Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00278)

In a message dated 11/22/99 6:12:46 AM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com
writes:

> You are the one who claimed there was a 2%  genetic difference between
>  humans.

Yes I did.

>I simply said if this were so,  then there is less difference
>  between humans and chimps.

Doesn't follow.  Genetic variation within one species has no implications
about
the genetic distance between species.  You should really take a logic
refresher course and review non sequiturs.

>  For example, 139 of the 141 amino acids of the
>  alpha chain of hemoglobin in the gorilla are identical to those in humans.

>  There is no difference in this regard between humans and chimps at all.

So?  You'll find most life on this planet has most of the same DNA if looking
at
one part of the sequence or another.  To come up with true values you need to
calculate the values for whole sequences.  We are just now mapping whole
sequences so we don't know the absolute distances yet.  But the research is
underway.  The new genetic based typology is allowing us to give precise
mathematical values to the distance between species whereas before this was
impossible.  So, for example, typing the difference between humans, dogs, and
fish, just to take three examples, using several factors such as haemoglobin
and cytochrome C to randomly pick two genetic measures for example, gives us
a precise mathematical way of distinguishing between species and phylla, so
that we know the genetic variation between humans is 0.2 %, between humans
and dogs 20.0%, and humans and a fish, 50%.  Between humans and chimps, it
is, if memory serves, 8%.  But again, the whole sequence needs to be known
for the final numbers which we do not have yet.  Now the prestigious
scientific journal, Discover (Nov 1994), had a special issue devoted to
"race" (with articles by such as Stephen Jay Gould and such), and claimed it
is not a "biological" category at all.  To quote from one of the articles,
"Most scientists don't even consider 'race' to be a biological category.
>From the biological standpoint, 'racial categories' are hopeless arbitrary,
confused, and intermingled reflecting social and cultural prejudices."  You
like science so much except if you have to change your prejudicial mind
apparently.

You should really read up on these things before spouting off.  May I refer
you to some basic research in genetic typing where genetic distances,
identities of real biological groups (of which race is not one), and genetic
variations within groups are being established?  Try Dayhovieff, Typing
Sequence Variation and Structure. National Bio-Medical Research Foundation,
Silver Spring Maryland, vol. 33. Cavalli-Sforrza, L.L. and Bodmer W.F.
Genetic Typology and Macro-Evolution. Springer-Verlag, 1999.  and still
useful although from the 80s, Ferguson, A. Biochemical Systematics and
Evolution.  Blackie, Glasgow, 156-57, and Drake The Molecular Basis of
Mutation. Holden-Day, Inc. San Francisco.

Grigor