Talk:Human genome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Human genome was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Human Genetic History (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Genetics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Disputed discussion of phrase 'the human genome'[edit]

This material was added without consensus, and is not supported by the cited sources. Only one of the cited sources actually highlights the phrase itself, the rest are just interpreted as doing so, but do not:

"The Human Genome"[edit]
Following the successes of recombinant DNA technology, through which the concept of the (sequenced) genome has been said to have taken pride of place from the concept of the gene,[4] it has become common to see the phrase, "the human genome" (i.e., generic use of the definite article). This phrase connotes unity among humanity's genetic inheritance in the abstract, while glossing over the divergent interests of scientists from different fields.[5][6] Among molecular biologists "the human genome" is simply a general concept applicable to any genome from a member of the species;[7] while, among evolutionary biologists, variation at the molecular level means the term is best applied to a composite reference genome sequence.[8][9] Some find the phrase of "the human genome" misleading because it carries for them the specter of "Platonism", arguing that "'the human genome' that we have labeled as such doesn't actually exist".[10], For others, the phrase can suggest a "wild type" unaffected by medical intervention in the process of natural selection, which similarly conveys the connotation of a Platonic ideal.[11]

Ref 4: This reference says nothing about the "concept of the genome taking pride of place from the concept of the gene". The sentence makes a specific claim of what is said and supports it by a reference. Except the reference never says what is claimed. Further the article never mentions the human genome at all and so its relevance to a section about the phrase 'the human genome' is dubious at best. In fact, most of the critics of the traditional gene concept that it highlights predate the genomic age. This may be relevant to gene, but is not to human genome.

The statement, "it has become common to see the phrase, 'the human genome' (i.e., generic use of the definite article)" is a specific claim that is being presented without a source. This observation appears to be the editor's.

Ref 5: Makes no explicit reference to the phrase, and hence cannot be used to support a statement of what that "This phrase connotes".

Ref 6: can't find anything relevant, but I can't see enough of the source on Google Books to be certain - perhaps a relevant quote where it says what the phrase 'the human genome' connotes will demonstrate its propriety.

Ref 7: doesn't say what is being claimed - it does not discuss the use of the phrase by molecular biologists. The closest they come to defining it is the following "The human genome contains approximately 3 billion of these base pairs, which reside in the 23 pairs of chromosomes within the nucleus of all our cells. Each chromosome contains hundreds to thousands of genes, which carry the instructions for making proteins. Each of the estimated 30,000 genes in the human genome makes an average of three proteins." So, no such molecular biology-specific usage.

Refs 8 & 9: I won't even try to confirm them, because they are being used to support a statement not related to 'the human genome' - different interpretations of variation on a genetic level, not genomes at all.

Ref 10: does not say that 'the human genome' is misleading because it carries a specter of being a Platonic ideal - it says that it is one. That this is spectral, and that the spectral nature is the source of it being misleading, are the interpretations of the editor.

Ref 11: never mentions the phrase, so it cannot be used to say that, "For others, the phrase can suggest . . . " anything.

This leaves the following, which certainly doesn't merit the first section of the article:

Following the successes of recombinant DNA technology, through which the concept of the (sequenced) genome has been said to have taken pride of place from the concept of the gene,[4] it has become common to see the phrase, "the human genome" (i.e., generic use of the definite article). This phrase connotes unity among humanity's genetic inheritance in the abstract, while glossing over the divergent interests of scientists from different fields.[5][6] Among molecular biologists "the human genome" is simply a general concept applicable to any genome from a member of the species;[7] while, among evolutionary biologists, variation at the molecular level means the term is best applied to a composite reference genome sequence.[8][9] Some find the phrase of "the human genome" misleading because it carries for them the specter of "Platonism" represents a Platonic ideal, arguing that "'the human genome' that we have labeled as such doesn't actually exist".[10], For others, the phrase can suggest a "wild type" unaffected by medical intervention in the process of natural selection, which similarly conveys the connotation of a Platonic ideal.[11]

