[at-l] who, where, & why

[jbryankramer at msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

Nope, look at his one:

Human-chimp DNA difference trebled

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of
human and chimpanzee DNA.

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material
with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share
less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the
variation between us and chimps.

The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of
Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically,
that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself
developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the
temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work
out how different they are.

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a
single base substitution. These occur whenever a single "letter" differs in
corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses
ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one
species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise,
"deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833

Bryan

"Si vis pacem para bellum"

>
> Bryan,
>
> I think you have it backwards; they've found out that we're CLOSER than
> previously thought.  In the interest of open disclosure, though, a study
> last year (as noted at the bottom of the article) came to a differing
> conclusion.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3042781.stm
>
> Cleek
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 04:53:35PM -0400, I received a message
> from J Bryan Kramer to which I felt pleasantly compelled to
> respond by saying:
> > It may be worth pondering but I've seen new reports that the difference
> > between chimps and humans is larger than previously reported.
> The original
> > report only used a small portion of the genome to compare the
> two critters.
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> > "Si vis pacem para bellum"
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW - There was a segment on "Morning Report" (NPR)
> yesterday about the
> > > relative importance of the 'Y' chromosome. One interviewee (a
> > > woman) claimed
> > > that it was of no real importance because men and women's genetic
> > > makeup is
> > > 98.5% identical and that other 1.5% couldn't make that much
> difference.
> > > Another researcher they interviewed (a man) countered with
> the observation
> > > that humans and chimps also have 98.5% genetic material in
> > > common, at which
> > > point the reporter observed "that means that men have as much in
> > > common with
> > > their wives as they do with chimps" (genetically speaking of
> course). A
> > > thought worth pondering.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ga. Dawg" <gadog430@charter.net>
> > > To: "'Jim Bullard'" <jbullar1@twcny.rr.com>;
> > > <at-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:39 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [at-l] who, where, & why
> > >
> > >
> > > > I could explain this, but then I would be out of the club. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > > Dawg
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > <<Saunterer (who has never understood women including the one he
> > > > loves)>>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > at-l mailing list
> > > at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> > > http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > at-l mailing list
> > at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> > http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> --
> "We will be better and braver if we engage and inquire than if we
> indulge in the idle fancy that we already know -- or that it is
> of no use seeking to know what we do not know" -- Plato
>
> PGP: 0x9CE83121
> Fingerprint: 3807 29F8 8CD2 F837 90D7  812F 4803 F962 9CE8 3121
>