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.
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.
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:
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:
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?
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.
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.