Study: Our DNA Less Alike Than Thought

Research Could Help Understand The Genetic Underpinnings Of Disease

(AP)  People are less alike than scientists had thought when it comes to the billions of building blocks that make up each individual's DNA, according to a new analysis.

"Instead of 99.9 percent identical, maybe we're only 99 percent (alike)," said J. Craig Venter, an author of the study - and the person whose DNA was analyzed for it.

Several previous studies have argued for lowering the 99.9 percent estimate. Venter says this new analysis "proves the point."

The new work, in the latest issue of PLoS Biology, marks the first time a scientific journal has presented the entire DNA makeup, or human genome, of an individual. However, James D. Watson - co-discoverer of DNA's molecular structure - received his own personal DNA map from scientists a few months ago. And the genomes for both him and Venter are already posted on scientific Web sites.

Venter is president of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, which does genetics research. He and scientists at his institute and elsewhere collaborated on the work that produced his genetic map.

The order of building blocks along a strand of DNA encodes genetic information, somewhat like the way a sequence of letters creates a sentence. Particular sequences form genes. Landmark studies published in 2001 indicated that the DNA of any two people is about 99.9 percent alike. The new paper suggests estimates of 99.5 percent to just 99 percent, Venter said.

The Venter paper joins several others published over the past three to four years that indicate an estimate of around 99 percent, said Richard Gibbs, a DNA expert at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston who did not participate in Venter's study.

The studies produce the lower figure because they uncovered chunks of DNA that differ among people, whereas previous studies focused on differences in individual building blocks.

The 99 percent figure is close to what scientists have often estimated for the similarity between humans and chimps. But the human-chimp similarity drops to more like 95 percent when the more recently discovered kinds of DNA variation are considered, Venter said.

Gibbs called the Venter paper significant, along with a similar but not-yet-published analysis of Watson's DNA that he has worked on. That is because the analyses show more differences than expected from the standard human DNA sequence published by the federal government, he said. (The federal sequence was based on a mix of DNA from different people.)

That finding in turn is shedding light on how DNA varies among people, with implications for understanding the genetic underpinnings of disease, Gibbs said.

Although the new paper analyzes just Venter's genetic material, it can make estimates about how individuals differ in their DNA. Everybody inherits two sets of DNA, one from each parent. Venter's paper compared the DNA he inherited from his mother with the DNA from his father.

[nggr]

singinrick is host to a mental illness.
he is confused into thinking he is not confused.
by the way rickm Darwins idea is Natural Selection, not survival of the fittest. and it doesn''t necessarily refer to physical strength. it is simply a statement derived from the observation that species that are more adapted to their enviornment tend to thrive while those that are less adapted tend to die off.
now we can all agree that species have died off and no longer grace the earth cant we?
can we also agree that certain species have thrived due to their specific adaptations?
there, thats not so hard, is it?

[sy2502]

When pressed, most Christians will agree that the Ten Commandments were the word of God.
Posted by nggr at 08:30 PM : Sep 06, 2007

Yeah, that''s why idiocies like working on a Sabbath are listed as bad, while others like rape, assault, and child abuse are not. Some moral guidance!

I love your comments nggr, it''s just a shame that they fall on deaf ears with some people.

[nggr]

By far, the most terrifying scenario to Christians is for cloning and stem cell research to render the notion of the soul to be complete nonsense. This would rock the very foundation of Christianity. As a result, Christians are very much opposed to this kind of research. They are happy to trade any life sustaining medical breakthroughs for all people so that that they can keep their obsolete notions of the soul and a potential for afterlife.

