Issue in National Geo. study on the History of Humans ..stated human genetic makeup is 99.9 % identical.True?
481417
I could see 99%+.  I expect that they're doing a bit of statistical extrapolation (can't test everybody) and taking the upper range on their margin-of-error for journalistic sensationalism.  So, overall, probably.  \n\nConsider: DNA is DNA for every living thing (except perhaps a virus), so variations outside of a certain threshhold result in a different creature -- like aardvarks and komodo dragons.  Considering the diversity of life on earth, it should come as little surprise that the threshhold on DNA between one species and another is rather small (at least in comparison to the whole).
111512
no, it is exactly alike, hormones and diet and lifestyle is what effects this, it has nothing whatsoever to do with race
121908
The short interpretation is that your 100% European figure simply means that of the people in their database 100% of those you match are European. \n\nThat doesn’t mean that there aren’t also millions of African and Asians that you also match with perfectly. In fact it would be astounding if you didn’t.All it means is that those people aren’t on this company’s database. \n\nIt doesn't even mean that you match 100% of European people in their database. You might only match 1 out of the 100 Western Europeans they have tested, but that is the only person that you match, you don't match any of the Asians or Africans that they tested.\n\n  \n\nIt does not mean that 100% of your ancestors were European, nor doe sit mean that you r closest genetic match is in fat a European person. Your closest genetic match could inn fact be an Eskimo for all we know.\n\nThose tests don’t tell you much at all. They are only as meaningful as their probability of returning a correct result. If your test didn’t include a clearly stated probability the it means nothing at all.\n\nThe 100% European figure is not a probability, it’s a match. There is no such thing as “100% European”, it’s a meaningless term. There simply are no European or western European genes or even genetic sequences.  It’s possible, even probable for you to have a 100% match with some black guy living in Kenya. \n\nAll those tests do is match your sample with various other samples that have been collected  from various parts of the world.  It doesn’t actually tell you anything at all about your ancestry, it just tells you what randomly selected person you are most like genetically. They work at best as well as the number of reference samples. Most commercial operators only use a few thousand reference samples in their database. That’s approximately or useless.  \n\nEven the large databases using tens or hundreds of thousands of samples arenb;t anything like 100% reliable. How could they be? People move around a laot and always have. For example most of North Africa is descended from a Vandal sometime in the last 50 generations, and the Vandals were originally form Norway. Makes it kind of ridiculous to talk about a ‘European” genetic type.\n\n\nWhat you need to make these figures meaningful in any way at all is to contact the company and find out:\n\n1)How many people are in there databse.\n2)Where are those people located geographically TODAY\n3)How did they determine the geographic locations of those people’s ancestors?\n4)Have they made attempts to test their database against individuals of known or highly probable ancestry? If so what were the results\n5)What is the probability of their test result returning an incorrect result? What is the statistical confidence for a positive result.\n\nWithout that information the test really tells you nothing at all except that of the people they bothered to sample you matched some Britons most closely.\n\nWhat should you do now? There’s not a great deal you can do. There is some new polymorphism test now that will narrow down your ancestors to an entire continent with 95% probability. But I don’t know who conducts it, or even what you would gain form knowing that your ancestors were 95% likely to have been ‘European’ or “Asian”.
820202
This is not an idle claim.\n\nW.r.t. that specific claim about similarities between the DNA of humans and bananas in particular, I found both creationist and scientific references that attribute that quote to distinguished UK Zoologist, Sir Robert May in New Scientist magazine (July 1, 2000).  Unfortunately, I'm not a subscriber to the magazine so I can't get the full article.\n\nBut I found a nice article that explains well what it means when we talk about (and quantify) similarities between human and plant DNA.  For example, the author (geneticist Flo Pauli from Stanford) shows side-by-side human and plant genetic sequences for a protein used in cell respiration found in both plants and animals.  The similarities are shown in red and you can see that there are lots of differences, but also a lot of long sequences in common. \n\nhttp://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=83\n\nThis does not make the human and chimp similarities irrelevant at all ... it strengthens the idea that *all* living life forms are related by common descent.  The more recent the common ancestor, the higher the percentage of shared DNA.  This is completely independent evidence of the theory of evolution, which was formulated long before DNA was discovered.
