Leaderboard

Humans are different from one another. Male, female, curly hair, straight hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. So how far off is one human person's DNA from another very different looking person's? Or does that even factor into the mix?

I just shot off an email to a scientist I've occasionally been in correspondence with to see if there might be some clarification on this issue.

Can't answer your question, NorthWind. But if you would like an opinion that may help put things in perspective? Then I'm game I saw some mention that there are no Chimps at that elevation in the region. So: 1) It wouldn't be Chimps. Even if chimps WERE in the region, it still wouldn't be Chimps. Because if it were Chimps, the best anyone could hope for would be 98.9% Human. 99% Human would be an impossibility. 2) Dr. Todd Disotell claimed that the soil samples from under the initial WA State nest discovery showed Human DNA. Degraded Human DNA. In other words, not good enough to show novel primate, but certainly good enough to show Human. Since Humans are in the region in question on this thread, the samples, again, would show 100% Human, even if they, too, were degraded. It means the 99% Human DNA result needs to be seen in its proper genetic perspective. That is to say, neither Chimp NOR Human. Of course, any other conclusion would be an assumption- although it wouldn't necessarily be an assumption in MY book Hope this helps.

Getting lots of spring rain this year, which is good, but hard to find time to hike.....makes Bigtex a dull boy, lol. A few pics from recent hikes - very old stone wall that goes for miles through the woods, a cave pictured a few times before but this time something has been digging it out, some interesting marks showing what appears to be toe slides, and in one pic coming & going, a Deer skull put into branches on one of my trails, made friends with a toad, and a cool fossilized piece of bone:)

I think we can make an educated guess on what is between 98.9% and 99.5%. That leaves .6% of unknown territory which is quite a spread in evolutionary terms. Certainly would be an ambiguous enough bracket to confound an average lab technician or geneticist not looking for an unrecognized primate? But it also tells me that there is more than likely something in that .6% that is known by those tasked to look for.....that something I mean why wouldn't a qualified scientist take an interest in that half-percent window? I'll bet there are some that do indeed take an interest. After all, that half-percent represents over 30 million possible cross-over or unique base pair. Ya can't tell me no has studied that.