[nggr]

Human cloning challenges these beliefs, however. It will soon be possible to clone an entire human from a single cell. What about the soul of this new human? One of three possibilities arise:

* The new human has a soul of his own. Unfortunately, this possibility takes God out of the picture. Perhaps Christians will eventually decide to claim that God blesses cloning, which is the opposite of their current beliefs.
* The new human shares the soul of the original. This possibility flies in the face of the idea of free will. Does the soul go to heaven based on the actions of the original human or the clone? What if the original human is a saint and the clone is Pagan? This doesn''t seem to fit very well with Christian ideas of judgment and free will.
* The new human doesn''t have a soul. This is by far the most terrifying idea to Christians. Without a soul, the clone would essentially be some sort of monster without any potential for morals. Remember the controversy surrounding invitro fertilization? Christians claimed the same thing then. Healthy, normal children that have been conceived outside the womb disproves this predicted horror scenario.

[nggr]

Christianity simply doesn''t work without the soul meme and the consort memes of heaven and hell. Without a soul, there can be no mechanism for the reward of a blissful afterlife of basking in the glory of God or the punishment of eternal damnation with its associated fire and brimstone. Therefore, without the soul meme, the Christianity Meme looses its most effective hook for behavioral control of its host.

Arguments against the belief:
Christians believe that the soul is created at conception. (This is the primary reason why Christians are against abortion.) The soul remains with the human body while the person is alive. At death, the soul is released, judged at the "pearly gates", and sent to heaven or hell. (There are lots of variations on this story.)

[sy2502]

Consort Meme #1. Morality is derived from a belief in God.
By implication, those without a God (Buddhists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, etc.) are inherently immoral.
Posted by nggr at 08:20 PM : Sep 06, 2007

Oh, I guess that''s why atheists make up only a negligible percentage of the prison population.
Atheists are about 15% of the population, but make up only 0.2% of the prison population. Food for thought...

[nggr]

Consort Meme #4. We each have a soul given to us by God.
The soul meme is a complex unto itself, including concepts of heaven and hell. Most religions have some notion of a soul that allegedly gives us a vehicle to immortality.


Examples:

* The various sects of Christianity claim different mechanisms by which your actions and beliefs in this life will facilitate your soul''s going to heaven after death.
* The notion that a loved one who has died is "in a better place" and still able to interact with us at some level is very comforting.
* The practice of saying "bless you" when someone sneezes is based on the superstition that when you sneeze, your soul pops out of your body briefly and can be snatched by the Devil. The blessing supposedly prevents this awful fate.

Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
The notion of a soul that outlives the body is effectively a means of cheating death. The soul meme plays to our deeply rooted survival instincts. Once a person adopts a belief in the soul, the rejection of that belief requires accepting one''s eventual death. Because most people prefer to remain in denial about their mortality, the soul meme remains entrenched.

[nggr]

Arguments against the belief:
The James Randi Educational Foundation has yet to verify any claims of supernatural activity related to prayer (or any other human endeavor). Surely proving such a claim would greatly benefit the Christian movement and garner prize money that could be used to further promote Christian beliefs. Prayer is simply a means of reinforcing the Christianity Meme''s hold over its hosts and thus increasing its longevity. The drug-like effects of prayer are easily attributed to a religious euphoria of feeling "one with God". Any prayers realized are coincidence that help reinforce the association. Ironically, when a prayer does not work, blame is placed on the wisdom of God or the lack of faith of the prayer, both of which also serve to reinforce the meme complex.

[nggr]

Consort Meme #3. Praying to God will make him do things for us.

Examples:

* Group prayer is an integral part of Christian religious services as communication with God. Such prayers usually take the form of a request to God.
* An entire culture has grown up around prayer to increase its effectiveness. Consider the rosary, asking clergy for blessings, and the act of going to church (or some other holy place) to pray.

Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
Christianity dis-empowers its believers by promoting the idea that an individual has no power unless he gives his life to God. Prayer is one of the means by which the power of God is meted out to the faithful--the deeper one''s faith, the more likely the prayer is to take effect. Thus, prayer appeals to our desire for power and, in some cases, our selfishness. Who wouldn''t want to be able to control the power of a God, just like that of a genie? The "praying" meme is thus reinforced by Christianity (the Christianity Meme).


Prayer is a human activity that is known to alter the state of the mind and body. While the effects of this activity are not fully understood, it may be that prayer can act as a gateway to unleashing some human powers. See "The "Healing Words" Interview With Dr. Larry Dossey M.D". The Christianity Meme benefits from these tangible effects of prayer in that the effects are mistakenly believed to be due to a Christian God.