109239
The reason why people have problems with this concept is simply because they fail to understand the difference between a BIOLOGICAL reality and a CULTURAL reality.\n\nLook, if we wanted to we could group people by shirt colour couldn’t we? People with blue, green or purple shirts in one group, red yellow and orange in another and blacks, whites and greys making a third group? Do you agree that we could do that? We could then choose as a SOCIETY to teat those groups differently. We can tax them at different rates, throw them in prison whatever we like. \n\nWhat we have here is an example of a CULTURAL reality. The division of people by shirt colour is indisputably real. It indisputably has real effects on the real lives of real people. By any standard you like it is real. But do you also accept that such a division by shirt colour is not based in BIOLOGY? Do you accept that there is no common genetic thread amongst all the people in the green shirt group? Do you accept that it is perfectly possible for two people who are very closely related BIOLOGICALLY to be placed in totally separate shirt groups?\n\nWell, race is no different in any way at all. We have traditionally grouped people according to certain racial features. Those features were chosen at random, they are just as random as shirt colour. And they tell us no more about the person than shirt colour does. \n\nThat is what we mean when we state that race has no BIOLOGICAL reality. Black people are not closely related to one another. A random black person has a greater chance of being related to a White person or an Asian person than to another Black person. A White person has the same chance of being related to a black person as to another White. The only common feature held by Black people is the feature that we used to define them in the first place: black skin. That’s it.\n\nSo to answer your question, yes race is real. Nobody has ever denied that race is very, very real. How could you anyone possibly deny that race is real?  But race is CULTURALLY and HISTORICALLY real. It is not BIOLOGICALLY real.\n\n>>>>> Is the difference in skin colour and hair texture down to mutations\n\nIf you go back far enough, yes. But what  you need to realise that it isn’t just one mutation. There is no common skin colour gene found amongst all black people or all white people.  Heck, there isn’t even a common skin colour found amongst all the people we define as Black or White. That is precisely why race has no biological meaning.
996156
Never, just like their DNA, and the shape and structure of their eyes, their finger prints will not be the same, some time there are born identical twins to parent that look alike 99.9% but the only thing that make them different is that .1% and their DNA and finger prints, it is just a divine way of God creating his creatures,
128399
Most likely the children will look alike, however they will not be identical.  Genes mutate, some are passed on and some are repressed.  Genetics will prevent them from being identical, however they will be very close because even the back history of their genes is alike (grandma and grandpa for example).
377417
Don't know about "proof", but most peoples inter-marry/breed to increase the size of their gene pool. It is hard to believe that any of these cultures remained completely isolated.
294442
the difference in DNA between humans is SUPER tiny, like in the hundreths of a percent different.  humans are approximately .001% different
616124
It's definitely e.genetic markers-which produce the variations in people such as hair,eye and skin colors ect.
424794
There was an interesting documentary on this a few days ago on Discovery Times on cable I watched the other day that explains it to my satisfaction at the time......When Adam and Eve were forged by God and cast out of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Able were born it is theorized there were other tribal humans living outside the Garden of Eden and when the groups intermixed the "Holy" families were born under one bloodline......Those folks were of somewhat African and Middle Eastern ancestry in the countries we know of as today.........And hence the variety of complexions in the human race today as we know it
553535
You are probably thinking of the genetic studies that concluded that the most recent human common matrilineal ancestor was a woman in Africa about 150,000 years ago.  Those studies examined mitochondrial DNA from various sample groups existing today.  Those studies are valid, but only demonstrate what they purport to: everyone alive today is descended from a woman in Africa (almost certainly black) who lived about 150,000 years ago and there is no other more recent woman from whom everyone is descended.\n\nThat does not mean she was the first human or even the first human female.  She lived in a group, all of whom were human.  She had a mother and father, both of whom were human.\n\nIt is never going to be possible to say any particular person was the first human.  The transformation from homo erectus to homo sapiens took a very long time and occurred very gradually.  They sort of fade into one another.  You can't single out any one point in the process and say Here!  Here is where it happened!
360951
It's very possible. My best friend is Native American, and she is as blue eyed/blonde as them come. Recessive genes can toss you through a loop. Give him the benefit.
73114
There is about a 1 in 10 billion chance that someone would have the same dna as you, unless you have an identical twin.  Scienctists don't like to say "never", but that's really close.
363324
There is no proven connection at this time, hence it being a "theory." There are definite similarities, like we share 93% of the same genetic similarities with orangutans.
558247
Do they have the same fingerprints? "No," says Professor McCabe. Actually, it takes a while for these clumps of cells to get fingers, let alone fingerprints. So we're talking about on down the road a ways.\n         But still, how can this be? How can two people who have EXACTLY the same genes be different? After all, it's our genes that control everything about who we are and how we grow, right? So what's going on here?\n         Already when the embryos are in the womb, parts of their ENVIRONMENT are affecting what they'll be like, says Professor McCabe. Even though these babies are in Mom's womb at the same time and have exactly the same genes, many things can have different effects on each baby and can cause them to be different. For example, one baby may be getting a bigger part of Mom's blood supply and therefore more food than the other, so one identical twin may weigh more than the other at birth. Other effects include their position in the womb, Mom's mood, Mom's health, and so on.\n         Now, what about fingerprints? Can differences in blood supply give rise to different sets of fingerprints? Well, we don't really know, says Professor McCabe. (Sound familiar?) The difference could be due to many different environmental effects in the womb during the babies' development.\n         Other things about identical twins can be different. Professor McCabe showed me a picture of twin boys. Their hair whorls, the way the hair twists in a spiral pattern on the back of the head, turn in opposite directions! Here they are, absolutely alike (kind of), but their hair twists in opposite ways. What causes it? Who knows? \n        Whatever it is, it also makes other things different in these otherwise identical twins: the structure of their brains, for example, and how they think and learn.
970976
Nope 100% natural. Way to look past differences.