we are in a ice age

[pjmret]

Laboratory Rat Gene Sequencing Completed; Humans Share One-fourth Of Genes With Rat, Mouse​

Laboratory Rat Gene Sequencing Completed; Humans Share One-fourth Of Genes With Rat, Mouse

A large team of researchers, including a computer scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, has effectively completed the genome sequence of the common laboratory brown rat, Rattus norvegicus. This makes the third mammal to be sequenced, following the human and mouse.

www.sciencedaily.com

so when you actually looik at the detailed science...99%? lol

 

[LittleGreenMan]

Laboratory Rat Gene Sequencing Completed; Humans Share One-fourth Of Genes With Rat, Mouse​

Laboratory Rat Gene Sequencing Completed; Humans Share One-fourth Of Genes With Rat, Mouse

A large team of researchers, including a computer scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, has effectively completed the genome sequence of the common laboratory brown rat, Rattus norvegicus. This makes the third mammal to be sequenced, following the human and mouse.

www.sciencedaily.com

so when you actually looik at the detailed science...99%? lol

Your close relatives? I always thought you were a Norway Brown Rat, but then what do I know?

 

[LittleGreenMan]

Scientific truth is not established on the basis of majority mob opinion. The overwhelming majority mob of geologists mocked J. Harlen Bretz to scorn for suggesting the Channeled Scablands, like the Grand Canyon, was formed by major flooding and not by millions of years of slow river erosion.

J Harlen Bretz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected.[9] The Geological Society of Washington invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a meeting on 12 January 1927, where several other geologists presented competing theories. Bretz saw this as an ambush, and referred to the group as six "challenging elders". Their intention was to defeat him in a public debate, and thereby end the challenge his theories posed to their conservative interpretation of uniformitarianism. ...

By the time the Geological Society of America finally recognized Bretz’s work with the Penrose Medal, the field’s highest honour, it was 1979 and Bretz was 96 years old. He joked to his son, "All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over."[12]

As an aside, the Great Flood may have been a recollection of the geological event that further separated the Bosporus Straits allowing the Mediterranean Sea to flood into the Black Sea. Investigators have found the remains of settlements underwater where they speculate the shoreline would have been. This is close enough to the Biblical peoples ~Mesopotamia to have imprinted. The timeframe of ~8 to 9,000 BC works, too.

 

[the annoying thing]

Your close relatives? I always thought you were a Norway Brown Rat, but then what do I know?

he shares a lot with a apes anus

 

[mark francis]

i didn't say it was a majority opinion so you should believe it just because it was, i was saying how stupid you were for picking a minority one that has since been discredited.
but you are a science *****, so there's that

If I am a science ***** then what about the misguided majority mob of geologists who were all wrong about the Channeled Scablands for 50 years?

 

[mark francis]

We share a large amount of our DNA in common with all mammals through our shared evolutionary past. But I think you have confused two different ideas. Sharing 99% of genes is not the same as sharing 99% of DNA. While we may have nearly the same number and type of genes (i.e. rat genes have counterparts in the human genome) it does not mean that these genes are completely identical. They are comparing the number and function of the genes only.They are NOT comparing the actual DNA sequences.

Humans do not share 99% of genes with animals. That figure is edited and misleading. How many genes cannot even be compared and are therefore not even included in the calculation, proving the similarity is far from 95% or 98%.

What does the fact that we share 95 percent of our genes with the chimpanzee mean? And how was this number derived?

www.scientificamerican.com

MARCH 1, 2004

What does the fact that we share 95 percent of our genes with the chimpanzee mean? And how was this number derived?​

Environment
Prescott Deininger of the Tulane Cancer Center in New Orleans explains.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports the idea that the chimpanzee is the closest genetic relative of humans. This was first determined through a large number of studies, some of which used genomic DNA hybridization to detect the level of sequence mismatches, as well as analyses of individual protein molecules. These early findings suggested that chimps and humans might typically have sequences that diverge from one another by only about 1 percent.
We now have large regions of the chimpanzee genome fully sequenced and can compare them to human sequences. Most studies indicate that when genomic regions are compared between chimpanzees and humans, they share about 98.5 percent sequence identity. The actual relationship depends on what types of sequences are being compared and the size of the comparison unit. A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 suggested that under the most rigorous alignments, the match would be only 95 percent similarity overall. This resulted from the researchers treating changes involving small insertions and deletions of bases differently than previous investigators did over a very large region. A few questions still remain as to whether the chimpanzee genome sequence data are of high enough quality at this point for reliable comparison. In general, however, the overall conclusion is that most genes would share about 98.5 percent similarity. The actual protein sequences encoded by these genes would then typically be slightly more similar to one another, because many of the mutations in the DNA are "silent" and are not reflected in the protein sequence.

