Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA03912 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 30 May 2000 23:37:32 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000530175234.00c28ba0@pop3.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:35:29 -0400 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: Re: Jabbering ! In-Reply-To: <003d01bfca6f$270b5d20$9a0abed4@default> References: <00052912372800.00664@faichney> <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174587E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <B0003551583@htcompmail.htcomp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 09:42 PM 5/30/00 +0200, you wrote:
>" between 800 and 3200 molecules are avaible only for humans. "
>
>Same question here, those stand for the difference and thus for language !?
No. I think it silly to think there is a language molecule uniquely
available to humans. It might be better to think of the human organism as
one way to use the available 40,000 to 200,000 molecules and a chimp is a
different way to organize the same basic set of molecules. Most of the
differences relate to a variety of passive amino acid markers.
I was simply asserting the 98% number is simply a comparison of the sets of
molecules available to human and chimp populations. One can draw whatever
conclusion they want from the statistics. Unfortunately, they raise just as
many questions as they answer.
Molecular biologist use the term 'gene' almost exclusively to denote 'the
code for a specific organic molecule.' Other working definitions for
'gene' exist, but only the molecular biologists can produce evidence that
98% of the human genome (defined as they use the term) is the same as a
chimp's.
Other biologists use an open ended definition for gene. Any new phenotypic
characteristic may be related to a 'gene,' especially if the characteristic
can be statistically linked to a DNA marker (no understanding of DNA code
implied). In the more general usage, there are an infinite number of
possible genes and the notion of a 98% similarity makes no sense.
I hope this helps. If one of the expert biologists on the list can better
explain the 98% number, I would greatly appreciate their effort.
Mark
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 30 2000 - 23:38:05 BST