huxley:

Rubbish, absolue rubbish. Why did you get these figures from? And why should we think they are reliable?

huxley:

Again, rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Why should we be convinced by this?

huxley:

You have just casually come across this and are making use of this to your advantage. There is absolutely no truth or grounding to this.

bawomolo:

future research would prove who is right between us.

bawomolo:

scientists who have spent time studying animals in the wild would disagree with your claim that we can't extrapolate much from animals.

DavidDylan:

My dear, you just proved how illiterate you are. It is an established fact that human DNA is 99% identical. You can google it up if you want. The 1% difference is the basis for the invention of DNA fingerprinting that was invented in the 1980s.

DavidDylan:

Here, educate yourself with this BioEd slide on the "structure and function of genomes" - Humans are more than 99% identical to each other at the DNA level. Only identical twins possess identical genomic DNA. It is the <1% variability in our DNA that makes each of us unique.

Olodo ni boy yi sha!

DavidDylan:

don't be silly my boy . . . here is just one example - Mice have 300 unique genes that they do not share with humans.

DavidDylan:

You have just casually come across as being clearly uninformed about the very science that allegedly forms the basis of your athiest beliefs. you don't know anything, go and read.

There are two popular strains of mice (129/Sv and C57BL/6) which do not develop any auto-immune disease. they are presently being used to study the human SLE phenotype that are not seen in mice.

Go study before telling me there is no truth or grounding to stuff.

Chrisbenogor:

David you are wrong, you are just being stubborn and you know it

huxley:

The point I was making is that - how reliable are these figures. To what extend should anyone trust them? Has science got a good track record of revealing the true nature of reality?

huxley:

Thanks for the pointer. I shall definitely peruse the link. But my question still remains. Why should I trust it? Should I treat it as a document or prediction from an Astrologer?

huxley:

What are the implications of having no common genes with humans?

huxley:

What are the implications of having genes in common with humans?

huxley:

I never said I knew everything. Of course, I shall go study the stuff you mentioned. In the meantime I would also like you to study the following;
1) Endogeneous RetroVirus

huxley:

2) The difference/similarities between Chromosome 2 in humans and primates

DavidDylan:

That is the basis for DNA fingerprinting so cut the crap about "how reliable are these figures".

Your question cannot "remain" because it is invalid. Its just like asking "why shld i trust that oxygen is actually 21% of air"? That only <1% of DNA is actually unique to all individuals is an incontrovertible fact that has stood for the last 30yrs.

Genes alone are not responsible for phenotypic traits in humans, variable regulation of genes are. The KC gene is present only in mice but not humans . . . when you stimulate mice with an inflammatory agent the lungs of the mouse triggers the over-expression of the gene. You cannot extrapolate that response to human lungs even using the very same agent since we don't have the gene. The closest man has is a possible ortholog.

Variable implications.
A gene present in man that is also present in another animal may be differentially regulated.

What has this to do with the issue?

Primates and humans also share 99% of their DNA. That is an established fact.

huxley:

Thanks again. Pardon me, but you are not getting my point. The point I am making are these:

1- What ever the numerical proportions are, should we trust them? Supposing someone came to you and annouce that percentage similarity was 75% instead of 99%, what would be your reaction?

Would that shatter the "philosophy" that you have erected on that fact that there is 99% similarity?

huxley:

2- The fact that DNA fingerprinting uses this technology may suggest "on the surface" that it have gained trust and widespread acceptability amongst the public and scientific/intellectual classess. But should we base our views on the majority opinion (albeit the well-qualified majority)?

huxley:

3- Is there any objectivity in these results? BAsically, if two or more well-qualified labs were to test the sample sample, are they likely to come out with the same results?

Those same scientists are busy writing reviews and conducting studies essentially showing that animal studies can only be extrapolated to man in a very limited form.

huxley:


The point I was making is that - how reliable are these figures. To what extend should anyone trust them? Has science got a good track record of revealing the true nature of reality? Why should I trust it? Should I treat it as a document or prediction from an Astrologer?

They're not reliable, since decisions and opinions can be influenced by the 'power shakers' and the 'unjust' to prove science right against religions.

DavidDylan:

It is an ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT . . . its not something that is up for debate. I havent "erected" any philosophy but simply told you what is easily obtainable in any genetics textbook out there.

