how is the genetic makeup of   a grasshopper and a human different?
951713
Humans and grasshoppers have thousands of genes in common.  The elements needed for making life (protine manufacturing) is the same for all life forms.  The difference comes in the combinations od genes and their specific sequencing.  For example; humans have about 30,000 base pairs, if memory serves.
95015
This has to do with the genes one conveys in the basic human cell, or rather the human blue print: DNA.\nA chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body, not all are considered troubling, though.\nScientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. \nBasicaly what I mean is that this is the implant of different genes in one organism but basicly with the concept of hybridisation (interbreeding to achieve desired qualities).
615648
both are different species belonging to same genus
41886
Kingdom: Animalia\nPhylum: Arthropoda\nClass: Insecta\nOrder: Orthoptera\nSuborder: Caelifera\nFamily :    \n* Acrididae (grasshoppers and short-horned grasshoppers)\n    * Eumastacidae (monkey grasshoppers)\n    * Tanaoceridae (tanaocerids)\n    * Tetrigidae (grouse locusts, pygmy grasshoppers, and pygmy locusts)\n    * Tridactylidae (pygmy mole crickets)\n\nThe most important family is Acrididae, consisting of about 10,000 species.
860654
Fruit flies have common genetic make up with humans. They also reproduce quickly, and in large quantities, so heredity and genetic variations throughout generations can be seen at a faster pace than other organisms.
422256
I have all the respect in the world to Darwin. He is a good scientist, and even though evolution does indeed occur; it occurs withIN one species. So, in effect, an insect can evolve into an 'evolved' insect, but it can't evolve into a fish! Primates might 'seem' similar, but I do not hold them in the same 'species' as humans. In other words, I do not believe that WE evolved from monkeys, and therefore, we have no 'relatives' from the animal kingdom. If primates evolved into anything; I think it is into bigfoot, but not humans.
681386
Your "soul"?  What are they teaching in biology class these days? :-)\n\nLook, a person and their clone would be no more alike than two normally occuring identical twins.  In fact, genetically, that's exactly what a clone is ... just an identical twin.  They *look* alike, and may have some similar propensities (they may both be naturally talented at math, say) ... but other than that they are two completely independent human beings.  They will have different experiences ... that makes them different.\n\nAs for your "soul", biologists are happy to leave that to the spiritual folks.  Biologists have no opinion either way.
761309
Homologous chromosomes are chromosomes in a biological cell that pair (synapse) during meiosis, or alternatively, non-identical chromosomes that contain information for the same biological features and contain the same genes at the same loci but possibly different genetic information, called alleles, at those genes. For example, two chromosomes may have genes encoding eye colour, but one may code for brown eyes, the other for blue.\n\nNon-homologous chromosomes representing all the biological features of an organism form a set, and the number of sets in a cell is called ploidy. In diploid organisms (most plants and animals), each homologous chromosome is inherited from a different parent. But polyploid organisms have more than two homologous chromosomes.\n\nHomologous chromosomes are similar in length, except for sex chromosomes in several taxa, where the X chromosome is considerably larger than the Y chromosome. These chromosomes share only small regions of homology.\n\nHumans have 22 pairs of homologous non-sex chromosomes (called autosomes). Each member of a pair is inherited from one of their two parents. In addition, female humans have a homologous pair of X sex chromosomes; males have an X and a Y chromosome.
560142
One of each pair is derived from either parents. Also due to the diploid nature of chromosomes genotypes as homozygous dominant, homozygous recessive and heterozygous can be found. Thus a recessive character can be avoided to the maximum.
400821
Try this:\n\nSection 1\n1. What are the distinguishing features of a man from other genus?\n2. What are the distinguishing features of a man from other genus?\n\nSection 2\nIn combining the questions raised in section 1, further subject related questions become apparent:\n1. Does the basis to distinguish a man form other genus differ from that of a woman?\n2. Does the method to distinguish a man from other genus differ from that of a woman?\n3. Are the ideas to distinguish a man from other genus deifferent from that of a woman?\n4. Is this basis to distinguish X from Y different that X from Z?
183512
our genetic code is 99.999 % similar.\n\nsince human species has not arrived too long (on a geological/whatever scale) the varation of genes between humans is very little.\n\nthere is much more genetic varaibility between chimps, monkeys, cows, rats etc....than between humans.
758609
The lot of genetic sequencing. Although, both being mammals, there is a great deal of genetic similarity. However, a change of less that 1% of an organism's genetic code makes a vastly different creature, such as in the difference between a chimpanzee and a human, which share between 98% and 99% of the same DNA.
974197
I asked that question, and there is no known mechanism. There is however a mechanism that keeps different species from being able to interbreed.