 

[mark francis]

Humans do not share 99% of genes with animals. That figure is edited and misleading. How many genes cannot even be compared and are therefore not even included in the calculation, proving the similarity is far from 95% or 98%.

What does the fact that we share 95 percent of our genes with the chimpanzee mean? And how was this number derived?

www.scientificamerican.com

MARCH 1, 2004

What does the fact that we share 95 percent of our genes with the chimpanzee mean? And how was this number derived?​

Environment
Prescott Deininger of the Tulane Cancer Center in New Orleans explains.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports the idea that the chimpanzee is the closest genetic relative of humans. This was first determined through a large number of studies, some of which used genomic DNA hybridization to detect the level of sequence mismatches, as well as analyses of individual protein molecules. These early findings suggested that chimps and humans might typically have sequences that diverge from one another by only about 1 percent.
We now have large regions of the chimpanzee genome fully sequenced and can compare them to human sequences. Most studies indicate that when genomic regions are compared between chimpanzees and humans, they share about 98.5 percent sequence identity. The actual relationship depends on what types of sequences are being compared and the size of the comparison unit. A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 suggested that under the most rigorous alignments, the match would be only 95 percent similarity overall. This resulted from the researchers treating changes involving small insertions and deletions of bases differently than previous investigators did over a very large region. A few questions still remain as to whether the chimpanzee genome sequence data are of high enough quality at this point for reliable comparison. In general, however, the overall conclusion is that most genes would share about 98.5 percent similarity. The actual protein sequences encoded by these genes would then typically be slightly more similar to one another, because many of the mutations in the DNA are "silent" and are not reflected in the protein sequence.

Now for another perspective, comparing all the genes and not just those that are most similar:

A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity

Creationist scientists Drs. Tomkins and Bergman came up with an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimps of around 81%—quite a difference!

answersingenesis.org

A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity​

by Frost Smith


Often scientific reports or mainstream media claim 99% identical comparisons between human and chimp genomes. The number has been dropping in some circles recently, but is still on the order of 95+%. There is inherent bias in these calculations because significant lengths of DNA that are quite different between the two species are omitted from the results. A very simplified comparison would be comparing blue jeans (pardon the pun) with cut-off jeans. The fact that the legs are missing on one is discounted and only the upper portion is compared, with particular emphasis on the comparison of the rivets, buttons, pockets, topstitching, and zipper, but not much comparison on the brand, color, or the quality of the fabric. In a similar way, gaps or missing portions (like the missing legs on the cut-off jeans) and regulatory portions (like the fabric) from one are typically ignored, and only gene-rich segments of DNA are analyzed (like pockets, buttons, and rivets). Taking all those things into account, in 2012 creationist scientists Drs. Tomkins and Bergman came up with an overall similarity of around 81%—quite a difference!1 Other researchers have come up with even lower percent similarity, averaging around 70%.2 In 2013, Tomkins tested alignment of each chimpanzee chromosome against its human counterpart and only found an overall genome similarity of about 70%, which was published in Answers Research Journal.

 

[mark francis]

Laboratory Rat Gene Sequencing Completed; Humans Share One-fourth Of Genes With Rat, Mouse​

Laboratory Rat Gene Sequencing Completed; Humans Share One-fourth Of Genes With Rat, Mouse

A large team of researchers, including a computer scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, has effectively completed the genome sequence of the common laboratory brown rat, Rattus norvegicus. This makes the third mammal to be sequenced, following the human and mouse.

www.sciencedaily.com

so when you actually looik at the detailed science...99%? lol

Calculating similarities between different kinds of life forms is subjective, not objective. Reports of close genetic similarities between humans and animals most often simply ignore large segments of data that defies efforts of comparison.

Are the genes of humans and mice similar? Apparently so.

Why Mouse Matters (genome.gov) 7-23-10

Why Mouse Matters

Overall, mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes. Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Of the approximately 4,000 genes that have been studied, less than 10 are found in one species but not in the other.

