Mutations Confirm Common Descent

Why are you even talking when nothing but shit is coming out of your mouth?

With me, that figure is considerably higher ... my DNA has been analysed as 85% potato and 14% banana.

So are you in middle school? Does your pastor and mom know you swear like that?

All you do here is troll

What are your qualifications and credentials to think you can overthrow all of the scientific thought of the last 2 centuries? If you want to be taken seriously you need to show that you know what you are discussing. Why should the world's leading scientists listen to you?
Do you have the qualifications? Is it religious hubris? Did your mommy and pastor tell you that you could?

I think the average is somewhere around 99.5%. Depends on the primate. We share around 96.5% of our DNA with chimps if you factor in indels, and they are our closest relatives. Out of all primate species chimps share the most DNA with us. Conversely, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do any other primate species. Are you going to address the evidence in the beginning of the thread, or is this just a gotcha post?

Can you address the evidence presented at the beginning of this thread?

Keep trolling. I do my research, I do not need your permission.

It seems like a good argument for common ancestry of primates, ngl. Though I haven't looked at all of your sources yet, you made a convincing argument.You got my attention, and if I can find data to verify independently as much as I can, we can discuss this further, if you wish.Right now, what I was thinking, is if we look at humans only, for example, there is a percentage that is shared among all humans.If we are in an ongoing evolution process, there is a portion of DNA in humans that is currently not shared among all individuals.
Depending on the part of DNA we are looking at, it can be anywhere between 0 and 1 fraction of total human population. For example DNA sequence for blue eyes may be around 8%, or perhaps more, as it may be present but not dominant.Some of these varying DNA could reach 100% at some point and would promote to being fixed, shared in whole population.From the data, we should be able to extract the rate of mutations and the fraction that fluctuate through the space between 0 and 1. We would need to make some assumptions on how much one sequence may have some beneficial advantages or not over other sequences. Then, hopefully, the model will give some predictions with margins of error, on how much different primate species should have in common. But I need to work out the model first and put in our data.

With as many living humans as there are right now (~7 billion) it is almost guaranteed that every non-lethal mutation exists somewhere in the human population, even if it is just in a few individuals. Therefore, nearly all DNA is not shared amongst all humans. Only a tiny fraction of all bases in the human genome are going to be shared by all humans. I don't think it is that easy because you would need human populations that are not interbreeding with one another. However, the math does exist:

quote:

---

Each of the 2N genes in the original population has an equal chance of being the lucky one

​

Any one gene in the population, therefore, has a 1/( 2N ) chance of eventual fixation by random drift (and a ( 2N -1)/( 2N ) chance of being lost by it). Because the same argument applies to any gene in the population, it also applies to a new, unique, neutral mutation.

​

When the mutation arises, it will be one gene in a population of 2N genes at its locus (i.e., its frequency will be 1/(2/N )), and it has the same 1/(2N ) chance of eventual fixation as does every other gene in the population. It is therefore most likely that the mutation will be lost but it does have a small chance of success. The probability that a neutral mutation will eventually be fixed is 1/(2N ).

​

The rate of evolution equals the probability that a mutation is fixed, multiplied by the rate at which mutations appear. We define the rate at which neutral mutations arise as µ per gene per generation. (µ is the rate at which new selectively neutral mutations arise, not the total mutation rate. We are here considering only those mutations that are neutral.) At each locus, there are 2N genes in the population: the total number of neutral mutations arising in the population will be 2N µ per generation.

​

The rate of neutral evolution is 1/(2N ) x 2Nµ = µ. It is equal to the neutral mutation rate.

​

Evolution - Random events in population genetics

---

One of the difficulties could be the mutation rate which won't necessarily stay the same over a given period of time. Some papers suggest that the mutation rate in chimps is 50% higher than that in humans, as one example:

quote:

---

Mutations generate genetic variation and are a major driving force of evolution. Therefore, examining mutation rates and modes are essential for understanding the genetic basis of the physiology and evolution of organisms. Here, we aim to identify germline de novo mutations through the whole-genome surveyance of Mendelian inheritance error sites (MIEs), those not inherited through the Mendelian inheritance manner from either of the parents, using ultra-deep whole genome sequences (>150-fold) from a chimpanzee parent-offspring trio. We identified such 889 MIEs and classified them into four categories based on the pattern of inheritance and the sequence read depth: de novo single nucleotide variants (SNVs), [ii] copy number neutral inherited variants, [iii] hemizygous deletion inherited variants, and [iv] de novo copy number variants (CNVs). From de novo SNV candidates, we estimated a germline de novo SNV mutation rate as 1.48 × 10−8 per site per generation or 0.62 × 10−9 per site per year. In summary, this study demonstrates the significance of ultra-deep whole genome sequencing not only for the direct estimation of mutation rates but also for discerning various mutation modes including de novo allelic conversion and de novo CNVs by identifying MIEs through the transmission of genomes from parents to offspring.
Direct estimation of de novo mutation rates in a chimpanzee parent-offspring trio by ultra-deep whole genome sequencing | Scientific Reports

---

Well, I found sources from around 2018-2021, stating that 99.9% was shared among all humans. But you are suggesting it's lower, that in fact, for the vast majority of all DNA parts, if we'd pick one, there is likely to be one or a few individuals having a mutated sequence for that part?Besides changes in mutation rates, population sizes are also changing. I hope I can find some rough estimates of population sizes throughout most of primate history.

I was going from memory, so if there are published papers with 99.9% then go with that. Yes. If you pick a specific base from a specific person, there will be at least a handful of people with a different base at that position as long as it isn't a lethal mutation. This is because 7 billion births is enough to create every possible mutation in the human genome several times over. For the idealized neutral mutation rate the size of the population doesn't matter. All that matters is the mutation rate. If you look at the equation the population size cancels out in the equation.

So the 99.9% is if we would pick two random and unrelated individuals, they would share about 99.9% of their genetic markup.Population size does matter for fixation rate, I suppose.Maybe it's easiest to start a model for fixed population size n and mutation rate mu. And even start with a population where all DNA is identical. Then one question would be, after m generations, how many mutated bases (or genes) would have spread through 0.1 and 0.2 fraction of the population? And then same for 0.2 and 0.3, or more generally, between p and q.
Should we only consider point mutations for simplification? As I don't think it would affect the results much. But there are several types of mutations, and model may get too complicated.

It is an an average between any two human beings. Some will share more (such as close relatives) and some will share less. This article is probably right up your alley:What Genetics Says About Adam and Eve - Article - BioLogosIt discusses the distribution of rare and common mutations and how they play out in a population over time. That is a simplification that many use because it is difficult to calculate a meaningful indel or recombination rate. Substitutions are much more common and occur at a rate that is more clock like.

I like you, Sensei. You seem to want to actually have a conversation and exchange ideas with people...at least you are so doing with Taq. Good job!