# Measuring Genetic Eccentricity from the Cecilian Standard **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 27, 1999, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780 "1999-03-27T06:22:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2000, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/21 "2000-02-02T05:54:00Z")
Also, there is a great deal more to making a functional protein then DNA -\> mRNA -\> polypeptide. The same sequence of amino acids can be folded differently & behave very differently. Or some amino acids can be modified (post-translational processing) in the endoplasmic reticulum. Glucose molecules can be added to some (glycosylation). Metal ions can be used as a core to wrap the protein around - Mg++ & Mn++ are needed for many enzymes. So even 100% DNA homology and 100% amino acid homology need not result in structural & functional identity. * * * Sue from El Paso Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Jois](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea666f/32.png) [@Jois](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jois)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2000, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/22 "2000-02-02T06:37:00Z")
You’ve got it! * * * Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&\* codes 'til I get 'em right. ---
**Author:** ![NanoByte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecc23a/32.png) [@NanoByte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NanoByte)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2000, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/23 "2000-02-02T10:32:00Z")
Jois: So what happens to the human after only 15 yr as an adult? Does that refer to a human in the wild or something? Ray (in his _n_th childhood) ---
**Author:** ![Jois](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea666f/32.png) [@Jois](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jois)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/24 "2000-02-03T04:15:00Z")
I wasn’t sure about that either. The graph said, “Adult 15+” maybe to keep the graph from having human adulthood look like a smoke stack compared to the rest of the graph? Or just it’s way of saying human longevity is variable - which would also be true of Lemurs and Chimps - makes me vote for the “smoke stack” idea. It’s a college biology text ('87 I’d guess) and this was just an aside - didn’t even specify modern man or early Hss. * * * Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&\* codes 'til I get 'em right. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/25 "2000-02-03T22:43:00Z")
Alphagene: > [@](#): > > First of all chromosome number, like total DNA length has little to do with the “complexity” of an organism. Many amphibians have a longer genome than humans. IIRC, the genome of the lily is one of the largest known. I’ll back that up. From what I remember from by biology class, the two are completely unrelated. I vaguely recall some chart showing comparisons, but no numbers come to mind. RobRoy: > [@](#): > > Interesting also is the fact that variation between members of a species can be greater than that between the most closely related species, yet humans never produce chimps, etc. Where are you getting that? I don’t think that’s true. I saw Nanobyte’s post of this comment, but also Jimpy’s reply. In fact, it seems pretty silly to think that way. If we were overlapping, then we would be able to interbreed. Also, some humans would have offspring that closely resembled chimps, and chimps would have offspring resembling humans. I know Robin Williams is a hairy guy, but he’s not a chimp. There are some species this may be true for. Species differentiation is a specialty in biology. With animals, the differentiation is typically that they won’t mate and produce fertile offspring. However, there are some pairs of species that the reasons they won’t mate has to due with behavioral/pheromonal triggers and mating rituals. If they don’t share mating rituals/cues, then they won’t interbreed, even if genetically they are compatible. Thus you have species that are genetically compatible but biologically incompatible through other reasons. This is not the case for humans and chimps. (Well, I don’t _know_ someone hasn’t put this to the test.) Jois: > [@](#): > > The quote I gave you above had at least 3 references to groups who have have separately studied human to chimp or human to ape DNA, but this Tasmanian Devil Math Man is willing to say all of them put their shoes on the wrong feet? > > It’s okay if you or I get a little sloppy (Ray, wipe your feet outside on the mat) with our wording here but here’s Jared Diamond, physiologist mentioned in the above article, listen to his wording: “A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA…” > > Maybe he is just saying only mathematicians know how to do math? I don’t see what you’re saying. All the numbers above were reading 98 - 99 %. He said 98.5% - right between the two. Are you complaining about his choice of precision? ---
**Author:** ![NanoByte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecc23a/32.png) [@NanoByte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NanoByte)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/26 "2000-02-04T02:55:00Z")
Maybe Irishman can get a grant to study interbreeding between humans and chimps. Maybe some hairy “throwback” humans are actually half chimp. All this theory need some hard data. Ray (How do you get leprechauns anyhow?) ---
**Author:** ![Jois](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea666f/32.png) [@Jois](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jois)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/27 "2000-02-04T06:40:00Z")
Irishman, Nanobyte first couple of posts were aimed at how mathematically correct were the methods used to get these numbers and he went to an article where a mathematician examined this question critically. ---
**Author:** ![Jois](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea666f/32.png) [@Jois](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jois)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780/28 "2000-02-04T06:43:00Z")
Opps, sorry. So, the question from your previous post goes directly to my saying - roughly - that several people have done several studies and so on. * * * Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&\* codes 'til I get 'em right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/measuring-genetic-eccentricity-from-the-cecilian-standard/6780.md?page=1)