FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-19-2002, 10:27 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com
Posts: 2,829
Post

Whereas when you check the genes, that 98% is still applicable, right? I mean, he didn't specifically say that all the homology is in the noncoding DNA, but he did everything short of saying it.
Albion is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 08:12 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 595
Post

Which begs the question of why gawd would give us 98% junk DNA. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Sci_Fidelity is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 08:48 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Post

"Ugly Bags of Mostly Water"
- Star Trek: TNG

That was a clever slight of hand trick....
Kosh is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 09:25 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: St Louis area
Posts: 3,458
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>That is what he is saying, yes. However what he is thinking is probably 'Ooo neddle ping snowdrop the colors the colors!'</strong>
No, what he is thinking is "Lying for Jesus is OK, lying for Jesus is righteous, lying for Jesus is good..."
MortalWombat is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 09:44 AM   #15
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington, the least religious state
Posts: 5,334
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by MortalWombat:
<strong>

No, what he is thinking is "Lying for Jesus is OK, lying for Jesus is righteous, lying for Jesus is good..."</strong>
"Lying for Jesus is profitable!" (Or should that be prophetable?)
Happy Wonderer is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 09:50 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Post

Dumb question perhaps, but what is the 2% of a cloud that's not water?

And watermelons are only 92-93% water, IIRC.
Mageth is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 09:55 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>That is what he is saying, yes. However what he is thinking is probably 'Ooo neddle ping snowdrop the colors the colors!'</strong>
Nah, what he's thinking is this

Quote:

tgamble is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 10:05 AM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 106
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Mageth:
<strong>Dumb question perhaps, but what is the 2% of a cloud that's not water?
</strong>
Dust.

But since Adam was made from a pile of magic dust and since people are mostly water then clouds must be people
Dr S is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 11:31 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,427
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>That is what he is saying, yes. However what he is thinking is probably 'Ooo neddle ping snowdrop the colors the colors!'</strong>
ROFL!
bluefugue is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 11:31 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Albion:
<strong>

OK, am I understanding this right? He's saying (or implying) that human and chimp DNA is 97-99% identical but it's the other 1-3% that's the actual coding DNA? That humans and chimps have no genetic similarity at all except in the junk DNA? is that what he's really saying?</strong>
What I think he's saying is that only 1-3% of both human and chimp DNA has been sequenced (or there is only a 1-3% overlap from what has been sequenced in both) and that within that 1-3%, there is 98% identity. Therefore he's implying that we have insufficient data to conclude a high degree of overall similarity, if I'm understanding him right.

However, this line of reasoning is (you guessed it) hopelessly flawed. The 98% similarity figure comes from hybridization studies that use the entire genome, not from DNA sequencing. The hybridization studies were done many years before anyone could efficiently sequence large amounts of DNA, but the results are the same. Given that only about 3% (give or take) of human DNA is coding, that means that the "junk DNA", which makes up the vast majority of our genome, is about 98% similar to that of a chimp.

theyeti
theyeti is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.