Humans and Chimpanzees

define close

>>8138076
I mean as in "how closely related are we?"

>>8138077
>retard detected

Go take a course in math and biological phylogeny, idiot

>>8138077
he means you need to define a metric in which to measure. If you defined "closeness" as in weight, then we would be nowhere close to a gorilla.

If you defined it to # of hairs we had, you might even end up with some random ass new "closely-related" species.

Its the same thing with DNA. which is why the 99% similar thing is a meme.
A 750m x 300m x 300m block of concrete is pretty similar to a skyscraper.

The wires and windows and elevators, etc, make up basically nothing when you
compare it to the rest of the structure.

But you would be retarded irl to say they were basically the same

>its also why the other guy thinks youre a fucking retard (which you are)

File: image.jpg (99KB, 775x483px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 775x483px

>>8138083
So do we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees or not? Remember: L A Y M A N, so yes, I'm "retarded" by comparison.

>>8138088
There is no current agreement.

The way biologists currently measure similarity is just by brute force counting. Which is fucking retarded.

It would be like counting fucking # of wires in a cell phone and some other random device and concluding they were the same.

>TLDR: biologists are retards that have mediocre understanding at best of how DNA works. half the shit in medicine only work half the time and everything is bandjacked together as fuck. they have a handful of proven techniques at best and the whole field is essentially guess and check at the research level

File: image.jpg (125KB, 736x488px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 736x488px

>>8138094
So we have no fucking clue at this point? Wow that's depressing. I'll just stick with a solid 96% for now.

>>8138088
I dunno.
Rats and pigs are pretty much the same in the way you ask.}
Would love to know more bio to help you. But only thing i can say are these:
1) their DNA is more similar than rats and pigs, but they belong to branches that splitted too long ago. Chimps and other apes belong to our branch, but we split very recently but very quick from them, so, the basic main pic ended up being like 6or 7 branches of apes existed in parallel and one was ours and then climate change and evo lead those branches to new species so current versions of this branches are related but strongly separated. I suggest doing more research and correcting my post.
2) DON'T FUCKING ASK IN /sci/!!! THESE PEOPLES ARE ASSHOLES WHO BARELY HAVE GONE TROUGH HALF OF THEIR STUDIES AND ARE NOT ACTUALLY PROFESSIONALS. AS CONSECUENCE, THEY LACK OF KNOWELEDGE AND HUMBLENESS AND THEY WILL ACTIVELY TRY TO EVADE YOUR QUESTIONS VIA DIMINISHING YOU IN PERSON RATHER THAN DIRECTING YOU TO KNOWELEGE. I advice strongly to ask in specialized forums or even in youtube. Fuck this, even asking in yahoo answeres will get you closer to your goal.

>>8138098
just keep in mind its a useless number.
It might as well be 99.9999999999%
Or 10%.

Point is, aside from childerns classrooms, and a cool fact to toss out at parties.

There is no method or point that backs it up. Its a useless tidbit that's validity is irrelevant

File: image.jpg (345KB, 1280x955px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1280x955px

>>8138102
Fair enough. We can still give a ballpark figure for when we split based on mitochondrial DNA and fossils, right?

File: 1465504372118.jpg (66KB, 600x797px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x797px

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
>While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

>Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

File: image.jpg (78KB, 440x766px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 440x766px

>>8138106
So 98.8% to 95%
No problem with that.

>>8138098
the dude is trolling you.

we actually just count the differences. Our DNA is about 99% the same.

the 96% number has also been published but has less support.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

File: image.jpg (226KB, 600x758px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 600x758px

>>8138116
So basically what this guy said?
>>8138106

>>8138116
>trolling
>mfw the only lead biofags have is counting alleles at mutation sites

>>8138094
Medicine=/=biology

It's more than that, before genetics it was based on morphology, which had its issues. Gene-based phylogeny is much better and looking at genetic similarity can tell you a lot about its evolutionary history.

>>8138102
This, kinda.

A >0.1% of genetic difference can make huge differences in phenotype. There are millions of base pairs in your entire genome so 1% of DNA can include thousands of genes that can impact anything from hair color to brain size to lifespan. The number is pretty meaningless without proper context.

>>8138105
There's some pretty sexy science going on with how people are now trying to predict the age of specific genetic markers using mathematical models based on things like number of mutations, but that science is still in its infancy. The fossil record helps a lot, but even then our estimates can be off by thousands of years. Still for a general idea it's believed to be pretty accurate.