This paragraph is a personal essay that misquotes and misuses sources to make the editor's point, not that of the sources. Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The so-called personal essay is Gannet's, whom I am citing. The idea that there is an idea "the human genome" is also not my personal view, but is too ubiquitous to cite. According to the Wikipedia policy you cited, a personal essay "state[s] your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)." However, I have cited opinions all related to the idea of essentializing human genomes, or the general concept of them, into an abstract object of scientific interest. You might question whether scientists have turned a general concept into an abstract object of scientific interest (because I sense that you think the phrase, "the human genome", is just a phrase that makes generic reference in the way that the article, Apple, mages generic reference to the "the apple". However, what I have done is cite sources that discuss the ways this general concept is used, typically by means of the linguistic construction, "the human genome" (but not necessarily), in order to advance a molecular view of the gene that displaces the classical concept (ref 4), to separate scientists into those who privilege variation (refs 8 and 9) from those who privilege species-unity (refs 5 and 6), reify a simplified concept into a Platonic object (ref 8), and to reify the "wild type" interpretation.Dylan Hunt (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Too bad not a single one of your sources say what you claim they do in the text. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I went through the detailed sentence by sentence analysis above to show you precisely what is wrong with the text. The appropriate response here is for you to show exactly where, for example, Ref. 4 discusses 'pride of place'. The inappropriate response is to just speak in generalities, or reinsert the unsupported text back into the article as if it was accurate. Agricolae (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And you are still making it up as you go. "For some gene skeptics, the concept of the (sequenced) genome . . . " is inaccurate. Neither cited source gives the opinions of gene skeptics on the concept of a sequenced genome. (And that doesn't even address the weight issues - why are the opinions of the 'gene skeptics' what we begin the body of a scientific article with?) Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Re the latest sentence, "differences of opinion regarding identity and variability across instances of a type of genome", isn't even coherent. Further, the cited source says nothing about a type of genome. It talks about type specimens, it talks about types of individuals, it talks about genotypes and phenotypes, but it says absolutely nothing about types of genomes. Agricolae (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Should be obvious--take a look at the title (if you are referring to Gannett 2003). It is called "The normal genome". Once again, you need to read broadly: Gannett's entire article is about a type of genome (really it is about a type of genome set, since it is about the idea that "the human genome" is a type of genome for those members of the set, H. sapiens). Trees --> Forest.Dylan Hunt (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That is absurd wordplay. Gannett's paper is about the view (or misconception, if you will) that the genome sequence being reported by the HGP is indicative of normality. It is not about different types of genomes. This is why your material is SYNTH - you write the conclusion you want to reach, and then decorate it with a citation where the general topic is being discussed but that does not reach the conclusion you indicate. When you attribute a specific position to a specific author or source, the source needs to have said exactly that, not just be about the general topic. This is not a failure to see a big picture - it is a failure to accept that it is OK to invent conclusions the author did not make. One of two things is happening here - either you don't understand the papers you are reading or you intentionally are misquoting them. Either way, there is almost nothing accurate in that paragraph, as I demonstrated above. (Oh, and any time you say, 'it should be obvious' and then suggest I put two and two together, you are as much as admitting that you are doing WP:SYNTH.) Agricolae (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What is normality if not a type? If there is a claim that there is a normal genome (note that this claim does not say any individual's genome is the normal one), then it is a type. If you don't get this, I'm not sure how the article could make any sense to you. See for example p. 145: "It is suggested that these sequence maps represent a typical or average human being." Or p. 146: "This [that the view a single DNA sequence could represent all of humanity is criticized by evolutionists] is so whether the sequence is taken to represent a typical haploid human genome, a healthy haploid human genome, or the very essence of humanity. Writes biological anthropologist Kenneth Weiss: ‘The Human Genome Project, which will create a stereotype of human genetic structure, is in a sense history’s greatest exercise in platonic essentialism’ (1996, p. 1)." But really, almost any other page would give the same "clue". It is the motivation for talking about a *typ*ological viewpoint (defining/exemplifying representative) vs evolutionists' viewpoints (type specimen without defining/exemplifying).
Here's a solution to your problem of seeing the forest: Write to Gannett and ask her if this article makes any mention of a type of genome. I'm sure she would welcome attention to her work that does not require grading.Dylan Hunt (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
p.s., this should help (if not hurt) in decoding philosopher: talk:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/#SciEveDisDylan Hunt (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What a monumental waste of words. There is a difference between 'a normal genome is a type', and 'types of genomes'. This is a plain-language encyclopedia, and it uses a straightforward style of presenting real-world concepts. In our page on pins, we don't start with a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of one. I am having no problem seeing the forest. I am seeing that the forest does not have the trees you say it does. I am struggling to AGF here. Agricolae (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Mutual funds aside (AGF), I think your point above is why you think my small paragraph is original research, or personal essay. It is obvious that the concept of 'the genomes of humans' constitutes a type for scientists (whether they can make this distinction or not), and it is different from the type to which genomes of, say, E. coli individuals belong. It is also obvious that many people have published much on this subject with various conclusions *they* have drawn (which I do not try to represent at any length). The writings of Weiss, Hull, Gannett, Gilbert, etc. all differ in certain ways, while all writing on the issue of the human genome type. I cited those writings in pointing out that the concept of "the human genome" has different meanings (something Gannett adequately demonstrates). The concept of "the human genome" has been taken in ways other than your nominalist view of a phrase that makes merely generic reference using the definite article (though you clearly think the human genome type is more than grammatical). Notice that the definite article in "the human genome" has been taken in much more robust (more than grammatical) ways than you claim to take it, and the concept of the human genome speaks to the type at the center of these more robust ways of understanding our particular species' identity-at-the-genomic-level. Just because you think the distinction is a waste of time to make is not a reason to malign the published writings of others, whom I have cited. If you can't see the forest, at least you should be able to find the library.Dylan Hunt (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
In addition to containing original research, Concept of "The Human Genome" section fails WP:JARGON. It is clear that you are writing for yourself and not the general reader. The second sentence of this section starts with:
  • The phrase connotes unity among humanity's genetic inheritance in the abstract, ...
At this point, the general readers eyes will have glazed over. If we are lucky, the reader will skip the remainder of this incredibly esoteric section and read the remainder of the article. If we are unlucky, the general reader will conclude that reading the rest of the article will be a waste of time and move on to something else. Even molecular or evolutionary biologists don't normally worry about such esoteric minutiae. This article is about science, not the philosophy of science. With or without WP:OR, this section does not belong in this article. Boghog (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Boghog-You are welcome to improve language by constructive means, rather than destructive reverts. If you look up the professions of those cited, you will find that scientists do "worry" about such thing. Such things are an important part of scientific inquiry.Dylan Hunt (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Boghog. It's totally both OR and synth, and completely out of place in this article. There's nothing worth saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The reverts are not destructive (the deleted section is still of course accessible from the article history). The point of the reverts is that there is currently no consensus to include a concept section in the article. The lead and initial sections of the article need to be written so that they are understood by a wide audience. The section in question is by its very nature refractory to clear explanation. Furthermore even if it could clearly be stated, it gives undue weight to a subject that is of minor importance relative to the main subject of this article. In analogy to history sections of articles which are normally placed at the end of an article, it would be much more appropriate to place this section (minus the original research) near the end rather than the beginning of the article. Finally I note that the Human Genome Project (HGP) is effectively the history section of this article. If the concept section could be rewritten to remove all original research, an alternative is to split out the concept section as a separate article analogous to the HGP article. Boghog (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Barring History and Philosophy of Science[edit]

I cannot find a Wikipedia policy that declares HPS off limits when writing about any subject. Even the quark article, which avoids the problem created by the present article (by not making generic reference to *the* quark in the first place), puts "the quark model" into historical context: "The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964.[5] Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1968.[6][7] All six flavors of quark have since been observed in accelerator experiments; the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered.[5]" Dylan Hunt (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We are well beyond general policies and dubious analogies (dubious because this is talking about the history of the theory - not the history of what philosophers think is meant by the word 'quark' and how it represents a type without raising the specter of being a Platonic ideal). Your specific text is being disputed, its accuracy (whether the sources actually say what you are claiming or if it is OR by SYNTH) and whether its inclusion in the manner it is currently being inserted reflects UNDUE WEIGHT. Let's stick to that and not talk about generalities and quarks, shall we? Agricolae (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Concept → limitations[edit]

One possible way to resolve the above controversy over the "concept of the human genome" is to instead focus on the limitations on how we define the human genome and the practical consequences of those limitations. While Ken Weiss in The Scientist opinion piece did write about the genome as a "Platonic ideal", he also illustrated how the genome deviates from that ideal with specific examples. The advantage of focusing examples and limitations is that it is (1) closer to the sources, (2) it will be easier to understand by a general audience, and (3) is more relevant to the main topic of this article.

