4 ms·
Considering we only differ from chimps by about 4% in genome or less, this is really fine grained analysis. Guess maths stats & modelling play a big role. Whic
by kopirgan 2y ago
Considering we only differ from chimps by about 4% in genome or less, this is really fine grained analysis.
Guess maths stats & modelling play a big role. Which means some other experts will conclude differently from same data.
- pkkkzip 2y agowhat is the best explanation for this closeness? the only two species capable of engaging in organized warfare? humans and chimps. how likely is it that an intelligent entity that precedes humanity came along and decided to chose chimpanzees to breed with? anybody telling you they know what happened before the time we had written records are selling you something.
- kopirgan 2y agoActually there's very little material to go by as experts say. Fossils of apes are rare and those with DNA are rarer. Point is media and charlatans will use these research, add their own bs & start unscientific fads, racial theories or paleo diet sort of scams. That's the concerning part - research can go on, present new info etc that's welcome.
- BurningFrog 2y agoHumans and Chimps became separate species around 6 million years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_...
- Tor3 2y ago> anybody telling you they know what happened before the time we had written records are selling you something. Right, so plate tectonics didn't happen because nobody wrote it down when America and Africa gradually separated? Supernovas didn't happen in the past because even though we can see the remains, nobody wrote it down thousands of years ago? (except for when they did, as for SN 1054)
- pkkkzip 2y agodo plate tectonics have DNA?
- Tor3 2y agoYou used that exact line of argument in another comment too. Nothing limiting it to DNA, and why would that matter anyway? It's like any other scientific research.
- defrost 2y agoProbably not worth wasting your time with that one, a lot of deliberate low level trolling from a recent account.
- jdiff 2y agoI'll take reasoned theory with bounds and uncertainties over pre-historic fanfiction.
- fsckboy 2y ago>Considering we only differ from chimps by about 4% in genome from what I understand, while human males differ from male chimps by about 1% in genome*, that still means that human males are more closely related to male chimps than they are to human females. * https://knowyourdna.com/human-and-chimpanzee-dna/ https://knowyourdna.com/human-and-chimpanzee-dna/
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> while human males differ from male chimps by about 4% in genome, that still means that human males are more closely related to male chimps than they are to human females These comparisons are stupid. How do you compare the similarity of books? Letter counts? Word counts? Is Romeo & Juliet more similar to Captain Underpants than its own translation into Italian?
- nine_k 2y agoNo, it's like comparing editions of basically the same book ("Hominid"), with some paragraphs using slightly different wording, a phrase added or removed here and there, old typos fixed, new typos added, etc. It's still largely the same book, but the tone is different in some key places, and the finale leaves a very different impression as a result.
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoHomo sapiens is wildly different from apes physiologically. (Apes look more anthropomorphic in our perception than dogs or cats, but this means nothing. Humans find two dots and a circular arc to be anthropomorphic too.)
- lumpa 2y agoHomo sapiens are apes and are also virtually identical in physiology compared to other apes if the external comparison group is dogs or cats.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago