Mallz wrote:Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but they aren't). I'm unimpressed with everything you said and it shows you're still lacking some knowledge when it comes to the immune system and rejection (and you seem to be equating some concepts), as well as genetics in general. I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species and the obvious similarities that will (and better be for carbon based life) be there. I'll try to get back to you in rebutting your points(?) but I just don't know if I have the energy. Will it be similar to you talking to Mazzy and then never getting back to her (Mazzy is a girl, right?)? If it's going to be the same type of thing, I don't want to put the energy into it.
I must say you do strike an unnecessarily defensive tone. It may be that you know a great deal more than I do, in which case, why not simply point it out? This innuendo-driven response ("unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate)"
and "I'm unimpressed with everything you said"
and "I'm a bit disturbed if you don't see the very large differences and what they mean when comparing DNA between species"
and so on does not refute anything, and does not demonstrate your authority to contradict what I've said. As I said before, if you disagree with something I've said, explain what it is rather than sniping at it lethargically.
Mazzy? Did Mazzy say anything that I should have "got back to"? I'll go back and check. Mostly her posts, like yours, were more vaguely abusive than contradictory.
Yes, you did leave a conversation we were having on another thread. However, that's Ok. I made my point over and over.
Here is something below for you to check out. It's called backing my view with more than my opinion. It is nice to chat, but I find it a waste of time to go around in circles using vagaries and opinion alone.
In response to the OP it is reflective of a published paper I have previously posted on another thread, maybe when talking to you.
Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%."Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections
in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of “humanness” versus “chimpness.” “There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms,” Gagneux adds.http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biolo ... s/1836.pdf
This article was published in Science Mag and it was published by evolutionary scientists. Gagneux quoted in the article is an evolutionist. I probably used it in our previous conversation.
Here is another of my favorites. It is a published research article called "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content". It speaks to how incredibly different the chimp and human Y chromosome is. It talks about divergence because it is assuming evolution as a base underlying the research.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653425/
Below is an article by John Hawkes. He explains the research on the Y chromosome difference is lay mans terms. John Hawks is the Vilas-Borghesi Distinguished Achievement Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. He works on the fossil and genetic record of human evolution.
Here is a part of what he says in his article......"Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, “comparable to the difference … in chicken and human”.
This is from a new paper that’s just shown up in the Nature advance publication zone. The authors are Jennifer Hughes and colleagues, and the subject is the first complete sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome."http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chi ... -2010.html
Indeed, there is ample evidence to support the claim that the chimp and human genomes are not similar at all as is suggested in the OP.