" as just as much an auyhority as Dobzhansky. (And he from 1958...)

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

No shit. This is to be expected. Closer related species should have overall closer genomes but individual parts of it will not. This is by simple probablity. The more time since the common ancestor the more time the more likely that any given sequence will be different. But more likely does not mean absolutely certain. There are sequences which humans are more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees, but there are far more which humans and chimpanzees are more closely related.

Also note that at least five million years have passed since the human and chimp line diverged. It should not be surprising that the human line since then has developed its own unique derived features in that time. Do these idiots know anything about evolution?

----

Notice that the article ignores the strong evidence that the reason humans have 46 chromosomes and the apes have 48 is that two chromosomes fused (and remember chromosomes come in pairs). This is a simple way for the chromosome number to go down. Read about this
at <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html</a>

[quote]
and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans
[quote]
So either humans lost some genetic material or chimps lost some. Actually the tips of chromosomes are generally a bunch of nonsense sequences since its function is to protect the valuable stuff. It does this by simply existing. If the ends of DNA molecules get destroyed the information is preserved.

------

They mention chimp organs not being useful
for transplants. This is not very surprising. Transplated organs from HUMANS are often rejected even though they are far closer to the patient than a chimp! There is a reason why close relatives are prefered when it is a practical option (like in a kidney donations). Also chimps are smaller than humans and size is important.

gallo

Interesting how they take the trouble to point out that humans and gorillas differ by only one amino acid in 287 in the sequence of hemoglobin. I wonder why they don't point out that there is no difference between chimp and human hemoglobin. ZERO amino acids in a sequence of 287. So I guess this makes a chimp a normal human.

Organ implants from humans who share more than 99% or the "same genetic material" would be rejected just as quickly as an organ from a chimp. The body is so good at recognizing "foreign" that the only transplants that are not rejected are those from identical twins. Other siblings can present less problems, and other close family members come next. Otherwise, transplant patients face a life of daily drugs to supress transplant organ rejection. To follow the logic of this article, to claim the relationship between any two humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect.