/sci/ - Science & Math

Sounds about right. We need pretty much all the same proteins for survival and have essentially the same morphology and physiology.

I'd reckon most of the differences would be in the expression regulation regions i.e. "non coding" regions

>>6751951
They keep changing it around on a whim.

When Neanderthal decode was done they decided to bump chimps and other apes down to make room for Neanderthals to get a better looking number. It's a bunch of jew science who want to deny that don't want us to know how separate we are from the niggers and how much farther they are from the abos and pygmies.

>>6751951

They keep changing it around on a whim.

When Neanderthal decode was done they decided to bump chimps and other apes down to make room for Neanderthals to get a better looking number. It's a bunch of jew science, they don't want us to know how separate we are from the niggers and how much farther they are from the abbos and pygmies.

>>6751951

They keep changing it around on a whim.

When the Neanderthal decode was done they decided to bump chimps and other apes down to make room for Neanderthals to get a better looking number. It's a bunch of jew science, they don't want us to know how separate we are from the niggers and how much farther they are from the abbos and pygmies.

>>6752009
This type of mouth drool is what unscientific thinking gives us

>>6752009
>They keep changing it around on a whim.

In your case it is 100%

>>6751951
>sharing genes
>sharing DNA
the terms are interchangeable

>>6752009
Jew science you say?

>>6752033

>le happy scientist

Something worth noting in this thread is that although we may share about 99% of our DNA with chimp's the human genome is made up of about 3 Billion base pairs so that translates to about a difference of 10 million base pairs between humans and chimps, which we can attribute our differences to

>>6752073
Of those 3 billion nucleotides, only 3% of those genes are for encoding, the remaining 97% is 'junk' DNA. This 'junk' DNA doesn't mean it's useless. About 80% of the 'junk' DNA is ssRNA which regulate by 'switching on or off' genes to compensate for environmental changes.

>>6752073
>human genome is made up of about 3 Billion base pairs

Cool, you could put your dna on a single sided dvd with no compression (aside from not saving the redundant side of the pair)

I want to dl the torrent of you :D

>>6752133
You're pretty close to getting it on a CD. Assuming 2 bits per base pair, that's 750 MB. If you allow overburning, or if that 3 billion is a bit of an overestimate, then you've got it.

>>6751951
depends what part of the dna you are looking for, functional part or junk... i remember reading that we share 60% of our dna with bananas, so a 97% means we are fucking distant relatives.

>>6752087

It's likely nearly all of our genetic code is used in some way, be it "junk" or otherwise. It would be very wasteful to carry around 90% of useless trash parts, and nature doesn't tend to do wasteful (in b4 human ovaries).