RE: The genetic similarity between man and Cambanzy Is it true?
December 29, 2014 at 9:48 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2014 at 9:48 pm by ManMachine.)
(December 29, 2014 at 6:41 am)Alex K Wrote: @king krish
Welcome to the forums -
Posting links is not allowed until you have been an established member of the forum, so they will be deleted again. Posting large amounts of text which is copied is also not encouraged. I'd recommend writing a intro post for yourself in the introductions forum, and then start the discussion slow and not with a huge dump of stuff from fundamentalist liars like answers in genesis.
We should have a more in depth discussion how differences in genetic code between species are calculated, and what these numbers mean, before you make such confused statements, or rather, copy the fundamental misunderstanding these fundamentalists have about the science. They really are deeply dishonest in their presentation of the scientific consensus, you know?
Saying that we share ... % of genetic code with a banana, for example, is a very problematic statement without further specification what is actually meant, considering that the human genome is six times the size in Megabasepairs (3000 versus 500)! So, really, it's an exciting topic, but you should educate yourself more about it before pasting huge scrolls of links.
That being said, yes, we really do share a lot of genetic code with most other living things, because we are all relatives! So there is going to be a base level of similarity, and more closely related organisms will usually have more overlap. With chimps (I suppose Cambanzy is your way to write Chimpanzee?), it is pretty clear when we and they split up, and the differences that have since arisen can be understood by mutations and merging of chromosomes.
Thank you!
I was beginning to think this was a post about humans being closely related to cheese.
I think some people are closer to bananas than others... obviously.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