From Agricolae's analysis above, which I agree with, the following sentence is noncontroversial:

  • Some find the phrase of "the human genome" represents a Platonic ideal, arguing that "'the human genome' that we have labeled as such doesn't actually exist".
  • Source: Weiss K (2012-08-17). "What Is the Human Genome?". Opinion. The Scientist. 

To which we could add:

Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Boghog: Thanks for considering my ideas further. As for me, I am done with editing on this page. The most antagonistic departmental discussions are preferable to the way dialogue tends (not) to occur on Wikipedia. However, I will make one very tiny note, given your extensive and valuable commentary: Ken Weiss did not illustrate how "the genome" deviates from that ideal. He said that genomes deviate from the ideal. While I started out by fixating, then continued to fixate, on the odd obsession on this page with the monolithic generic use of "the", a linguistic construction which favors absolute objectivist truths, it is a broader point--that using simplifications obscures good science and creates bad science-that I am largely concerned with. Nobody has been able to defend the value of the phrase "the human genome" beyond the value of simplicity. My goal wasn't a grand debate about abstractions or even normality, but some editors dig their teeth into *the oddest thing*. With more suggestions like yours above, perhaps the article editors will collectively reach a point I would be happy with, even in my absence. I'm sure some clarification of the kind you provide would be helpful to non-technical readers, who might be currently wondering, if there is only one human genome, how can everyone have it and be different from it. Best wishes and good luck. Dylan Hunt (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

==Supplementary talk of genetic filaments---the physical function test and findings == 1, To bring back life with health by their direct relatives saw this and felt sad and cried.

      Around 2-3 yrs ago, I read in a newspaper in US, a patient with cardiac problem was declared death by the hospital, but he came back to life afterwards.  There are around 22-23% cardiac patients coming back to life after the death declaration, and this phenomenon is yet not well explained.
  My explanation for this: when these patients were resuscitated, their direct relatives saw this and felt sad and cried. These sad cries came into the patients’ brains and resonated their double spiral filaments of the DNA. The same thing happened in the cardiac cells as well. And this led to the resurgence of the patients.  During the resuscitation, the electric defibrillator must have been used, but this is only a single extrinsic factor. If we compare the defibrillator with the genetic filament resonance; first of all, they differ in being the intrinsic and extrinsic factors, second, the cries of the relative should provide the same frequency as the patients’ genetic filaments, and so the filaments are easier to resonate. Thus the resonance would have better effect and make resurgence easier.  We declare death at the stop of the respiration and heart beat, but when the body temperature is still higher than 35 degree, the cells in the heart an brain are still alive, so the genetic filaments can still sense and resonate with the microwave from the external world, and the resurgence is still possible. But it requires their own children as it requires the same frequency and amplitude of the wave. If they are wife, daughter-in-law, son-in-law or brothers and sisters, the frequency and amplitude would vary and the resonance would be less effective, and the resurgence rate would only be 25% in those who can be resurged.
      In June 2013 in yahoo news, “three professors in Oxford University were frozen to wait for resurgence”. Two of them had their heads cut and the third one was frozen as a whole.
       In my opinion, the first two cannot be resurged while the third holds some possibilities, but it should be validated by multiple experiments with the mouse. Of course, if they were already dead due to severe disease, that would be another story.
        Four to 5 decades ago when I was living in the north, I saw goldfish frozen in the glass bottle.  After 1 day or two, when the ice melted, the goldfish could come back to life again. I also picked up one frozen fish in the lake in a winter, and when I put it back to water at home, it came back to life and swam again.  The low cold blood animals could be resurged in this way, but if we cut their head when they were frozen, would they come back to life and swim again?
       Human are higher animals, when they are sick, before they were really dead in all cells, if we finish all the process of preparation of resurgence, and when later they need to be resurged, it requires the blood circulation back gain, thus the cells could function and the genetic filaments would open and resonate with the wave exactly of the same frequency and amplitude from the external world. The hormone effect should be added as well. However, the electric field varies from one person to another, so the start and maintenance of the resonance would be a challenging task which needs at least 30 years of effort, lets wait and see.

