do we really share >90% of our DNA with chimps?

[hemanthraz]

I have read about the percentage of DNA that we share with various other organisms and couldnt believe that such a small amount can lead to so much of variation.Also what is the variation between different humans?

Also i read somewhere that most of our DNA is not used at all[i dont know exactly, im a software guy-gimme a break].just curious

[CosmicDust]

I heard it's more like 15% that we share with chimps - there was a recent discovery of subtle differences in most of the supposedly "shared" genes or something.

A lot of our DNA isn't really used past the fetal development process. But actually, come to think of it, it may be true that "most" of it isn't used at all, in terms of the actual mass of the DNA - there's a lot of non-genetic material creating the structure to support the genetic "rungs."

[SheepDog]

It's more like 98%
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=human+chimpanzee+dna&btnG=Google+Search

[SensEye]

Also found while googling:

"The DNA sequence confirms that humans and chickens share 60% of their genes."

"...whereas rodents and humans - which share 88% of their genes -..."

[jetboots]

yesm, indeed it is more like 98%. Its also important to remember that DNA is all about combinations of DNA that make us who we are, not the mere number. This means its all non linear and that 2% difference can produce billions of more combinations. so to make something twice more complex than an ape to create a human (for agruement's sake lets assume thats true) you only need 2 not 50% variance.

[Aryan]

Come awn! gimme a break!
Dont start racist theories against chimps now by analysing DNA!!! ;P

[Boneca]

All mammals share a large proportion of their genes, due to their common ancestry. Therefore, the rat is much closer to us than the chicken (who is on the bird/dinosaur line).
You also have to be aware of the fact that every difference you see doesn't necessarily have to be a genome difference. For example; Chihuahuas, Great Danes and the wolf share 100% of their DNA!
If only the phenotypes can vary that much within a given genome, you can imagine the possibilities if you add a 2% genome difference on top of that.

Edit; to explain myself a bit further. I shouldn't assume that everyone has studied genetics.
The numbers mentioned here is the genome difference - chimps have different genes from us. All humans have the same genes, but we can have different alleles (forms) of the gene. Example: humans have one gene for eye colour that can be either "non-pigmented" (giving blue, green or grey eyes) or "pigmented" (giving brown/black eyes) - this is an allele variation. A jellyfish doesn't have that gene at all, because it doesn't have eyes - that's a genome difference.

[Adolf Hitler]

How does a chihuahua mother not have great dane or wolf babies?

[Boneca]

How does a chihuahua mother not have great dane or wolf babies?Because the alleles (variations) that causes certain appearances/traits have been eliminated through breeding. But the genes themselves (as locations on the DNA string) are still there.
You could still theoretically breed a chihuahua with a wolf and get viable puppies with a combination of the respective traits. (But don't ask me how it's going to work practically...)

[hemanthraz]

wow!! that explains a lot of stuff. after bonecas post i read up on the stuff a bit and was really amazed to see how gene expression works. That stuffs way more complicated than anything i could have imagined.

check out
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/genetics_genome.html

I saw some stuff about growing roses too, pretty mindboggling.
Thanks a lot for clearing stuff up and helping me look in the right places for answers.

[Wolfchylde]

The further you guys did the more complex and complex it will get. Heck I just finished mt degree in genetics and we have barely scratched the surface of what really hapens within the genome. The number and complexity of the interactions is just astounding. Its the most interesting topic I have ever encountered:)

[ApeTheDog]

That doesn't surprise me at all.

If I think about it, well... they have a heart, a skin, hair, two feet, two eyes... they're exactly like us, with some difference in some small departments. I'd be very surprised if we didn't share most of our genes with them.

And as for sharing a lot of DNA with every animal, that's quite logical too, since we all have the DNA for owning a skeleton, etc... the things that all animals have, and that we take for granted, but which isn't. we're basically all built with the same programming language, we're just compiled differently. But we still share the same language, and we use a lot of the same basis libraries.

