From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 19:35:56 MDT
At 09:07 PM 9/21/02 -0400, Eliezer wrote:
>Jeff Davis wrote:
> > --- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> >> Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>> ...'human' DNA is already 99.9% 'non-human'.
> >> I don't think so. I think the standard measure of the difference
> >> between humans and chimpanzees is 97-98%.
> > ...'human DNA is already AROUND 97.5% 'non-human'.
>98.4% last time I heard.
> > I said 'ballpark', Robert.
> > Sheesh! What a stickler. ;-)
>Over an order of magnitude off isn't "ballpark"... oh, never mind.
Dear dog in heaven! The assertion above should surely be: "I think the
standard measure of the *similarity*
between humans and chimpanzees is 97-98%." An order of magnitude off that
would be circa 9.8%, and I don't see that anywhere here.
None of this phylogenetic information has anything to do, of course, with
the ethical issue of introducing extra code transgenically.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST