Unbroken Mitochondrial line?

[popeyespappy]

First of all, mitochondria are derived from endocytosed bacteria, not mammals. They have a completely different genetic structure.

"completely different genetic structure". It is worth repeating: animals and humans have completely different genetic structure.

No Sam, humans and other animals don't have completely different genetic structure. In fact human and banana DNA has a lot in common.

[Brian37]

Um while those stats may be correct, lets put that in proper context. Those stats are about the 1% to 2% not the 98%. Our DNA with all life is mostly the same. The differences between looks in those stats you talk about are the face cards that make each card look different. The back of the DECK of cards is still the same for all life.

[popeyespappy]

Um while those stats may be correct, lets put that in proper context. Those stats are about the 1% to 2% not the 98%. Our DNA with all life is mostly the same. The differences between looks in those stats you talk about are the face cards that make each card look different. The back of the DECK of cards is still the same for all life.

Yes we are talking about the coding sequences of DNA not the so called junk portion. So technically it is incorrect to say we share 60% of our DNA with a banana. After that though I think you have it wrong. For example the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs. Paris japonica, a rare flower found in Japan, has the largest genome known with about 149 billion base pairs. The smallest known genome belongs to the parasite Encephalitozoon intestinalis with only 2.25 million base pairs. The Paris japonica genome is about 50 times larger than the human genome. The human genome is about 13 times larger than the Encephalitozoon intestinalis genome. The Paris japonica genome is about 660 times larger than the Encephalitozoon intestinalis genome. That being said it kind of makes it hard to say that the genomes of all known life are mostly the same.

[The Valkyrie]

"completely different genetic structure". It is worth repeating: animals and humans have completely different genetic structure.

No Sam, humans and other animals don't have completely different genetic structure. In fact human and banana DNA has a lot in common.

60%?

Is that how Ray Comfort is able to mate with a banana?

For him is it genetics or the shape?

[popeyespappy]

Is that how Ray Comfort is able to mate with a banana?

A little lube helps.

[Anomalocaris]

Um while those stats may be correct, lets put that in proper context. Those stats are about the 1% to 2% not the 98%. Our DNA with all life is mostly the same. The differences between looks in those stats you talk about are the face cards that make each card look different. The back of the DECK of cards is still the same for all life.

No.  Perhaps an more appropriate analogy is all genes of all known life on earth are like different books written using the same alphabet, in the same fonts, printed with the same ink.

The papers the books are printed on may be slightly different, but it is clear they are all compatible with the same ink, and some process can be deduced which over time can change the paper from one type to another.

The books are of vastly different lengths.   At first glance the paragraph and page breaks can be arranged in very different ways.  Much of the text also appears to be very different.  

However, much of the text also appear to be gibberish, following no clear grammar or diction and using no decipherable vocabulary.   Further evidence of the fact that these sections appear to contain no organized information is provided by the fact that arbitrarily changing these passages appear to elicit no differences in the responses and behavior of the those reading these books.

However some parts of the text do appear to encode organized information because changing parts of these causes readily observable changes in the responses and behaviors of the readers.   it is these sections which appear very similar in grammar, diction and vocabulary between all the books.

To be sure, while there are some differences in the content of even these sections, it does appear the total difference diminishes between books belonging to creatures that closely resembling each other, and increases between those belonging to creatures that are more different. The difference is remarkably, less notes in the contents of the text, then in the paragraph and page breaks.

The gene books of humans and chimps are not only very similar in content, but have nearly identical paragraph and page breaks. The gene books of humans and cows, on the other hand, have some what more different contents, but substantially more differences in paragraph and pge breaks.

[Mermaid]

Um while those stats may be correct, lets put that in proper context. Those stats are about the 1% to 2% not the 98%. Our DNA with all life is mostly the same. The differences between looks in those stats you talk about are the face cards that make each card look different. The back of the DECK of cards is still the same for all life.

No.  Perhaps an more appropriate analogy is all genes of all known life on earth are like different books written using the same alphabet, in the same fonts, printed with the same ink.

The papers the books are printed on may be slightly different, but it is clear they are all compatible with the same ink, and some process can be deduced which over time can change the paper from one type to another.

The books are of vastly different lengths.   At first glance the paragraph and page breaks can be arranged in very different ways.  Much of the text also appears to be very different.  

However, much of the text also appear to be gibberish, following no clear grammar or diction and using no decipherable vocabulary.   Further evidence of the fact that these sections appear to contain no organized information is provided by the fact that arbitrarily changing these passages appear to elicit no differences in the responses and behavior of the those reading these books.

However some parts of the text appear encode organized information because changing parts of these causes readily observable changes in the responses and behaviors of the readers.   But these sections appear very similar in grammar, diction and vocabulary between all the books.

This is an excellent analogy and explanation.

[Brian37]

Um while those stats may be correct, lets put that in proper context. Those stats are about the 1% to 2% not the 98%. Our DNA with all life is mostly the same. The differences between looks in those stats you talk about are the face cards that make each card look different. The back of the DECK of cards is still the same for all life.

Yes we are talking about the coding sequences of DNA not the so called junk portion. So technically it is incorrect to say we share 60% of our DNA with a banana. After that though I think you have it wrong. For example the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs. Paris japonica, a rare flower found in Japan, has the largest genome known with about 149 billion base pairs. The smallest known genome belongs to the parasite Encephalitozoon intestinalis with only 2.25 million base pairs. The Paris japonica genome is about 50 times larger than the human genome. The human genome is about 13 times larger than the Encephalitozoon intestinalis genome. The Paris japonica genome is about 660 times larger than the Encephalitozoon intestinalis genome. That being said it kind of makes it hard to say that the genomes of all known life are mostly the same.

I get what you are saying. 

Laypeople should not think of a strand of DNA as always being the same size. Just like you can buy different size rubber bands at Staples. My point is the base is the same, no matter how many links get added or subtracted to make the species DNA strand smaller or larger over time.

Yes, just like a shirt size, you have boys small, large and extra large. You have girls size small, large and extra large. And you also have adult men's small, large and extra large. You also have adult female small, large and extra large.

Strands between species do add and subtract base pairs. My point is the back of the deck is still the base of the tree regardless of how small or big the branches that stem from it become.