|
Biochemistry chart of a single human cell (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RickyM |
| Cheers...yeah reading up on it, it seems that we're less identical than was previously thought; and 94-96 is more correct. |
|
|
| Saka |
Evolution is rubbish.
Darwin said it himself. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
Evolution is rubbish.
Darwin said it himself. |
Are you just being a wanker as per usual? |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
We're actually closer genetically to chimps, than chimps are to gorillas...and I think we're 98.6% genetically identical to a chimp ;) |
Although newer studies have disproved this figure because they didn't take into account "insertions" (repetition of a corresponding sequence) and "deletions" (absence of a corresponding sequence) just single-base matchings. It seems that the actual difference is about 5%.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ce-trebled.html
Still extremely small if one takes into account the substantial differences (e.g. behavioural, anatomical etc.) between the two species. As the article suggests, the difference would be in the "Regulatory" genes, not the genes per se. This would mean that a difference in frontal lobe size (being much larger in humans and hence accounting for some huge mental differences) would not be based on different genes (e.g. a seperate human gene coding for a larger frontal lobe) but in the same set of genes only regulated in different ways (e.g. the same gene that codes for frontal lobe size is the same in both humans and chimps, but in humans is not inhibited enough from another regulatory gene, staying more active and for a longer amount of time, leading to a larger size. This is an over-simplification ofcourse but you get the picture). This would mean that whilst the bases per se are very similar (in a matter of fact, 70% of our genes are similar to the bloody fruit-fly or something!), their dynamic expressions in space and time could lead to quite different protein interactions (the "interactome"-the mapping of protein interations- would be the next big-and possibly more substantial-milestone after the "genome").
This is why another study revealed that whilst the fruitfly has 14.000 genes and humans just 10.000 more (around 24.000 and with the majority of them being similar), the protein interactions of humans are 10 times more than the fruit-fly's (and this is actually a huge difference).
So, if one takes into account those "dynamic" aspects, the actual biological difference between humans and chimps could be much bigger. It seems that by just attributing the biological differences to the similarity of simple DNA bases is not enough. |
|
|
| Saka |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
Are you just being a wanker as per usual? |
Nice to see someone who believes in evolution just thinking everyone elses opinion (that differs), as being small minded or a joke.
And thanks for the insult.
Your parents split up or something to make you just start attacking people?
You want my honest opinion drop tha attitude, although I doubt you do so lets just move this thread along. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| What's your problem with evolution? |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
Nice to see someone who believes in evolution just thinking everyone elses opinion (that differs), as being small minded or a joke.
And thanks for the insult.
Your parents split up or something to make you just start attacking people?
You want my honest opinion drop tha attitude, although I doubt you do so lets just move this thread along. |
You don't need to 'believe' in evolution...facts do not require any sort of belief. I'd actually like to hear your opinion, so go ahead. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Although newer studies have disproved this figure because they didn't take into account "insertions" (repetition of a corresponding sequence) and "deletions" (absence of a corresponding sequence) just single-base matchings. It seems that the actual difference is about 5%.
|
Thanks, Mr JBJ pointed that out to me too. |
|
|
| Saka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
What's your problem with evolution? |
The complexity of life is too much to believe as have happened by chance in my opinion.
I take back the statement that it is rubbish.
Don't want to offend people by going round shouting off my opinion as being more important. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
The complexity of life is too much to believe as have happened by chance in my opinion. |
But today's complexity didn't happen by "chance." The lifeforms we see now are the descendants of ancestors who were subjected to a ruthless testing process called "natural selection."
;) |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
But today's complexity didn't happen by "chance." The lifeforms we see now are the descendants of ancestors who were subjected to a ruthless testing process called "natural selection."
;) |
Exactly, and there is plenty of scientific evidence for that. Its not a matter of belief. Its a matter of knowledge/ignorance. |
|
|
| Saka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
But today's complexity didn't happen by "chance." The lifeforms we see now are the descendants of ancestors who were subjected to a ruthless testing process called "natural selection."
;) |
So you're saying that at no time in evolution there pinned something happening on chance?
A chance that a certain chemical was produced at a certain time to mean something progressed.
No being can determine the next stage of itself on such a complex biomechanical level simply by selection.
Any cell that evolved is by far more complex than a watch, so I dare any TA here to grab all the components of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them for millions of years til a working watch forms.
Or even better, a watch that can then better itself to be more accurate
Especially a watch that is more complex to the point of life. |
|
|
|
|
