>> ^castles:

I've heard things like 'we share 93% of our DNA with slugs' or something like that - so what does it mean that only '1-4% of our DNA is Neanderthal'? Can someone explain?
EDIT:
Here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about..
Mice, men share 99% of genes
Humans related to humble mud worm
Genome Study Finds Rats, Humans Share Stretches of DNA


The difference is hereditary and pair structure. Genetically speaking, many of the chromosome base pairs are nearly identical from animal to animal. Reproductively speaking, there can't be to much variance in the chromosomes for successful mating. A rat can't mate with a human for example. However, other pre-Homo sapiens's and Neanderthal could, and unlike mules, mate and have non-sterile offspring. The 1-4% is direct ancestry. If you were to compare, like that study did with mice, actual base pair similarity, it would rank higher than chimps most likely (99.9999% or something). However, there is a chance that they are more dissimilar than chimps, and through some reproductive fluke, were still able to have virile offspring. The point is, the difference he was highlighting is the direct mating heritage of early man with Neanderthal, much like someone saying they are 4% Indian, even though they are both 100% human.

>> ^bobknight33:

Darwin is wrong. When you look at the Cambrian explosion, for the most part everything suddenly appears during this event is such a rapid time frame. Darwin's theory alone can not explain this event. You go from bacteria type to animals. However we all see that each species adapts and evolves as is needed.

Cambrian explosion.


Quote from the Wikipedia article you link to: "Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s."

Considering homo sapiens only appeared around 200 000 years ago, with the latest common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans existing about 4-7 million years ago, 70-80 million years seems like a fracking long time. So if humans evolved in 4-7 million, why couldn't there be an explosion of many but less intelligent/more primitive species over a 70-80 million years period? Plus, the explosion of rationality in modern humans looks to me way more problematic that an explosion of multicellular life considering the humongous advantages of multicellular organisms. They simply had to hit the right balance/combination once, and they did about 580 million years ago.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else.
Of course. So what? Humans have children, even though those children are not clones of their parents. Why should we care that somewhere far down the line our offspring will speciate into something else? They will still be Homo in some way. /rebuilder

Aye, Homo is the way of the future :-D
But in all seriousness it means that we can't save our species. That's all.


Well, that applies whether we leave the planet or not. Semantic quibbles are the least of our challenges in colonizing another world.

I recently read some interesting stuff (i.e. nerd porn) relating to this here on Pharyngula. Just a smattering (the comments section mainly) of the very real obstacles preventing us from achieving this dream not likely until the far distant future. Also some interesting speculation on the idea that genetically modifying ourselves to be able to thrive on otherwise inhospitable planets being the more important/crucial barrier than our rocket/space propulsion technology.

I'm typically an optimist on this subject (damn you Carl Sagan!) but also a realist.

>> ^LarsaruS:

I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else.
Of course. So what? Humans have children, even though those children are not clones of their parents. Why should we care that somewhere far down the line our offspring will speciate into something else? They will still be Homo in some way. /rebuilder

Aye, Homo is the way of the future :-D
But in all seriousness it means that we can't save our species. That's all.

>> ^LarsaruS:

I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else.


Of course. So what? Humans have children, even though those children are not clones of their parents. Why should we care that somewhere far down the line our offspring will speciate into something else? They will still be Homo in some way.

>> ^LarsaruS:

I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else. Ergo the Human race as we are today, here defined as Homo Sapien as I doubt we would consider Cro Magnon or Neanderthal as Human beings if they were around today, can not survive even if we leave this planet. All paths of evolution lead to something else that is "better", it is just a matter of applying the right amount of time and biological pressures, or it dies out in the end.
Nietzche said it best: "Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species."

Then why bother to type that post?

Our lives have meaning to us today, this is true regardless of their ultimate end. If you have any values at all, it's rational to try to advance and sustain those values; the continuation of our species is, currently, necessary to that operation.

I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else. Ergo the Human race as we are today, here defined as Homo Sapien as I doubt we would consider Cro Magnon or Neanderthal as Human beings if they were around today, can not survive even if we leave this planet. All paths of evolution lead to something else that is "better", it is just a matter of applying the right amount of time and biological pressures, or it dies out in the end.

Nietzche said it best: "Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species."

i assume by 'holy' they mean the feeling of a spiritual-like experience. even though what's experienced doesn't technically have to exist - homo sapiens have evolved with such 'feelings'.

>> ^bovan:

Mr Tyson... If our DNA is 1% different from chimps, why are they 10 times stronger than us?
2 mindteaseers:
1. The human brain is twice the size of a chimp, which should make the difference in intelligence 50%? (or 100% from the chimps' POV)
(hope I'm not doing too much Glenn Beck math here..)
2. According to the wikipage "Chimpanzee genome project":
"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes"
And the project is still ongoing, and apparently they still don't know what all the genes do, if anything, in the human genomes (source: pseudorandom wikipedia pages)


The usage of that 1% statistic always seems a little funny to me.

It's like marveling at how altering only 1% of someone's nervous system between their skull and back means they can no longer move their body. "But his nervous system is 99% the same ... Amazing!"

I think the 1% figure is something of an irrelevant measurement... the measurement we care about (can he move his body or not) clearly is on a different order of magnitude (not a 1% difference).

Mr Tyson... If our DNA is 1% different from chimps, why are they 10 times stronger than us?

2 mindteaseers:
1. The human brain is twice the size of a chimp, which should make the difference in intelligence 50%? (or 100% from the chimps' POV)
(hope I'm not doing too much Glenn Beck math here..)

2. According to the wikipage "Chimpanzee genome project":
"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes"

And the project is still ongoing, and apparently they still don't know what all the genes do, if anything, in the human genomes (source: pseudorandom wikipedia pages)

all kinds of *terrible

and perhaps we now need a *facepalm channel, thanks to thick-headed folks like these.

(Perhaps folks who believe in Creationism don't understand how science works and how it provides a basis for evolution because they themselves are, in fact, closer on the evolutionary chain to Neanderthals than Homo sapiens sapiens.)

Google didn't tell you it's spelled "homo sapiens"?

I wouldn't wear it, but I'm sure there are plenty people around who'd love to have the word "HOMO" in big lettering on their chest.

>> ^schmawy:
Hey at least the origin of homosapiens in the eyes of Scientology goes back 75 million years. Christianity would have me believe humans originated 4,000 years ago.


Actually the genus "homo" has only been around for 2.5 million years, with "modern" man "homo sapiens sapiens" existing for about 200,000 years.

They're just as wrong, only in the other direction.

Glenn Beck gets the US Constitution wrong on such a usual basis, it's simply mind boggling. But is he really the stupidist man on the planet? Since those that drink up his words as honey, never bother to check on what he states is true and factual. No, Mr. Beck and his mindless followers are just a sub-species of Homo Sapien; they are homo-idiotous.

Chuck Norris wants to desecrate the USA flag?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

Say it aint so Chuck. Or I'll torch your movies on VHS! (Ok, I need a reason to torch crappy movies with bad plot)

Wow, what an astonishing display of utter pessimism from you guys. I hadn't expected my humanist optimism to be such an isolated view of the future.

For instance, saying that the sun blowing up will "cause all life to end" as a sort of nonchalant obviousness is pretty defeatist. For one, the scientific consensus so far is that it won't happen for a couple billion years. Do you really think we won't be able to develop decent interstellar spacetravel in 2.000.000.000 years?

Reminds me of a survey where something like 75% of people thought homo sapiens would be extinct in less than 2 centuries. I mean jeez.

I'm with you on the sense of impending global doom, though, sure. I just happen to think we're damned hard to eradicate. We're just living in interesting times.