/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4002020

Gonna need a source on that brother thing

It means that a chimp will have 1% of its DNA that is completely different from anything that would be found in a human
You and your siblings both have 100% of the DNA that could be found in any human, but you have only inherited 50% that is exactly the same as each other.
The other 50% you have is still human, but is not the same as the other 50% your sibling has, which is also still human DNA, but is for slightly different alleles.

One of the sentences is about the structure of the DNA, the other is about the exact content.

>>4002041
Hm. So 'share' shouldn't be used in both contexts of OP question.
What word(s) would you use?

>>4002041
>correct answer from harriet

Say whaaaaaaat??

>>4002048
I would say that an individual shares 50% of its DNA with its own individual siblings
Humans as a species share 99% of their DNA with Chimpanzees as a species.

>>4002055
I have posted some correct answers before, you do not need to act so surprised.
Obviously I sometimes make mistakes, but so do all of us.

>>4002067
Why do you write with such precision? You should relax a little. Write casual. Make sure your vivacious personality comes out in your writing. Right now you sound too robotic.

I still don't completely understand...

Like, if your brother or sister has a baby, that baby shares 25% of your DNA, right?

Then how come the baby of a chimp still shares 99% of your DNA?

The 50% is an average right? Been a while since 9th grade biology, but don't we really share anywhere from 0% to 100% of DNA with siblings?

the percentages refer to two different things that have to do with dna
/thread

An interesting side note:

The 99% (I've usually seen 97-98% but you get the gist) we share with a chimp is somewhat misleading only because we share close to 90% with bacteria

>>4002094
It does not sound robotic. I was just always taught that language should be written as coherently as possible, with as little slang and contractions used as possible.
It makes it more understandable to a larger proportion of the audience. This is especially helpful on the internet as many members of the audience could be foreign, and not fluent in English. It is is helpful to them to write clearly for their benefit, and also helpful to set a good example and help them learn good English.
Poor writing is often a sign of laziness more than a lack of ability, and I intend to show neither.

congratulations OP, you just found out that words have differing meanings depending on context!

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

>>4002109
technically, yes.
some people look more like their father than their mother.

>>4002132
It's more helpful for people to learn a language is the manner that it is used, not trying to decipher everyday language from formal stylistic language. This is an English speaking forum, so there is no need to make allowances for english learners.

Right now, you sound as if you're only pretending to be smart. if you were genuinely clever and had more command over language, we would have no problem using contractions like 'don't'.

>>4002109
Yes, but due to how the probability works, it is likely to be very close to 50% one way or the other, and is almost impossible to be close to 0% or 100%. But yes, it could be anywhere in that range.

>>4002144
>congratulations OP, you just found out that words have differing meanings depending on context!

This is why no one likes aspies.

I never questioned the contextual semantics, I questioned the underlying meaning. Asshole.

>>4002152
>almost impossible to get 100% the same
identical twins

>>4002132
>as little contractions as possible

Contractions are pretty widely understood by English speakers.

>many members of the audience could be foreign

Fuck em, it's an American site. I don't complain about not being able to understand shit posted on foreign web sites.

>>4002148
DNA is not just the code for appearance, it writes all aspect of your character as well, and some of the DNA has no purpose at all, and is just junk.

>>4002161
>and some of the DNA has no purpose at all, and is just junk.

>>4002165

+1

>>4002161
some DNA is not known to code for any proteins and was hastily named "junk DNA" by early researchers

We're actually nearer to 94% genetically similar to chimps, but it's the most fucking useless statement ever. Most life uses very similar proteins/genes. How an organism combines these proteins is more important.

genomes are weird.

>>4002165
she is actually right, she was just being too fucking simplistic as usual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

It's a meaningless sentence. Like this following one

>water is only one molecule away from hydrogen peroxide herp derp...

>>4002800
six reading frames of an alternatively spliced complete shit show. It's a wonder any of it works at all.

>>4002806
>butthatswrongyoufuckingretard.jpg

>>4002132

>Poor writing is often a sign of laziness more than a lack of ability, and I intend to show neither.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

There's a difference between precision and coherence, learn it. The people that understand this difference are better writers.

>>4002838
>FTFY

>>4002181
And you seem to think that it's unfair to call (retro)transposons and pseudogenes (all making more than 75% of human genome) "junk DNA"?

>>4002132
stop writing like a fucking aspie cunt! you look retarded, no1 fucking writes like that! this isnt a fucking exam!

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna.html

>>4002132
put that through a text-to-speech program.

>>4002911
>>4002904 here, I stand corrected, it's "only" 65% junk

>>4002906
Stop raging just because she's more intelligent and eloquent than you'll ever be.

