From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 21:47:11 MDT
On Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:50 PM Jeff Davis jrd1415@yahoo.com
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%.
>
> Awright awready. I stand corrected.
>
> ...'human DNA is already AROUND 97.5% 'non-human'.
Actually, this is looking at it the wrong way. Human DNA is 100% human.
Chimpanzee DNA is 100% chimpanzee. That they share a lot of DNA does
not mean one is "foreign" to the other. We don't think of automobiles
as X% horse and buggy and only (100-X)% automobile, do we? A more
precise way, what you seem to be getting at, is that the proportion
found only in humans -- what's not shared with chimps, etc. -- is a tiny
%age of the whole. Granted, but to talk of that tiny %age as if it were
the only human part is like saying wheels aren't realy parts of cars,
since cars share having wheels with buggies, trains, bikes, and roller
skates.
Truth be told, I bet a lot of that DNA is redundant anyhow -- doesn't do
anything except be there. I think the _National Review_ crowd is not
worried about these finer points. Instead, they're worried about is
that monster -- or quite a few of them -- will be created by messing
with DNA.
I bet that they would've been against anesthesia 150 years ago.
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST