(May 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm)Abishalom Wrote:(May 21, 2012 at 10:18 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: As both Chris and I have already pointed out the similarities include both the coding and noncoding DNA. It is therefore a representation of the entire genome.Now you're just making up stuff...
Having established that the entire genomes of humans and chimps is nearly identical, perhaps you'd like to explain to us what knowing the function any given segment makes to its value as evidence for common decent?
Let's get this straight neither one of yall talked about similarities of humans and apes included noncoding and coding DNA nor have you established the genomes of humans and apes as "nearly identical". Chris talked about similarities in the proteins which only make up 1% of the total genome. You also never said that their noncoding and coding DNA was similar. In fact you said the exact opposite...
(May 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.Which is comical because now you're trying to claim that you've established the human and ape genome as "nearly identical"...
Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.
But your post goes back to my main point. If 99% of the genome is noncoding DNA and this is where the major difference lie in (your words), then you cannot support the human/ape evolution claim with the 1% of protein coding. By your own admission noncoding DNA serves a different function than that of protein coding DNA despite a vast majority of NCD function being unknown. That in it of itself would suggest that the sequence would be different in humans in apes. Like I've pointed out the only studies we have thus far are based on a small percentage of the total population of 3 billion.
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?
Quote:The average differences between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees for various "types" of DNA sequences.
Coding DNA:
• Synonymous (silent) substitutions in DNA coding for proteins: 1.11%
• Non-synonymous (amino-acid altering) substitutions in DNA coding for proteins: 0.80%
• Amino acid changes: 1.34%
Non-coding DNA:
Autosomal intergenic DNA (noncoding DNA between genes and not on sex chromosomes): 1.24%
• X-chromosome intergenic DNA: 1.16%
• Y-chromosome intergenic DNA: 1.68%
• Intronic DNA (DNA inside exons that is removed before mRNA is transcribed): 1.03%
• Psuedogenes (genes that have lost their functions due to mutations, deletions, or transposable elements): 1.56%
• Differences in Alus (the most abundant mobile element/retrotransposons in primates comprising about 10% of your genome): 2%
Summarized from
Chen, F.C. & Li, W.H. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. American journal of human genetics 68, 444-56 (2001).
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.