2, The association of genetic filaments in plants with the external world;

         A hundred year ago, we learned heredity secret lying in DNA from the bean experiment, but we never elaborated the close association between the DNA and the genetic filaments interaction.
         In the Epoch Times on Jan 11th 2013, there was a piece of news titled “plants are like humans”, also in the newspaper of Kanzhongguo (www.kanzhonguo.com) in June 28th 2013, there was a paper titled “Thirsty! The first time that human heard the ‘scream’ of trees.”
        In “plants are like humans”, it mentioned the extraordinary experiment done by lie detective Baxter in the sixties of the last century, that the plants could sense, and could have emotions as humans detected by lie detectors.
      The happiness: when we watered the tongue orchid, the detector sensed a decrease wave as in humans
       The terror: when we twitched the leaf and put it into hot coffee, it didn't change obviously, but if we tried to burn the leaf with the fire, even just with the thinking in mind would make a great shake in the wave and it surged to the peak. So we could know “my god, it knows what we are thinking!”
     The super-sense: (here is extracted from the original article)“Baxter carried out an experiment like this: he threw several shrimps into hot water alive, and the plants were immediately irritated. The same response was recorded after several times. To exclude the man-made interference and to confirm the accuracy of the experiment, he used a newly designed machine and threw the shrimp into hot water in random time, and used a very delicate recorder to record the result. Baxter locked the 3 plants in 3 rooms and connected them with electrode, and no one was allowed to enter the rooms.”                                                                                                                    

The next day, when he went in to check the result, he found the waves were soaring 6-7 seconds after every throw of the shrimps into the water. All the 3 plants showed response, so Baxter said; we could almost affirm that plants have communications among them. In Yale University, Baxter put a spider and a plant into the same room, and the spider climbed onto the plant. But the recorder recorded a miracle--- before the spider came onto the plant, the plant had already showed some response. Obviously, the plant could super-sense the intention of the spider. The ones who ever doubted the experiments became the supporters: the experiment of Baxter surprised the world. The Doctor of Chemistry Mike in California thought the result was ridiculous. In order to challenge the result, he also did some experiments, but then his attitude changed absolutely. Mike also demonstrated that plant could sense human’s mind, which is to say, the plant can think as well, and feel the emotions of humans. So the plant is like human? Then where are their eyes? Why they could communicate their feelings? why they would feel the happiness, the terror or even super-sense? The experiments proved that they do have emotions, independently, and emotions don’t exist only in human or animals. The ancient Chinese people also always believed that “everything has spirit”, and they had fairy tales of the god of flower, the god of tree, telling that they have spirit like humans. In the article of “Thirsty! The first time that human heard the ‘scream’ of trees”: Just as human being are breathing desperately for air in dry season, the trees in draught, they would take as much the humidity as they could and give out the sound of “pah pah”. This sound is of a frequency 100 times more than the higher limit of frequency that human being could perceive. In my opinion: bean, tongue orchid and the trees are all plants, they have their own genes, so they would definitely have their DNA and double spiral filaments. All the connection between higher or lower mammals, birds, insects, fish, turtles, and plants, are based on resonance between double spiral filaments. They exchange information via it: happiness, sadness or terrors, or even the approach to death. All the species, as long as they have genes, they could send out and receive information with the double spiral filaments. The experiment of Baxter done 50 years ago, has supplemented my article of “genotype” published in Wikipedia between Dec 2009 and 2012. It proved the physical function of the double spiral filaments---they exchange information by waves, it can go across the wall and communicate between plants, it can go across oceans, go across half of the planet, it can go between the animals, or the animals with plants. The basic knowledge explained in the article in 2009 will not be explained here again. (Talker: Q. Y. Zhang; 香港 張其澐; --119.237.48.70 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Detail analysis of double spiral filaments in DNA beside function[edit]