[nggr]

When pressed, most Christians will agree that the Ten Commandments were the word of God. It is one place in the Bible where God clearly tries to communicate his intended laws to his people. This must be important stuff. He even supposedly wrote it down on stone tablets so that it wouldn''t get muddled up or destroyed. Isn''t it funny that man managed to pulverize those tablets and muddle up their message anyway. (Maybe if he was smart, he would have made them out of diamonds and hung them up out of reach.) Isn''t the word of God important enough to keep intact?

To summarize,

* the Bible has a poor history of truthfulness when it has made assertions that were later scientifically examined,
* it contains many contradictions and inconsistencies, and
* nobody can agree on the parts of the Bible that might actually be true (or even God''s word).

The notion that the Bible represents truth is nothing more than a farce that helps the Christianity Meme continue to thrive.

[nggr]

Arguments against the belief:
While Christians everywhere agree on the importance of the Bible to their faith, it is nearly impossible for two Christians to agree on exactly what parts of the Bible are true. While the fundamentalists say it''s all true, they become the objects of ridicule when the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible are pointed out. (Creationism and the "young earth theory", borne out of a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, are scientifically unsound, as one example. Sadly, reason, logic, and science are completely lost on these people, who doggedly cling to false beliefs and continue promoting them. The Christianity Meme benefits greatly from its control over these people.) Other denominations reject a literal interpretation of the Bible saying that most of it is metaphorical and subject to interpretation. Non fundamentalist clergy squirm when asked exactly what parts of the Bible are true. They know that clergy at whatever church next door will give a different answer. (These disagreements are the source of denominational splits, which are rarely pretty.) By avoiding this question, clergy are trying to avoid religious wars and the associated bloodshed. What good is the "truth", if nobody can quite put their finger on it? What is really promoted is a vague illusion of truth. As if to say, "It''s in there somewhere, but we''re not quite sure where.

[nggr]

Consort Meme #2. The Bible represents the truth as revealed to us by God.
This is a combination of two closely related ideas, that the Bible is divinely inspired (or even written by God) and that it represents the ultimate truth.


Examples:

* Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.
* Nearly all Christian denominations are based primarily on Biblical teaching.

Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
The Christianity Meme is aided by this consort in that the Christianity Meme becomes simply the spreading of God''s word. To do anything else would go against the universe (presumably). The consort benefits as it is a central tenet of Christian thought.

[nggr]

Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
This highly successful meme has great support in the United States because it does not alienate the influential Jewish community. If Buddhists, for example, were more powerful in the U.S., this meme would not be as successful. Those infected with the Christianity Meme use this belief in order to gain a wider stronghold on institutions, such as schools. Once this meme is accepted, it is relatively easy for the Christianity Meme to also be accepted.
Arguments against the belief:
First, the argument belittles humanity. It effectively says that man is incapable of moral action without threat of punishment (or enticement of reward) from an all-powerful being. It reduces us to the level of children who are told by our mothers: "you''re going to get a whipping when your daddy hears what you did." Action directed by fear of reprisal is not morality, it''s manipulation. Perhaps most Christians are at a childhood level of maturity and therefore need this type of external structure. It is inappropriate as a blanket belief for all humanity.

Next, why should a being of another species be the author of moral laws for humans? As shown elsewhere on this site, the Christian God does not follow his own laws. This casts serious doubts as to the value of moral laws derived from a belief in a Christian God.

[nggr]

Consort Meme #1. Morality is derived from a belief in God.
By implication, those without a God (Buddhists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, etc.) are inherently immoral.


