So has this "Debate" come to a cease since we're stuck at a part where we don't know anything more?

Grr...You haven't got the right picture at all...the junk DNA doesn't work like a shield in the normal sense..imagine a castle on a square mile of land...over centuries 4 meteorites hit that land and one hits the castle causing damage and reconstruction and changes to take place to the castle (unless the castle is destroyed)....the castle is the important DNA without junk DNA surrounding it...the meteorites are the mutational forces. Imagine now the same castle surrounded by 20 miles of land...four meteorites are going to fall over that land but probability means that they are now far less likely to hit the castle. This extra land is the junk DNA..it does change and become damaged but as it is not expressed it doesn't matter..it's not the castle.


The castle may get changed at some point too but the process is one of lessened chance.

Look....maybe I'm just an idiot(no conformations please), but, I think the land around the castle being bombarded by meteors would ultimately have an affect on the castle. It must be there for a reason....god damn. Junk DNA is not a buffer, right? Does it contain code? Has it been proved to have no input whatsoever? That's probably what gets me. The more we seem to discover the more we seem to say "Jeez, we thought that was just... erm... junk".

Anyway, gone right off on a tangent. Your patience is very impressive Tent.

Allow me to layout my whole "theory", that pokes holes in your own theories(I guess).

We have Junk DNA. That makes up 99% of our DNA(according to scientists who have been comparing genetic structures of a people with different ethnic backgrounds). That 99% is the same no matter who you are(according to those scientists), and the other 1% is all of the characteristics that deal with pigmentation, hair color, immunities, etc. Got that? GOT THAT? Okay...

Now according to YOU the Junk DNA helps to "buffer" the 1%. This means that the 99% is getting altered throughout the existence of a species lifespan. Now we have different people of different ethnic backgrounds who have managed to retain that 99% Junk DNA which is completely the same. Millions of years primates have waddled about, hundreds of thousands of years Humans have wandered the world in various locales, undergoing different forms of "mutational bombardments". That 99% has remained exactly the same. Someone(asd or tentacle) said that the Junk is actually altered due to the mutation bombardments.

This means that your theories are wrong, since how can all of the Junk DNA STILL REMAIN THE SAME? If it's changing then it should change, yet according to you guys it's protecting the DNA.

This either means scientists still can't quite grasp the concept of understanding the similarities between the genetic structures, OR that we're wrong and something else is happening.

Also, I'd like to point out that we can look at the social evolution that has occured in the past 2000 years...one which has easily dwarfed the 100,000+ other years Humans have been around and barely managed to supposedly obtain a basic understanding of rudimentary sciences.

Am I the only one who thinks that's odd?

Anywho....I just think we can't take anything scientists say to heart, nor can we use what they say in debates(hypocritical since I was just using it, I know, but bear with me) because of the fact that they are not 100% certain about anything. We can't even reach sub-atomic viewing yet, so how can we dare say we know anything about the Human genome?

Again...I'm no genius, but hey...logic rocks

do they have any dna linking the..."great apes" as human?

Heck, according to a lot of things Humans have a lot of the same genetic structures and whatnot as animals which don't even look like us.

You've now proved you don't know what you're talking about..that statistic of 99% is the similarity between white and black people (supposedly..it was you who brought it up in the first place!)..We don't have 99% junk DNA you ********(please insert obscenity here)

Do you actualy even know what DNA stands for? have you actualy read anything about it?

Tentacle....it all went like this:
I stated that according to scientists the people of different ethnic backgrounds had 99% of the same DNA. This, in turn, would mean 1% would be the characteristic related garbage. Couple that with a statement by, I do believe asd, talking about how 99% of the DNA is actually "Junk" DNA(Or rather DNA they don't understand it's existence for specifically). This would, therefore, mean that, at least 98% of the same DNA is Junk.

Hard to understand? No. Weird? No. Stupid?...yes...yes I am.

Let me break this down very carefully and specifically:

1. Only 7 to 10 percent of our DNA is expressed as physical traits; the other 90 to 93 percent is not and has no apparent purpose other than to maintain the structure of the DNA molecule and perhaps as "shielding."

2. Humans of varying races share a much greater than 99% homology. This means that when nucleotide sequences are compared, <99% of the sequences are identical.

3. Only certain genes and gene fragments are compared, not entire genomes.

4. Only those genes/gene fragments that are expressed are compared.

5. Thus, <99% of expressed DNA is homologous. 0% of this homologous DNA is junk. What is the percentage of similar DNA of the entire genomes of members of varying races? That can't be determined from the available information.

Yes, modern apes and humas share around 97-98% genetic homology.

Human share to some degree genetic similarity to all extant species, since we've all decended from a common ancestor.

There you are, asd! I was wondering where in the fuggin world you vanished to. By the way, where'd you pick up that 97% blah blah stuff? I picked my info up from a scientific article presented by moronic scientists who were trying to remove bigotry in a slight way.

From the page entitled "Are Mutations Harmful?" that I linked to a few posts back. It's near the bottom of the page.

ooo..

Man..can you tell I'm a tad out of it lately? I blame it on the overwhelming joy of receiving a printer that's also a scanner and copier(like I'll use THAT).

Joy..I can now scan stupid things.