Both the mouse and human genomes contain about 3.1 billion base pairs (or chemical letters). Only about 5 percent of the sequence consist of protein-coding regions (genes). More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences.

On average, the protein-coding regions of the mouse and human genomes are 85 percent identical; some genes are 99 percent identical while others are only 60 percent identical. These regions are evolutionarily conserved because they are required for function. In contrast, the non-coding regions are much less similar (only 50 percent or less). Therefore, when one compares the same DNA region from human and mouse, the functional elements clearly stand out because of their greater similarity. Scientists have developed computer software that automatically aligns human and mouse sequences making the protein-coding and regulatory regions obvious.

Human, mouse and other mammals shared a common ancestor approximately 80 million years ago. Therefore the genomes of all mammals are comparably similar. Comparisons of the DNA sequence of the dog or the cow with that of the human theoretically would be quite informative. However, the mouse has a major advantage in that it is a well-established experimental model. Not only can genes easily be found in mouse genome sequence, but it also is possible to test experimentally the function of those genes in the mouse. Thus, scientists can mimic in mice the effect of DNA alterations that occur in human diseases and carefully study the consequences of these DNA misspellings. Mouse models also afford the opportunity to test possible therapeutic agents and evaluate their precise effects.

Related links:

• Mouse Release
• Expert Commentary

 

[pjmret]

Calculating similarities between different kinds of life forms is subjective, not objective. Reports of close genetic similarities between humans and animals most often simply ignore large segments of data that defies efforts of comparison.

Are the genes of humans and mice similar? Apparently so.

Why Mouse Matters (genome.gov) 7-23-10

Why Mouse Matters

Overall, mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes. Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Of the approximately 4,000 genes that have been studied, less than 10 are found in one species but not in the other.

Both the mouse and human genomes contain about 3.1 billion base pairs (or chemical letters). Only about 5 percent of the sequence consist of protein-coding regions (genes). More than 90 percent of the genome is non-coding DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA, that has no known function. Because of the vast amount of non-coding DNA, it is very hard to recognize the genes simply by looking at one sequence alone; even the best of today's computational programs fail to identify many coding sequences and misidentify others. It is similarly difficult to identify regulatory regions within DNA - the "switches" that turn gene expression on or off, up or down - as they exist only as poorly defined "consensus" sequences.

On average, the protein-coding regions of the mouse and human genomes are 85 percent identical; some genes are 99 percent identical while others are only 60 percent identical. These regions are evolutionarily conserved because they are required for function. In contrast, the non-coding regions are much less similar (only 50 percent or less). Therefore, when one compares the same DNA region from human and mouse, the functional elements clearly stand out because of their greater similarity. Scientists have developed computer software that automatically aligns human and mouse sequences making the protein-coding and regulatory regions obvious.

Human, mouse and other mammals shared a common ancestor approximately 80 million years ago. Therefore the genomes of all mammals are comparably similar. Comparisons of the DNA sequence of the dog or the cow with that of the human theoretically would be quite informative. However, the mouse has a major advantage in that it is a well-established experimental model. Not only can genes easily be found in mouse genome sequence, but it also is possible to test experimentally the function of those genes in the mouse. Thus, scientists can mimic in mice the effect of DNA alterations that occur in human diseases and carefully study the consequences of these DNA misspellings. Mouse models also afford the opportunity to test possible therapeutic agents and evaluate their precise effects.

Related links:

• Mouse Release
• Expert Commentary

its subjective and yet you brought it up in an attempt to make a "point". lol

 

[pjmret]

Your close relatives? I always thought you were a Norway Brown Rat, but then what do I know?

what do you know? pretty much nothing, based on the stupidity of your posts.

 

[pjmret]

he shares a lot with a apes anus

that's your obsession, mr "I am straight really I am" man lol

 

[LittleGreenMan]

I don't think Democrats share more than 50% of genes with humans. I haven't done a study on them because they stink, too. Some things just aren't worth the price you'd have to pay to know for sure.

 

[pjmret]

I don't think Democrats share more than 50% of genes with humans. I haven't done a study on them because they stink, too. Some things just aren't worth the price you'd have to pay to know for sure.

you had me at "i don't think"

 

[LittleGreenMan]

you had me at "i don't think"

That makes you 0 for 6.

 

[pjmret]

That makes you 0 for 6.

i'm surprised you can count that high.