>>8138114
It depends on what method you're using. But most non-scientific people can't comprehend qualifiers or caveats, which is why that factoid is spouted around so much. Lots of people don't even know what "caveat" means.

File: image.jpg (117KB, 835x835px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 835x835px

>>8138131
>>8138132
Ok then, we'll I hope to hear more as it develops (if the U.S. doesn't turn into a theocracy by then).

>>8138144
*well

>>8138132
I definetely know what caveat means bud, it's not a hard word. You also just used it in the most jackass way I could imagine.

Why does this matter to you? How will knowing the exact percentage change anything about your behavior?

File: image.jpg (100KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1920x1200px

>>8138200
I was just curious.

>>8138132
>girlslaughing.jpg

holy shit do you wear a fedora?

>>8138088
You need to accurately define what similarity is measured by. In one case, you could say it's 100% because they are all the same base pairs

>>8138075
Minute Earth has a good video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbY122CSC5w

File: Ferdinand-smug-1038x576.jpg (142KB, 1038x576px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1038x576px

>>8138872
Is this what some of these kids call "popsci"?

>>8138872
>>8138909
As a non biofag, I think this was a good video.

>>8138846
That pic is just wrong.
How's the skellington going to read with no eyeballs?

File: 1_2.jpg (87KB, 626x313px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 626x313px

>>8138928
I was just mocking the people who say "popsci is shit" and stuff like that. I liked the video.

File: 1441117205860.jpg (51KB, 265x450px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 265x450px

Not one bit. Humans are separate from nature because we're made in G-d's image. Read a bible, loser.

P:ic related: You right now lol.

File: dancing_tophat_skeleton.png (32KB, 469x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 469x512px

>>8138975
More of a top hat guy, but I give you a B for effort.

File: fedora-wearers-in-a-nutshell_c_2498073[1].jpg (132KB, 500x718px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 500x718px

>>8138975
> projecting your own fedorautism
i'm atheist like a scientists, which makes me smart as a scientist :)

File: fossil.jpg (98KB, 420x570px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 420x570px

Bump

Biologists look at the trends in the differences in the 2 genomes, and use the number of differences as a proxy to determine how recently they diverged & their genotypic similarity.

File: divergance.jpg (61KB, 1280x674px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x674px

>>8140009
Which was about this long ago, right?

99.6% with Chimps/Bonobos
99.8% with Orangutans
98.0% with Gorillas

In fact, the only true genetic difference is that our first and second chromosome merged via a genetic mutation aprox. 10 million years ago.
It allowed for substantially more data.
So it's like we're Xbox One, and they're Xbox 360... and Gorillas are like a PS3

>>8138200
>Why do we need to know facts and shit

>>8138101
This

>>8140068
How are we closer to orangutans than chimps? Was there a fluke, or did the chimps change more than the orangs?

>>8138094
You're "too long; didn't read" part is over half your message. In the future be sure to have a TL;DR for your TL;DR. Also please be sure to eat a lotta poop too. Like a whole bunch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_splicing

Genomes are similar but alternative splicing makes how we use the genes incredibly different.

Basically we read from the same book but we use different ciphers.

>>8138075
its racist that the human in the picture being handed food by a monkey is black

>>8138075
The answer is we are seperated from them by about 7 million years

>>8138079

>open minded person comes in, introduces himself as a layman, asks sincere question of people with knowledge in that area
>you call him retard and an idiot and tell him to take a course

I bet you're someone with confidence in themselves who has achieved a lot.

File: image.jpg (232KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1024x683px

Bump

File: 150415090026_1_900x600.jpg (101KB, 900x599px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 900x599px

>>8141171
Bump after bump.

File: creation-final-one-sheet2.jpg (18KB, 626x309px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 626x309px

>>8142314

File: l.jpg (51KB, 590x848px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 590x848px

>>8144703

>>>8138094

>It would be like counting fucking # of wires in a cell phone and some other random device and concluding they were the same.

False equivalence. Shut the fuck up retard.

>>8138114
very lewd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg4AjD1fUaw

>>8148306
That was beautiful.

Both the human and chimpanzee genomes were mapped in the 2000s. Of the 3 billion or so base pairs we differ from chimps on 40 million or so. As such it indicates a difference of 1.3333333% difference in our genetic make-up. Although the actual differences physiologically, chemically, etc, is from an even smaller percentage of this 1.3333333%. A lot of DNA is redundant as far as we know, so it does raise the question as to the percentage and whether we need to redefine how we are comparing DNA. It's safe to say that we are genetically similar though.

>>8148306
I could literally eat a Gorilla.