Apes DNA v Human DNA.

Originally posted by Always Free
How much of a role does the jaw play in speech though? The voice box and tongue are very necessary for speech but you can talk without moving your jaw.
Click to expand...

The role of the FOXP2 gene was first identified in a family with a history of severe speech impediment. From the Wellcome link:

Unlike all the other families with speech and language disorders that Professor Monaco’s group was studying at the time – in which the disorder is inherited in a complicated way due to the interplay of many different genetic factors – the KE family’s disorder was inherited in a simple fashion and as the result of a defect in a single gene.

About half the family, which spans three generations, suffer from the disorder.

“They have trouble controlling fine movements in the lower half of their face, and this gives them problems when making the complicated sounds necessary for speech,” explains Dr Fisher. In addition to this problem, they have a variety of problems in both spoken and written language and grammar. “For example,” says Dr Fisher, “if you ask them to write down as many words as they can think of beginning with a particular letter, they don’t do very well – and that defect is clearly not related to articulation.”
Click to expand...

So the FOXP2 gene isn't just involved in jaw structure, but appears to have a role in formulation of speech. Yes, you can speak without using your jaw, but don't bet on making yourself that well understood.
 
Shane Costello said:
In the case of cattle (I work in the field of bovine genetics) the current estimate is that the bovine and human genome are 95% similar.
Click to expand...
Mooooooooo!
 
This just in:
Chimps are human

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.
Click to expand...
 
BillyJoe said:
Alfie,

Pretty damn important don't you think?

Actually I think that 96% figure includes junk DNA (non-functional DNA). Junk DNA comprises about 95% of the total but this figure may be way out because some of the junk DNA could turn out to have a function after all. If it's a true figure, however, and the difference (4%) between human and ape DNA is in the functional DNA only, then the difference is pretty substantial.

Hell, it better be!

regards,
BillyJoe
Click to expand...

Sorry to be picky Billy, but for some reason this always bugged me.

There is no such thing, really, as junk DNA. At least, not in the past five years. Most introns and exons are showing to have non-coding DNA - its purpose is any number of physical properties, some as simple as mere protection during replication, others as complicated as directing proteins during protein synthesis.

In truth, we have a great deal of coding in common with most animals.

The two 'most different' organisms on the planet are two types of bacteria.

Athon
 
athon said:
There is no such thing, really, as junk DNA.
Click to expand...
Seems you're right......

"Junk DNA"

So much so that it is now referred to as non-coding DNA instead of Junk DNA as articpenguin stated above.

Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development

Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal gene

Over 60 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes

Some studies indicate that non-coding DNA regulate translation of proteins
Click to expand...
 
BillyJoe said:
....evolution did not have much work to do to get from a chimpanzee to homo sapiens. ;)
Click to expand...

Alert!

Our cousins are not our grandparents...
 
Dymanic said:

There is in fact less actual genetic difference between, say the shortest, blackest Pigmy and the tallest, blondest German, than we would expect (or so say some geneticists). It has been suggested (though it is still far from well-established) that the human population passed through a 'bottleneck' around 74k years ago--possibly the result of a 'volcanic winter'. I think Gould said that there is more variation in some groups of chimpanzees than there is in the entire human population worldwide.
Click to expand...
The physical characteristics you can see with your eyes are a convenient way for us define genetic disparity, but that's only because we're not well equipped to detect other characteristics of disparity. A Llasa Apso and a Wolf are really, really closely related, and look at how different they appear.
 
Originally posted by DrMatt

Uh, yeah, that's a taxonomic naming issue, mostly. Life happens and has happened without any regard for our taxonomic naming conventions.
Click to expand...
They aren't just suggesting moving the line of distinction (which, I agree is mostly arbitrary)--they're basing it on their studies showing the genetic makeup of humans and chimps having more in common than previously thought. A lot more:
The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.
Click to expand...
So now we're down to a .6% difference between the two species, which leaves me still wondering then how much difference there is between the two most genetically distant humans.

Originally posted by hgc

The physical characteristics you can see with your eyes are a convenient way for us define genetic disparity, but that's only because we're not well equipped to detect other characteristics of disparity. A Llasa Apso and a Wolf are really, really closely related, and look at how different they appear.
Click to expand...
That's my point exactly. But also, you would expect to see a certain amount of variation, and in humans this is said to be less than what you would expect.
 
Meet the new member of the family:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3042781.stm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
quote
Not all scientists will accept the new classification.

Whereas Dr Wildman's team find that chimps and humans are 99.4% similar, other researchers last year put the similarity at around 95%; the figure you get depends on precisely which genetic differences you look at.

As to whether this will improve the lot of chimpanzees themselves, a spokeswoman for the conservation group the Jane Goodall Foundation was sceptical.
-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
S&S
 
As I stated before, the two most different organisms on the planet, genetically speaking, are two bacteria.

So much for the assumptions of genetics equalling perceived differences. It's asked what could 4% (or 0.4%, whichever you believe) difference in genetic makeup achieve. A lot, if you take into account that most of them aren't direct coding genes, but 'switches', 'alternators', 'regulators' and 'manipulators'. In other words, we have many genes that could potentially make us more 'chimp-like'. Or vice versa. The difference is in whether - and in what capacity - they are used.

We all could be hairy with flat noses and large irises - it's in the regulation that makes all the difference.

Athon
 
Shane said:
So the FOXP2 gene isn't just involved in jaw structure, but appears to have a role in formulation of speech.
Click to expand...
Is that just the coolest thing or what?! A gene that plays a role both in thinking about speech and in uttering it. How can you not love this evolution thing?

Noncoding DNA seems to be a lot like dark matter. There's a big bunch of it, but what does it do?

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom