in the case of chimpanzees our genes are actually 70% different?
Which isn't really consistent with anything, which was why I thought you might just have misunderstood.
If you look at any stretch of DNA code in a human and the parallel set of code in a chimp only two letters of code in every 100 are different. Ofcourse there is the fusion of the chromosome to consider to. This is where the 98% figure comes from.
Essentially this means that humans and chimps share exactly the same genes making a nonsense of Percy's previous comments. How the foot of the a chimp grows differently to the foot of a human is still not understood well but the gene is essentially the same gene. (see [Matt Ridley 1999, Genome] Out of date maybe).
The figure of 70% different was a question as you will note.
Chimps, our nearest relative, don't talk. We do. Now scientists have pinpointed a mutation in a gene that might help explain the difference.
The mutation seems to have helped humans develop speech and language. It's probably not the only gene involved, but researchers found the gene looks and acts differently in chimps and humans, according to a study published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.
Even the FOXP2 is a mutation and therefore humans and chimps essentially share the same gene. If you can name a single gene that is only a chimp gene and a single gene that is only a human gene that would be helpful. Let me know your source. Your previous source wikipedia confirms that chimps and humans have the same genes.
"For example, a surprisingly high number of genes involved in the inflammatory response - APOL1, APOL4, CARD18, IL1F7, IL1F8 - are completely deleted from chimp genome."
I agree that a lot of our differences come to down to interpretation of plain english. The article above however, seems a dubious source of information. The above sentence seems to imply that the gene existed in chimps but has since been deleted. There is no evidence in the article about that fact however. The article goes on to suggest that regulation must be provided by other means in chimps but again no evidence given. Sorry but I can't take this article seriously.
They're thinking: what are the odds that not having these genes was the basal state and that just by coincidence it was added by separate but identical evolutionary events in the lineages which possess it.
In other words it's one absurd assumption compounding another crazy assumption. Even if we were to assume that the gene evolved as you indicate, this still doesn't imply two evolutionary events. You make the assumption I guess on the basis that you have assumed a closer relationship between humans and chimps than other primates. Whilst some DNA might suggest a closer relationship, APOL1 suggests a more distant relationship.
Even worse, you seem to have no criteria against which to judge your competence
I don't know what position you hold on this site. It would appear that you are some sort of moderator/administrator. I don't really care as you are still a moron who has contributed nothing to this debate other than to have to be corrected by WK again and again.
You keep suggesting I have a position on this issue. I was here to discuss and don't hold an opinion one way or the other on this particular topic.
Anyway, I am not sure why I am bothering to reply to you as your contribution to this debate has been worthless and you still haven't even answered my question. I am guessing at this point your going to ban me or block me but a ban from a cretin is probably a good thing.
I think you should read the material you haven't responded to yet, research and think through your answer, then present it.
So let me get this right, you have chosen to talk sh*t because you think I am talking s*it? It is a strange world that you inhabit.
I will not be responding to you until you answer the question that I asked. You were the one who suggested that that humans and chimps both have genes that the other does not possess. Please give me an example of a gene, by name, which a chimpanzee has but a human does not.
I am simply trying to clarify this very simple point. In your delusional grand intellect it appears that you can't see the tree for the forest.
An example of a gene that chimps have that humans do not is C4C1001
A large number of the OR genes are infact pseudogenes or non-functional and therefore not real genes. Talking about pseudogenes isn't really helpful as we already know that fragments of any segment of DNA will typically differ between chimps and humans. I can't find any reference to this gene from other sources.
By the way, sport, if you're going to use adult words, use the fucking word. We're adults here. Well, some of us are. Randomly substituting asterisks just make you look silly. And believe me, you don't need any help in that direction.
Who the fuck are you? I wasn't talking to you anyway.
How does it help your position if chimps don't have genes humans don't? In other words, why do you care? Do you even know? Or are you, as I suspect, just disputing everything without rhyme or reason?
Having read the article a couple of times now I still can't confirm whether this is a real or a pseudo gene. I can't find a single other source which verifies the C4C1001 gene either. The name of the gene consisting purely of numbers and letters is intriguing too.
Given that humans and chimps have vast physical differences, I can't understand why you would choose as your only example, a "sense of smell" gene. I am not trying to be disputatious but aren't there any more worthy examples that are more suitable for study?