Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA01165 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 31 May 2000 17:16:03 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000531112704.00eb74c0@pop3.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:13:40 -0400 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: RE: Jabbering ! In-Reply-To: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C368909@NWTH-EXCHANGE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 10:03 AM 5/31/00 -0500, you wrote:
> The 98% relates to those genetic essentials for life at a given
>level. All organisms require a given amount of protein synthesis to live.
>Some can do it directly from their environment (yeast 50%) and therefore do
>not need the same "advanced" genetic structure of say we humans. Chimps
>have a similar (Primate) background but can live off the nutrients provided
>a little better or worse depending on the mechanism being looked at than we
>higher primates.
After blabbering on without doing any research, I checked the
web. Unfortunately, I have to retract my myth about 98% of organic
molecules in humans being found in chimps. No such experiment has been
performed.
The 98% number seems to have evolved from an article published in the
Jounal of Molecular Evolution (Sibley, C., and Ahlquist, J., 1984, The
phylogeny of the homonid primates as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization:
Journal of Molecular Evolution, v. 20, p. 2-15. ). The article is not on
the web, but another web page claims Sibley and Ahlquist report 97%
similarity. Their 97% number is based on a technique called DNA
hybridization. In this kind of experiment, small parts of human DNA are
split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex)
with chimp DNA. Rather than measure DNA sequences, measurement involves
the % hybridization of input DNA and strength of bonds.
It might be more accurate to say 97% of human DNA hybridizes with chimp DNA.
Here are some web pages discussing the experiment.
I couldn't find the Sibley-Ahlquist article on the web
Refining results after publication. These don't dispute the similarity,
but want to re-order the reported relationship between human, chimp and
gorilla:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/dnahyb2.html
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/dnahyb1.html
Hybridization technique
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html#DNA_DNAHybridization
Another experiment by Sibley on birds
http://www.thayerbirding.com/sibphyl.htm
The translation of 'The phylogeny of the homonid primates as indicated by
DNA-DNA hybridization' into urban myth might be an interesting story. Here
is a biased example of how one might tell the story:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp
Further Reading
Goodman, M., D. A. Tagle, D. H. A. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak,
B. F. Koop, P. Benson, and J. L. Slighton. "Primate evolution at the DNA
level and a classification of hominoids." F. Mol. Evol., 30: 260-266 (1990).
Ruvolo, M., T. R. Disotell, M. W. Allard, W. M. Brown, and R. L.
Honeycutt. "Resolution of the African hominoid trichotomy by use of a
mitochondrial gene sequence." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 88: 1570-1574
(1991).
===============================================================
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 : Wed May 31 2000 - 17:16:39 BST