Talk:Chimpanzee genome project

Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

	Primates Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Great article - but it fails to mention the size of the chimp genome.--

Perhaps a refernce to some more interesting information? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 02:32:33, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading the official policy of wikipedia, you can look at the "evidence for common descent" article for more information.Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome" is incorrect. Only the euchromatic genome has been sequenced accurately enough to allow comparison. That's about 76% of the whole. The remainder simply has not been sequenced accurately enough to allow comparison. See here for details (scroll to the bottom of the thread and read the contribution by "sfs" who worked on the genome project) http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2068&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 Steve660 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later, and the error was still there, so I just fixed it. I see that it has previously been fixed twice (prior to the above comment), and then unfixed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glipsnort (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This error has been inserted repeatedly, citing non-scientific sources such as opinion articles authored by staff of the Discovery Institute. There are no peer reviewed scientific sources supporting the statement, which is not surprising given that it is based on a gross misunderstanding of genome sequencing (as well as a certain political agenda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.94.41 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the 150k insertion. The diagram shows it to be about 20 Mega Base pairs from the fusion point.

Please can you clarify:

a) "At the site of fusion". How is almost 10% of the size of the chromosome away reconciled with that quote from line one of the section "Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site", or indeed with the section title itself?

b) On line 3 of the same paragraph please provide support for the statement "prior to the fusion event". As a layman I can't see how we would could speculate on which occurred first, the fusion or the insertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J8h (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the popular press, one might read that chimps and humans share 96% of their genes in common or something. Is that a scientifically meaningful measure, and if so what is the similarity? Leadwind (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The belief in evolution is like the Kennedy assassination. Many people were unwilling to accept the truth and a Dallas police dictabelt which recorded four shots one minute after the assassination took place has long been presented in the popular culture as evidence that there was a second gunman. There is absolutely no solid evidence of chimp-to-human evolution and any claim that there is so is only from one's point of view. However, it is rational to include arguments from all sides.174.20.103.154 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is no evidence of "chimp-to-human evolution". There is, however, mountains of scientific data supporting the theory that humans and chimpanzees evolved from the same common ancestor (Evidence of common descent). The staff of the Discovery Institute are entitled to their opinions, but those opinions do not constitute "the other side" of any meaningful scientific conversation. And please... if you want to be taken seriously, you might want to drop the conspiracy theory non sequiturs.