Talk:Humanzee/Archive

"Humans and chimpanzees share roughly 99% of their DNA"

Is this accurate? - I thought it was about 96% or 97%. Anyone know what is correct? - MPF 08:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I personally have seen estimates ranging anywhere between 95% and 99.5%, depending on the test being used. I think the most widely accepted estimate is 98.1%, since, if I recall correctly, the test that gave this figure gave the exact same number for Chimpanzees and Gorillas, which might have to do with it being the least "controversial" (whereas most other tests place Chimpanzees and Humans as being closer relatives than Chimpanzees and Gorillas). I could be wrong about this -- I've been out of the science-loop for a couple of years and even when I was in the loop, I mainly studied paleoanthropology (as a non-layman amateur), not genetics.

Even a 99% genetic similarity isn't as much as it may seem. Many bacteria are 80% genetically identical to Humans (so I've heard, though I'm skeptical). Mice and Rats are about 90% genetically identical to Humans. So 99% doesn't say as much as you'd think. --Corvun 10:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My Physical Anthropology Professor claims that common chimps (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are 98.4% similar. Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are even closer, although I don't remember the percentage. It is commonly accepted that 97% (give or take .5%) DNA similarity means that two animals are the same species. However, this fact is ignored in these two animals and a few others. To be considered a sepereate race two animals must be 99% different. Any two people will never have a greater difference than 99.99%, thus there are no physical races, only social ones based, initially, off of facial structure. Dustin Asby 00:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"...though most scientists would likely regard this a highly unlikely." This is not NPOV. I would have left it and asked for back-up evidence but for the words "would likely." In other words, this doesn't say that, "most scientists regard this as unlikely", it says they, "would likely regard this as unlikely," meaning that the person who wrote this never actually polled, or found a poll that stated such things, only that he or she speculates that, if asked, most scients probably would think it false. Was that too many words to get the point across? Anyway, deleted. Dustin Asby 00:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool. I hate the "most scientists" argument as a general rule, its essentially never backed up w any sort of cite or other verification. I think we call that a false appeal to authority. Sam [Spade] 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although assuming appeal to authority is the writer's motive is, well probably some other fallacy; assuming someone's motive when you really don't know seems a silly thing to do. Some people just aren't very good writers, including myself, and that's one benefit of Wikipedia's "anyone-can-edit-anything" system: write what you can, in whatever way you know how, and let other people fix it into something neater. It isn't necessarily, "muahaha, I'm going to write this article in an evil POV fashion! twists handlebar moustache and tighten rope holding an attractive maiden to the train tracks" --I run like a Welshman 10:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean it was malicious, just that it’s fallacious, and annoying to me, especially in its regularity. Folk make the "most scientists" or "most people" false appeal to authority rather often here. IMO they likely believe it to be true, but having been a scientific pollster, sociological researcher, professional surveyor, etc... It’s rather annoying when people cite non-existent research ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)