*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, March 26th, 2011 8:50am PDT - promote requested by original submitter saber2x.

I think that 1% is responsible for communication. Without the ability to communicate so effectively we'd have built nothing. In essense the 1% makes us united where other species are more or less individuals. The human race is a giant computer of brains linked together in parallel, thats why we accomplish what we do. One day we'll know the meaning of 42, and maybe even understand the question...

1% difference ahead of us, well, I'm not that sure we'd be that different. The ability to make ideas outlive the individuals life seems to be the threshold. Maybe there is another threshold 1% along, but I sure as hell can't imagine it with my primitive monkey brain.

The biggest intelligence difference is really the development of the frontal lobe which handles communication, abstract thinking, problem solving and a host of other things involved in higher thinking.

It actually is a common misconception that chimp and human dna differ by only 1 percent.

Only the protein coding of our DNA is close to that similar. I think more recent studies which include comparing exons show the similarity at around 95-96%. Still an amazingly small difference.

They finally made a monkey out of me.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

They finally made a monkey out of me.

From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z?

Regardless of whether it's 1% or 5%, his point is still valid.

Interesting video but a bit dated. They have since learned that Apple users are 1% different from chimps, and PC users are 1% more advanced than Apple users.

What about epigenetic, Neil? Hmmm? HMMM?!! ANSWER ME DIGITAL NEIL!!!

We share '99% indentical DNA?' Really? I'm rendered speenchless. (;

We don't, it's not true. But our genome is still amazingly similar.


>> ^iaui:

We share '99% indentical DNA?' Really? I'm rendered speenchless. (;

But yes, Neil cannot be blamed for not knowing that our genome is not 99% similar to chimps. After all, as an astrophysicist he is not used to studying anything even remotely as complex as genetics.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
They finally made a monkey out of me.

From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z?


Do you hate every ape you see?

>> ^Jinx:

I think that 1% is responsible for communication. Without the ability to communicate so effectively we'd have built nothing. In essense the 1% makes us united where other species are more or less individuals. The human race is a giant computer of brains linked together in parallel, thats why we accomplish what we do. One day we'll know the meaning of 42, and maybe even understand the question...
1% difference ahead of us, well, I'm not that sure we'd be that different. The ability to make ideas outlive the individuals life seems to be the threshold. Maybe there is another threshold 1% along, but I sure as hell can't imagine it with my primitive monkey brain.


Maybe 1% ahead EVERYONE will realize religion is stupid and we won't keep trying to kill each other.

I don't think his point is really that valid, I mean it's not like we developed technology just out of our brain power, we developed it over time from simple technology to complicated. So I think it's more of a matter of our increased perception, enhanced memory capabilities and our ability to communicate that set us apart so we can continue to make tools that are more and more complex. Since ultimately it's tools that originally help us explain and understand everything and not really ourselves. Also I think the major power that pushes technology is generally our tendency towards violence, greed and jealously interacted between different tribes.

What we have is an accumulation of knowledge and skills by specialization of individuals and cooperation among groups that has continued for a very long period of time. That 1% difference is simply the threshold above which it becomes possible to start the long process of accumulation generation upon generation.

His logic is false. He's suggesting that the (asserted) 1% difference is a measure of a movement on a clear continuum of awesomeness, like the chimp ability to swing in trees is somehow less than ours, and that such a direction to continue evolving exists.

A better comparison would have been in another direction, like comparing amoeba to chimps, and then asking again if it's such a surprise that humans and chimps share 99% (or whatever) DNA. In that light, not really surprising at all.

Very disappointing for someone of his stature to make such a poor argument.

then again, he might be right

The difference is actually a bit more, the traditional view is 2%, but I've heard Craig Venter say its probably a bit more than that, maybe as much as 5%. But anyway, like other commenters have suggested, this is a bit psuedo-biologistic by Tyson. He still has a point, but I think hes best when he sticks to astronomoy and astrophysics. Difference in genetic makeup is not the same thing as difference in phenotype. For example, only relatively few genes control the development of the entire brain, but even if we identify them all and understand them all, we are still far from understanding the brain itself, because the brain is more than just a product of genes, its a product of development and lots of complex interactions.

But his point does pretty much stand, we could all look like blabbering morons to more intelligent creatures. Atleast Tyson is not anyware near as idiotic as Michio Kaku on evolution, that was just embarrassing

This is pure propaganda to "prove" to us that we are all the same when we are not.