One frequently hears that all humans are 99.9% genetically identical and that humans and chimps are 99% genetically identical. These claims are ambiguous for a variety of reasons. For example, do we care about the similarity of non-coding DNA? Also, does the genetic similarity show that two creatures at issue are, in fact, quite similar--as the speaker usually intends to suggest--or, rather, does it show that a small genetic difference can have remarkably significant phenotypic effects? Either way, it turns out that these estimates are a bit too high.
I agree there are junk DNA or differences in the metabolisation of proteins that diverge from humans to chimpanzes and that represents a great unbridgeable chiasm.
But i would like to stress that if this is correct, why the the british regulator of embryo research (HFEA) aprove to investigate with "hybrids embryo".
If the most close living animal (chimpanzees) to humans have essential genetic disimilarities: What are the advantages to study exo-cells or hybrids embryos for the clinical disease in humans; because the rest of animals have a mayor chiasm. What can be learn from this?
Posted by: Anibal | 09/06/2007 at 11:38 AM