But I still don't get the one about the banana, though.

[Dman]

See how complex this stuff is, and took millions of years of evolution to get to this point, and yet people casually believe that computers (A.I.) could take over the world in a few years/decades?

I thinketh we give our own creations too much credit.

Ahh, but perhaps WE are the A.I., and our observable universe is bound by the restrictions (natural laws) that our creator programmed to prevent us from ever "escaping" to dominate "their" world...

Ok so I've been watching the Matrix.

[flan2dave]

I read somewhere that Salamander's possess 90% "junk" DNA, that is it never gets used in protein making. Organisms are brutishly designed in a lot of ways.

[Wolfchylde]

Flan, its not brutish at all, and quite frankly our conception of junk DNA just means we really dont know what it does yet. The system is still far too complex for our current knowledge level:)

[Adolf Hitler]

Lies. All lies!

[Lucas]

If I think about it, well... they have a heart, a skin, hair, two feet, two eyes... they're exactly like us, with some difference in some small departments.


We share more than that, for example our skeletons, we have all the same bones they do, although there are some different sizes and shapes. They have the same hormones in their bodies and the same chemical transmitters in their brains as we do. Culture aside, we share far more with chimps than we differ from them.

The evidence is overwhelming that we recently shared a common ancestor with chimps. All the evidence supports this idea. The argument against this is so weak that it is laughable.

As Richard Dawkins put it, "the problem is that everyone thinks they know what natural selection is." Most argue about evolution and natural selection without having an inkling of how it really works, and what the basic tenets of the evolutionary model are.

-LUCAS

[ObstinateBane]

A few good light readings for a greater understanding of genes.

One is Nature VIA Nuture by Matt Ridley also GENOME by the same author. Good reading it keeps your interest.

And http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/info=understandGenetics;jsessionid=E9F8410BEE328AB8B1A6931A3FD3B236 is fairly easy to comprehend.

I believe if anyone is interested in looking into it that we share our genes with every living thing(except plants) on the planet.

We all came from the same puddle of primordial ooze after all. The differences are in how our dna is programmed to build us.

Fascinating stuff.

[Dman]

We all came from the same puddle of primordial ooze after all. The differences are in how our dna is programmed to build us.

Fascinating stuff.

Well, if you take it back far enough, EVERY living thing on this planet came from the same sources - in fact the planet itself & solar system itself.

"We are stardust..."

[ObstinateBane]

"We are stardust..."

Well the stuff that makes up star dust at least.

Then it's just a matter of how long you cook it and in what mixtures. Oh and how hot too I guess.

Where's Ron Popeil when ya need him? "Just set it and Forget It"

[Boneca]

I believe if anyone is interested in looking into it that we share our genes with every living thing(except plants) on the planet..Actually, we share genes with plants too, just not as many.

There are even some organisms (like the one-celled Euglena algae) that are kind of halfways between being animals and plants. In the Euglena case, they can fotosynthesize like plants, but they also have an eye and can swim around.

(Am I crazy to think this is interesting? Sometimes I fear I'm too much of a nerd.)

[ObstinateBane]

I stand corrected(didn't want to through too much of a concept out there too soon :) )

Naa, not crazy, and we'd prefer "Special".

Special-Distinct among others of a kind, from Latin specilis, from specis. Species- A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes.

Or if you'd prefer Superior Being is fine. (Hahaha)

I truly find this stuff fascinating as well. It's like part of some magic puzzle, find the key and anything is possible.

Like the ACE gene on chromosome17 some people have one type other another. One type makes it easier to build muscle than the other. So what if a way were found to manipulate this gene to help folks with any of the diseases that affect muscle?

It just opens so many doors for mankind. Finding the key could very well be the end of alot of suffering.

[Dman]

(Am I crazy to think this is interesting? Sometimes I fear I'm too much of a nerd.)

No way, this stuff is cool. Nerd is just a label those "others" put on it because they're jealous that they don't have the capacity to understand.