It is not an "opinion" but a fact. Go buy a genetics textbook please.

Bro, they've been testing this for the last 30yrs in virtually any school with a genetics department.

Chrisbenogor:

@david
My brother e never reach to vex oh, see I am not saying you do not have a point oh, my question is this, is there any proof that homosexuality is totally a nurture concept?

huxley:

Now supposing I was to extrapolate this into the various areas of investigation. At what point would your confidence in scientific rationalism begin to be shaken:

1) Using DNA fingerprinting and molecular clock technology, it is possible to show that humans originate from Africa about 150000 years ago.

2) Using DNA analysis, it is possible to demonstrate that all living things have a common descent.

To what extend to you agree or disagree with these propositions?

DavidDylan:

- Again you don't seem to understand what you're talking about:

1. DNA fingerprinting is a method of comparing DNA fragments to determine whether they come from a common heritage. Since we do not have DNA samples from humans who originated 150000 years ago, how is it possible for you to claim that DNA fingerprinting was used to determine man's origin?

2. You cannot determine common ancestry simply by using DNA analysis alone. Primates and humans share 97-99% DNA similarity, a strong case for possible common ancestry which again isnt sufficient proof.

Even mice share thousands of genes with humans, does this mean man and mice come from a common ancestor? Where did this genetic divergence occur?

huxley:

Yes, there are molecular techniques for comparing DNA of various animals and estimating how far back the diverged. So if you go back far enough (circa 100 mya) , mice and humans had a common ancestor.

Now, studying the rate of mutation in mitochondrial DNA, it is possible to track human ancestory. This has been done to a specific time and place.

My question is - If you can trust DNA fingerprinting technology, is there any reason why you should not trust other studies on human ancestory based on DNA analysis?

DavidDylan:

simply because while DNA fingerprinting is an established fact, tracing ancient human ancestry using DNA analysis is nothing but conjecture.

You can't build a religion on estimates and guesses.

huxley:

Why do you say it is conjecture? Check out the following:

Supposing you inherit a conditions from your mother through mitochondrial DNA (mDNA), and supposing your mother were no longer alive.

Do you think it would be possible to state categorically that you inherited such condition from your mother, rather than some other woman?

Does the fact that your mother may be alive or dead change that outcome?

Why do you say it is conjecture? Check out the following:

Supposing you inherit a conditions from your mother through mitochondrial DNA (mDNA), and supposing your mother were no longer alive.

Do you think it would be possible to state categorically that you inherited such condition from your mother, rather than some other woman?

Does the fact that your mother may be alive or dead change that outcome?

m_nwankwo:


I guess that what David is trying to potray with his word "conjecture" is limitation. Evolutionary analysis of whole genome, mitochondrail DNA or Y-DNA would be irrefutable if you have all the DNA samples available. Unfortunately human DNA samples of thousands of years old are not available. Designers of software for evolutionary analysis make estimates based on Coalescent theory. Estimation of what happened thousands or millions of years ago using the DNA samples of present day humans is not the same as analysis based on the actual DNA samples. Ofcourse such estimates are more than a guess or conjucture but should not be accepted as a scientific truth. At best such analysis provide a model that will be tested and retested as more human DNA samples from past eras become availble.

huxley:

Well said.

Even when you have two samples at hand to compare, scientist have a method of characterising the margin of error in the analysis, correct?


For ancestral comparison, I suppose there is a well know margin of error with which such result would fall. For instance, why do all analysis so far put recent human ancestry in the thousands of years and NOT in the millions of years?

tpia:

maybe, maybe not.

The most important message here is this is one of the reasons why its wrong to idolize people[/b][b][b][/b][color=#990000][/color]. You don't know what they're struggling with, and when/if they fall, then a lot of others fall with them.

An athiest comes here and tells us firmly (but without proof) that sexual orientation is determined by genetics

The most important message here is this is one of the reasons why its wrong to idolize people. You don't know what they're struggling with, and when/if they fall, then a lot of others fall with them.

I am well aware also that efforts to explain sexual orientation biologically have largely failed so far but there is still on going research and someday maybe we can know for certain if it is totally nurture or not.

stop all this rubbish debates about humans connections with animals,we aint like them, remeber God created them and asked us to take charge over them