Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[pshun2404]

We have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas of the anatomy and physiology are analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees�, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721)

Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only particular lineages of creature or sometimes only in a specific species or variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to no have evolutionary history. Despite that we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996). Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that species or to varieties within a species.

This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function, but the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/chimp difference scenario is staggering.

Any thoughts?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

LOL yeah I can see your tail? Common ancestor from your book of lies?

???

It is not believed that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans had a tale actually. Even when you are trying to be cute you can't be accurate...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 59 by acehighinfinity]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5967742/the-scie ... uman-tails

People are born with tails... that is a very insensitive remark, but since it was obviously made in ignorance...

[pshun2404]

The problem with your photo is that the conclusion is that "No modern tails have been found to have any bone tissue. They're mostly skin with fat, connective tissue, nerves, and muscle tissue. They can be just a stub, but some babies can be born with tails 13 centimeters long." ergo Not vestigial tails

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 63 by pshun2404]

A tail with the bone tissue missing? Sound very much like vestigial to me.

[pshun2404]

This extremely rare genetic abnormality (only 30 cases worldwide since mid-1800s) none of which are recognized as actual tails, can only represent something vestigial in humans if it can be shown that humans at one time actually has tails and now they have a lesser example or now having none as compared to the earlier reality.

This however is going off the OP topic because neither can chips be shown to ever have possessed tails. But for the sake of clarification...

Ves·tig·i·al

adjective:
1. forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable.

synonyms: remaining, surviving, residual, leftover, lingering

• In BIOLOGY: (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution. Being or having the form of a vestige.

Merriam Webster’s, Oxford’s, and all other definitions agree...there is no need to redefine the term or make up ever newer nuances to support one’s view, Just read what the word means and apply it.

[Kenisaw]

Besides the review by Gagneux and Vark which describes a whole list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes (despite their adaptation of the data to fit the historical narrative). The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. See Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13.

From creation.com: "The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations"

I knew you didn't write that yourself, but I realized you changed it up enough to make it harder to find.

I get tired of believers quoting material and presenting it as their own when all they've really done is plagiarized something from a website run by their creationist masters.

I respectfully ask that everyone in here give proper credit to the material you source in your posts. As someone who has copyrighted material out there this is a particular pet peeve of mine. It's not right to use the work of others without giving credit...

[pshun2404]

And I respectfully apologize for not giving the primary source, though that does not take away from the point made by these scientists, it only speaks of my lack of concern for proper protocol. From now on I will make sure I am emphatic regarding the material posted and where it came from.

[DanieltheDragon]

And I respectfully apologize for not giving the primary source, though that does not take away from the point made by these scientists, it only speaks of my lack of concern for proper protocol. From now on I will make sure I am emphatic regarding the material posted and where it came from.

And what would that point be? That we are just slightly less related? Maybe not 98.5 but 98.4?

[terrydactyl]

Any thoughts?

My thoughts are, what's the point. The paper you cited doesn't just show a greater genetic difference between chimps and human, it shows a greater difference between all mammals. It doesn't change the fact that chimps are our closest species relative.

But the real issue is this is a debating point for evolution deniers. This is a classic example of cherry picking some data in isolation in order to disprove evolution. It doesn't work. Evolution is supported by numerous evidence, crossing many fields like physiology, genetics, paleontology, and geology.

For an interesting study supporting our understanding of our chromosome 2, which can be shown to be a fusion of to ape chromosomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

[Kenisaw]

And I respectfully apologize for not giving the primary source, though that does not take away from the point made by these scientists, it only speaks of my lack of concern for proper protocol. From now on I will make sure I am emphatic regarding the material posted and where it came from.

I appreciate that. One of the other reasons I don't like people quoting stuff is that there is no guarantee that they understand the material being stated in the quote. (I am not saying you don't understand what you posted, my comment is speaking in generalities). Too often I see posters cut and paste such technical paragraphs into their posts, and when I try to discuss the particulars about an item it becomes obvious very quickly that they didn't bother to comprehend anything contained in their cut and paste job. Even worse is when they link a 2 hour youtube video as an explanation, instead of offering, in their own words, exactly the point they are attempting to convey...