One inspiration came over to my mind in one morning. Why DNA would contain two flat spiral filaments besides the 4 types of bases and thus form a “spring”in this way? And why they are hinging interlocked with the base groups, what do they serve for? And why there are also line style interlocks between C-G and A-T? I have designed great many machines including variant forms of the hinging spirals spring, so I am very familiar with the interlock theory. The dual long spirals spring could resonate in 3 dimensions, so the resonance could pass on in all directions. With the hinging interlock between base groups, the resonance could be achieved in the narrow intercellular space without affecting the functions of their own.  Generally, even only with the cells along the sulci in the temporal lobes, the resonance could be started. It would be enough if each cell could open 4-5 base groups. ( possibility there are 3-5 Nos. cells death.) Not only for animals, they could also send out the microwave telepathy between human beings. The trumpet shape of the cerebral sulci enhances the force of sending and receiving the resonance, which further enables reception and communication between species and genus. ( Talker : Q. Y. Zhang; 香港 張其澐;--96.237.238.212 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC))

==Natural selection---“random” and “non-random”

The biological field always pays great interest to new species emerged from “natural selection”. But when it comes to the analysis of gender rules, the human intelligence reaction, or the intelligence difference between siblings, they only conclude roughly with the word of “random”.

For example, if we ask a agriculturist, whether we would get a female or male baby in a pregnant horse or cow (the animal which always gives only one child at a time), he would say as the book tells “it’s random”. If we ask a doctor of the baby gender in a pregnant woman, he would say “It’s random” as well, (of course, they would not know the love and pursue process between this couple, and how this couple thought and reacted to the environment during the pregnancy). “Random” is the applied-to-all word to everything before we could find any rules our of it.    

  In “origins of species”, Darwin admitted that the species are always evolving; generation after generation, and he also advocated that the main propelling power the evolvement is the “natural selection”. The natural selection means that, when an individual gains some minimal physiological changes, and if thesis changes could benefit it more than its parents in survival and reproduction, this change would pass on and makes the following generations always on the direction of “better adapting to the environment and survival competition”. This theory includes: the gender of the species, the balance of the sex, and the principle of selecting a partner, and some trivial adjustment. Also it includes the balance and supplement to the hetero-gender, intelligence, characteristics and appearance.
The “rule of balance” persists for thousands of years of evolution. We now discuss only the “random and non-random” things in the biological filed.
         
  The plants, including flowers, grass and trees, if they grow up, they need the sunshine, the rain and the soil. This is the rule of plant growing----the animals, they grow strong, they react fast and they run quickly, these are also the rules of “natural selection”. They could survive, and follow the rule of the biological food chain.The human beings could survive for thousands of years, there must also be some reproductive rules.
 The animals and human beings would not go into distinction due to the single gender; this is the effect of reproductive rule. I have been studying on this for over 30 years, and finally make out a reasonable hypothesis. The hypothesis includes the rule of gender, and also how you could get a reactive and intelligent child with genetic advantages since fetus.* And the “random” rule in general ideas for determining the intelligence among siblings, now becomes a “non-random” concept
         

Before we could dig deeper for some rules, “random” is always a good word to explain all.But our species exist on this earth for thousands of years, and there must be many rules regulating them. Let us work together to better find out these thousands of rules.

  • To see: www.gwencorp.com.hk/index.

(Talker: Q. Y. Zhang; 香港 張其澐--173.76.134.54 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC))

Human, ape genome difference[edit]

Its not 4% its 1%. Please correct mistake. "Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives."

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives --109.23.159.201 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The above source appears to be in error. It appears to refer to earlier outdated estimates "which were made using shorter alignable sequence fragments" (see PMID: 16339373). Boghog (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of the articles talk about 1-2% of difference.

http://www.livescience.com/20940-unraveling-bonobo-genome-secrets.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo--109.23.159.201 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It depends on how the difference was measured. Many of the analyses are restricted to protein coding genes where the conservation is much higher (on the order of 99%). The variations in sequence in between genes (the so called junk DNA) is much lower (on the order of 95%). "Non-coding" DNA has a large influence on when and how genes are expressed, hence these differences are important to include in any between genome comparisons. The following analysis is particularly relevant:

  • Larry Moran. "What's the Difference Between a Human and Chimpanzee?". Sandwalk. "This value of 1.5%, rounded up to 2%, gave rise to the widely quoted statement that humans and chimps are 98% identical. Britton (2002) challenged that number by pointing out that humans and chimp genomes differed by a large number of insertions and deletions (indels) that could not have been detected in hybridization studies. He claimed that there was an addition 3.4% of the genome that differed due to indels. That means the the real difference between humans and chimps is closer to 5% and we are only 95% identical!"  Boghog (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)