I believe the original source for the 99% data comes from the classic paper by
Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson, Evolution at two levels in Humans and
Chimpanzees, Science, vol 188, (11 April), 1975. Their analysis involves
electrophoretic comparisons of proteins from both species at 44 genetic loci,
immunological comparisons, as well as nucleic acid hybridization comparisons.
They point out that the genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees is much
closer than that of many sibling species.
What then accounts for such large behavioral differences between humans and
chimps? They conclude by proposing that the molecular evolution that accounts
for such changes resides in regulatory mutations. Whether that is sufficient
"cause" of course remains to be debated and demonstrated.
Uko Zylstra, Ph.D.
Biology Department
Calvin College
tel: (616)957-6499
email: zylu@calvin.edu
>>> "R. Joel Duff" <rjduff@uakron.edu> 03/25/02 03:07PM >>>
Actually, I believe the 99% is overstated. I think it is based more on
DNA-DNA hybridization data than DNA sequence data. The genomes contain
large quantities of repetative DNA which are similar, among the coding
sequences the sequence may be 99% the same BUT among non-coding (which
represents some 95% of the genome, the % similarity is almost certainly well
below 99%. So if you are speaking of comparing the whole genome at the
nucleotide level I would suspect the number is well below 99% may be 90-95%
similar. I'm sure that some of this data is out there now. I would agree
that the 99% needs to be qualified when it is used.
Joel Duff
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:08 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Brachiators On Our family Tree? (Common ancestry - direct
evidence?)
Walt Hicks wrote:
This 99% has always confused me in that is is a number that has been
quoted for many years. Yet, it is my understanding that neither the
chimpanzee nor human genome have been mapped to anywhere this degree of
completeness. So what does this 99% mean? (I'm not arguing; I just don't
understand.)
The two genomes are approximately 99% identical in what has been mapped
thus
far. That is my understanding.
Another good question for Francis Collins.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 07:30:16 EST