Examples:

* The Texas Constitution, written in 1875, includes the following provision: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution supersedes this provision.)
* The movement in the U. S. to promote religion in schools (prayer, the Ten Commandments, etc.) as a response to the recent high school shootings as a means of improving the moral character of students. See the news article " For the Right, Littleton''s Tragedy became a ''Window of Opportunity''".
* Commonly, two life paths are presented by Christian leaders: a life of wanting material possessions, hedonism, and selfishness; or the path a life in faith in Jesus. At the August 20, 2000 mass held at the World Youth Day Festival, the Pope reacted to the large youth audience by saying, "Our society desperately needs this sign, and young people need it even more so, tempted as they are by the illusion of an easy and comfortable life, by drugs and pleasure seeking, only to find themselves in a spiral of despair, meaninglessness and violence."

[sy2502]

singinrick
if calling things with their name insults you, you get no sympathy from me. When you say that evolution is a "philosophical assumption" you show you don''t know much about it. But if you don''t want to educate yourself on the subject, you have no ground to debate it.
Also, you don''t understand that evolution is not a religion with Darwin as its prophet, so who gives a hoot what he did or didn''t say about god or religion? Evolution is supported by fact, regardless of Darwin''s personal opinions. Science doesn''t rely on cult of personality, like religion, and nobody in science is considered infallible.
You are the patronizing and arrogant one who tells me I have no morals, as if the superstitions concocted by power-hungry people that you follow so devoutly were in any way superior to my principles.
As for death, of course you fear death, it is part of the religious control system to make you fear something and then tell you only they can save you from those terrible things. Death is a perfectly natural part of the biologic cycle.
As for god, I have already pointed out to you so many problems and inconsistencies with your idea of god (which you conveniently skirt each time), that only a perfectly air-tight argument could make me even consider the possibility he exists. You haven''t been able to do it so far.

[actornaught]

No double standard, I don''t know that they have a long pattern of picking off-topic fights like you do.

How about your ''polluted gene'' theory? That''s on-topic. You include blacks & other minorities, dont you...

[sy2502]

As a result, many propagandists are forever making up new names for the scientist-held definition, and new definitions for evolution.
Posted by octavianfdlr at 02:49 PM : Sep 06, 2007

I agree with you completely, and all it does is demonstrate their ignorance. I find it ridiculous to hear attacks to evolution by people who so obviously don''t even know what they are attacking in the first place.
Another of my favorites is when they lump evolutionary theory with the big bang. You know, the types that ask questions like "You believe in evolution? How can you think that everything just popped out of nowhere?" People who don''t know the difference between cosmology and biology should go back to school.

[octavianfdlr]

rudy654 asked

"What is the definition of evolution?"

This is a very good question. Scientists have one definition. On the other hand many propagandists (folks who try to propagate The Faith) seem to believe that evolution is simply a Satanic lie designed to prevent salvation. As a result, many propagandists are forever making up new names for the scientist-held definition, and new definitions for evolution. This is why so many of the "faithful" are incapable of recognizing when they are wrong -- they are operating on a mistaken, "straw-man" definition of evolution.

Evolution is change, usually rather gradual, with time. There is nothing in the concept of evolution which denies any intelligent designer, or demands randomness. Both automobile designs and arguments against the existence of evolution have evolved over the past century.

Multiple drug resistance has also evolved in human pathogens.

[actornaught]

Well not according to the s''ick translation. ''polluted genes'' was his rationale for making incest a sin, long after Adam & Eve. And just as a side note, a more intelligent interpretation is that A&E were the first Jews (man had already been created at the end of 6 hebrew ages, not days), which is how their children found mates.

[sy2502]

*sigh* Well s''''ick actually believes in evolution, just of his own weird variation. He calls it ''''polluted genes''''.
Posted by actornaught at 12:55 PM : Sep 06, 2007

Bible bashers say that when Adam and Eve sinned, god cursed the Earth, and that''s where all the crappy stuff (anything from birth defects to viruses) comes from. Of course they don''t care to explain why the actions of 2 people would get an entire planet and everything it contains to be cursed for thousands and thousands of years. It would be like me smashing my computer to bits if 2 lines of code I wrote don''t do what I thought they would do... But then you think that god is the product of some people''s imagination and therefore he''s going to be as petty, cruel, and unreasonable as they are.