Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
There was one legit link in that article. The Science link apparently contradicts the stated conclusion. I quote: "Mean autosomal divergence is 1.27 ± 0.20% (human-chimpanzee), 1.61 ± 0.21% (human-gorilla), and 3.12 ± 0.33% (human-orangutan)."

I'm not a geneticist, and I hope Anthony or btresist (formerly centromere) chimes in. Autosomal divergence increases with increasing genetic distance. Is the 4% number still correct or do we now have to say 1.3%?

As for soft tissue, I remembered that was accounted for many years ago. The bigger question is whether proteins were in the samples (no one has been able to replicate the original research, from my quick look). One hypothesis is that the chemical situation is similar to immersing the tissue in formaldehyde. I'm not a bio-chemist, so I cannot say that they are wrong. There is a large community of bio-chemists that can, and if they see fit they will. Scientists love blasting their colleagues if they are being stupid. It can get pretty ruthless. That's why scientists hedge, and are very cautious. You gotta bring your data, and it has to stand up to scrutiny.

Or a little more recent:

Still somewhat controversial.
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.