>>4002920
A complete lack of intuition regarding the actual operation of the inner nucleus might lead you to believe non-coding regions are unessential. Fact of the matter is, it's not a computer, and it needs more than code to carry out any function.

You share 50% of your alleles with your siblings by descent. You also share more than that, because you parents come from the same (or very similar) populations. You also come from the same species, so you probably have 99.9...% DNA identity.
94% of your DNA is identical to chimp DNA on the nucleotide sequence level.

>>4002921
>eloquent
>'writing like a posh twat'
FTFY

and she is fucking NOT more intelligent than me, you cheeky little prick!

>>4002931
Complete lack of knowledge of what (retro)transposons are (and how selfish genetic elements spread through genomes) might lead you to believe that junk DNA has regulatory functions

>>4002906
oh look!

the dissociations are fighting!

the thing about siblings is only statistically though. You could theoretically share 100% of your genes with your siblings (without being twins) as well as 0%, but it's immensely unlikely

>>4002949
Alleles, not genes

>>4002946
disasociations?

>>4002955
Ah, yes of course

>>4002937
I think that it saves you a small amount of effort to type like a 16 year old. But it takes a little bit more effort to read, as you brain is likely more used to the standard syntax. If there are about 20 people reading for every 1 person typing, it is likely better to just take the extra effort and type normally.

Btw, Who is that girl you keep posting?

>>4002931
Junk DNA != non-coding DNA
Junk DNA = SGE, pseudogenes, etc
non-coding DNA = introns (functional), regulatory sequences (functional), origins of replication (functional), junk DNA (nonfunctional)

Some of non-coding DNA is functional. Most of it is not.

>>4002989
!= is mean to say that that they are not equivalent, rather junk DNA is a subset in non-coding DNA

What is the definition of junk DNA? Genes that don't contribute anything?

My Bio 30 teacher said "We currently don't know what the use of junk DNA is." It bothers me that a biology teacher would not understand that genes use bodies, not the other way around.

>>4003001
I would use junk DNA for anything that evolves neutrally and is not essential for the genome. Some of it would even reduce fitness, like retroviruses and transposable elements do.

>>4003001

Junk DNA doesn't seem to code for any proteins. It just sits there, seemingly unused by the cell.

>>4002937
>>4002906
Why do you pretend to be a youtube woman on 4chan?

>>4002979
its FvR.

>>4003033
lol, i dont pretend to be her, i just have some of her images.

>>4003037
http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&ix=c2&q=FvR&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&a
mp;source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=667&sei=%20sKq1Tvj6DabeiAKP8LA_

This is what my google image search of "FvR" yielded. I think google has the wrong FvR.

>>4003055
>>4003055
http://www.youtube.com/user/FactVsReligion

>>4002916
http://translate.google.com/#en|en|It%20does%20not%20sound%20robotic.%20%0A

>>4003068
She shounds like Sean Connery.

>>4002880
Why is everyone always so butthurt about ending sentences with propositions?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/grammartipsprepositions

>There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.

>>4003176
*prepositions
fuck me

>>4002906

Stop being mean to Harriet.

>>4002161

"junk DNA" was kind of a short-sighted term and it's a shame it was coined so successfully.

A lot of DNA we once thought of as junk actually serves a purpose (eg: controls coding gene expression or cleavage sites).

And at the very least unused DNA would serve as chaff against damage or the hayflick limit.

>>4002937
Why do you look like me with brown hair when I cross dress.

>>4003176

They're confusing "informal" with "erroneous."

They are under the impression that it is a grammatical rule and go all grammar nazi about it. This probably isn't entirely their fault; schools often beat formal grammar into children until they can't tell the difference between what's actually incorrect and what's merely informal.

http://chanarchive.org/4chan/sci/13660/question-for-ek

Identity of EK revealed! Wanna be murderers you know what to do! Last known residence included!

>>4004093
Pic related

>>4002041

You are quite hilariously stupid.

OP, it is misguided reporting. What they mean is, in terms of all of our DNA, we share 98% or so with chimps. We share about 99.5% with all other humans. In terms of that .% that changes among humans, we share 50% with siblings.

>>4002094
Talk in a conversational voice. Make it so you could, you know, imagine someone actually saying that, instead of saying half of it, saying, "Wait, hold on, lemme say that better" then saying that half again.

So what % of genes are shared between two people who are the most genetically different people alive? (excluding things such as downs where a massive accident causes a huge difference).

>>4002132
"as few contractions," so use the phrase "slang phrases" to get a countable collective noun. You don't want to say "as little slang and as few contractions" but you could. Use "...as few slang terms and contractions..." next time.