SJ> Here are Yahoo and CNN articles at:
SJ> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990922/sc/science_genes_3.html
SJ> and
SJ> http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/22/science.genes.reut/index.html
SJ> regarding the possibility that humans may have *twice* as
SJ> many genes (140,000) as previously thought
SJ> (60,000-80,000). If this holds up it makes the `humans
SJ> share 98% of their genes with chimps' line even more shaky
SJ> (unless of course chimps turn out to have twice as many
SJ> genes as first thought too!).
The 98% figure given by Stephen comes from DNA hybridization
studies, and is *not* "98% of genes", but should rather be
"98% of DNA". The number of genes/loci comes from genomic
sequencing studies. Stephen is invited to explain why anyone
would expect the number of loci found via genomic sequencing
to alter our opinion of the confidence with which to hold the
DNA hybridization result. Of course, skeptics can point to
the position of Dr. Marks on the original DNA hybridization
work. See
<http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/biblio.html>. But
even Marks' table would not increase the difference more than
another 1.7 percent or so. Marks criticizes the claim that
DNA hybridization is capable of resolving the three-way split
between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Marks does not
appear to argue that there are huge differences between humans
and chimpanzees. I would welcome correction on my
characterization of Marks' stance from anyone who has the
relevant papers.
Even the anti-evolutionary page at
<http://www.pblcoc.org/rr/r%26r9609a.htm> manages to
recognize and discuss the differences in approach.
A basic description of DNA hybridization can be found at
<http://www.science.lander.edu/rsfox/111syst.html>.
Another link:
<http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/ART14.htm>.
An interesting-sounding paper was mentioned on t.o. recently.
Jorge J. Yunis and Om Prakash. "The Origin of Man: A
Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy", in Science, Vol. 215, 19 Mar
1982, p.1525-1530.
I haven't had a chance to see this one myself yet. This is
said to look at the banding patterns of chromosomes in
primates. The relationships in banding patterns between the
various species examined are said to provide striking evidence
of similarities between the various species, and where
differences occur, one can see that the explanation of
inversion of chromosomal sections can cover much of the
apparent variation.
Wesley