870300
Measuring chromosomes as a whole isn't a very good way of determining relationships between species. Although humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) versus chimps' 48 (24 pairs), it's clear from looking at the structure of the chromosomes themselves that one of the human ones is composed of two of the chimps ones that have joined together. We can even see the end markers of the chimps genes in the middle of our joined one.\n\nIn terms of overall genetic difference between humans and chimps, it depends on exactly how you measure it but it's between 1 and 4 per cent. \n\nUnfortunately the answers given earlier about pigs being closer aren't accurate. They share large-scale physiological similarities, which is why heart ops may be possible, but this has nothing to do with DNA.\n\nA good reference for all this stuff is the Talk Origins archive at http://www.talkorigins.org
12135
The other's answers are partially right, but take the common social constructivist view too far. Race/creed/caste/religion/clan/ethnicity are all slippery terms that are not easily defined. In a similar manner it is very hard to define what a species is (The common idea that a species is defined by when organisms can reproduce is violated for many species and meaningless for asexual organisms). A race or population from a biological perspective is a grouping of organisms that tend to breed more among themselves than with other groups. Subsequently they tend to have distinctive features. Now of course our common definitions of race have a large social influence that defies the logic of a group that tend to breed more with itself than other groups. For example the U.S.'s idea of hypodescent that dictates that someone who is 1/16 of black african descent is African American is kind of silly (on the other hand if these African Americans tend to breed mainly with other African Americans then perhaps it is not so far fetched).\n\nJust because something can not easily be defined and overlaps does not mean it does not exist. Males are on average taller than females, but many females are taller than many males. This doesn't mean that it is a social construction to say menare bigger then women.\n\nTo answer your original question, with these caveats acknowledged, genes are distinctive among different human popularions (populations which follow human conceptions of race pretty well). Many of these genes are neutral and depend upon similar techniques to those used in forensics to get a DNA fingerprint. Interestingly, some of these gens are functional, they change the way our bodies and minds work.\nFor example, the sickle cell gene which helps protect against malaria is at much higher frequency in populations which must deal with malaria.\nA genetic polymorphism, the dopamine receptor D4 gene varies radically among populations. This is a gene that has been associated with behavioral differences among people including ADHD. It is thought by some that different social background may select for different frequencies of the DRD4 gene. The frequency of ADHD associated genese in a population probably also impacts how that culture evolves.
925661
What a fascinating question.  I'm no geneticist, so take my words with such forewarning.\n\nI think if one were to closely look at human evolution, one would find a different degree in evolutionary history.  \n\nHow does one best differentiate the degree between races? That is not so debatable. Most scientist, today, do not recognize race.\n\nOnce upon a time they did it with "discernible" qualities based on "eyeball" measurements.  \n\nSkin color demonstrates this old fashioned method quite well.  And still, it counts for something, despite its inaccuracy.  \n\nOur world wide communication has increased, and people of different skin colors have discussed (and seem to agree) that human nature seems to be same, no matter where we are.  \n\nThere are good and bad people out there, despite the preponderance of race you live amongst.  \n\nThis could be comforting in the sense that no race is better than the other,  or discomforting in the sense that there will always be "different" people out there, no matter where you live.\n\nThe debate on "degree" of human evolution, in my humble opinion, should be viewed in light of the environment in which the human is required to adapt to.\n\nYes the degree of evolution among Humans is different, and so is the environment in which Humans live in.\n\nA current trend for scientist is to observe closely the Human genome and how it may or may not change within different situations.\n\nI suppose the phrase of "genetic adaptation" is appropriate to use here.\n\nSpecifically, I'm thinking of the adaptation of the Human gene 'hemoglobin' has gone through, in an attempt allow Humans to survive.  \n\nIn some environments Plasmodium parasitism has changed the degree of evolution by favoring the level of genetic adaptation in those with an altered (or evolved?) globin genes.  Having those altered genes in an an environment where Plasmodium is prevalent is a plus. (Please google "genes, hemoglobin, parasites, Africa).\n\nHaving those altered globin genes in a part of the world where Plasmodium is NOT prevalent might mark you as different.  Just like skin color.\n\nI sometimes wonder if race might better be described by historic ability to survive genetic insults.  \n\nDo you have an Alu element in NM_94327343?\n\nOr better yet, are you evolving differently because your Alu element at NM_94327343 is no longer methylated?\n\nTake home points: (1) Skin color is not a current basis of race.  (2) Environment suggestively role-plays in our differences during Human evolution.  (3) According to experts every time the sperm and egg "dance", there is an opportunity for a degree for evolution (Sorry I didn't expound on this in my answer, but it can be googled.  Try 'XX', 'XY', 'meiosis' as a point in a good direction).  (4) There are probably other reasons that Humans evolve to different degrees, and they might be unmeasurable at the moment. However, current standard genetic measures on "old" populations seems to say "yes, there are degrees of difference in human evolution".  \n\nI had a lot of fun thinking about your question.  I can't wait to see your other replies regarding this topic.  Don't forget to pass on your good Karma!
694878
1) Homozygous at that locus.\n\n2) The human tailbone.  It is what remains of a tail that we no longer need.