Re: Human Genome May be Longer than Expected
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 20:09:16 +0000

At 08:18 PM 08/02/1999 -0400, Francis Maloney wrote:
>I am curious about this. How could they use sampling techniques? If they
>used them on correspondence of elements, we would be one hundred percent
>equal with chimps, if they used it on frequencies of nucleic acids, again
>probably one hundred percent correspondence. If they randomly sampled
>actual genes, the correspondence would be very low because the frquency of
>any individual gene is very low, perhaps one in 3 billion. If they
>compared sequences in known genes there is an element of bias in the
>selection process; and then they would need to claim one to one
>correspondence, gene for gene, human to chimps to extrapolate the results.
>This fact or myth that we share 98 percent of the genetic make-up of chimps
>comes up often and is a powerful argument, at least on the surface, for
>evolution. I'd like to know more about it

My books and articles are in storage for the next month so I can't look
this up again. But I believe that this was based on a DNA hybridization
technique in which a strand of human and a strand of chimp DNA were allowed
to combine. One of the strands was normal the other was the anti-sense
copy. The excess and shortages were calculable from this. And this
technique allowed them to determine the percentage of identity. Does
anyone else have a more firm piece of information?

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution