Compare the DNA similarity between humans and pigs versus humans and chimpanzees.

This looks like a homework question to me so I will not help you unless you try and do a bit by yourself.

Here is a clue to help you with your research

The latin names for humans, chimps and pigs are Homo sapiens, Pan troglodytes and Sus scrofa respectively.

I'm 72 years old and I would like a scientific answer to the above question, please

Dear Jim,
A draft version of the pig (Sus scrofa) genome has recently been completed. See NCBI Pig Genome Resources (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/pig/)
I haven’t seen any overall % identity number, but one can say “The pig genome is of similar size (3 x 10^9 bp), complexity and chromosomal organization … as the human genome.” This is from www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/PorcineSEQ021203.pdf

The human – chimp comparison is well known. If you compare the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), the genomes are a little less than 99% identical. This identity between two unrelated humans is about 99.9%. Neither of these comparisons include the loss & gains of DNA termed “indels”. These differences are also called copy number differences & there isn’t an easy number of expressing this difference. An example of a copy number difference between humans is the gene responsible for color blindness. One way of making this comparison is to identify regions which are highly similar from the genetic maps. These regions are called “syntenic segments”. The expectation is that the size of the regions will decrease the further apart (time since the last common ancestor) the species are.

So how similar are our genes to a pig or a chimp? For this question I choose 1 gene. I compared albumen gene. The human (GenBank: NM_000477) to the chimp (GenBank: XM_517233) and to the pig (GenBank: NM_001005208) albumin mRNA sequences. I compared the sequences pairwise with program called BLAST (Basic Local Alignement Search tool) at the NCBI (BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi))

The Human vs Pig albumen genes are 83% identical (Identities = 1739/2091, Gaps = 80/2091 (3%)).
The Human vs Chimp albumen genes are 99% identical (Identities = 2119/2136, Gaps = 0/2136 (0%)).
The Chimp vs Pig albumen genes are 82% identical (Identities = 1668/2017, Gaps = 84/2017 (4%)).

You can make a nice argument for evolution with your question. If the pig, chimp & human albumin genes were the products of a separate creation there would be no reason to believe that the ~350 nucleotide differences between the human and the pig would the same as the ~350 differences between the chimp and the pig. I haven’t done this multiple sequence alignment. It might never have been done. BUT, it is easily done & I would predict, based on the evolutionary relationships, that >90% of the differences with the pig will be shared between the human & chimp sequences.

Actually I can not add to these suspicions seeing as how I had the same question this morning as Jim above and was please, if not surprised to see the question posed and also answered this morning, with a suspicion over evolution which had motivated my search.
I will follow this thread however and add to it if I come up with anything more!

The human – chimp comparison
You can make a nice argument for evolution with your question. If the pig, chimp & human albumin genes were the products of a separate creation there would be no reason to believe that the ~350 nucleotide differences between the human and the pig would the same as the ~350 differences between the chimp and the pig. I haven’t done this multiple sequence alignment. It might never have been done. BUT, it is easily done & I would predict, based on the evolutionary relationships, that >90% of the differences with the pig will be shared between the human & chimp sequences.

Hi Jem,
Can you recommend an authoritative and accessible primer for someone who wants to understand how these comparisons are made in more detail?

That is, me. I have a general background, but I have not read up on this for several years and would like to get a better handle on the different ways that cladistic trees are constructed from molecular data.

Hi Jem

Under your reasoning could it be argued that instead of man evolving from pig and chimp, can it be argued that pig and chimp may have evolved from man?

No, we didn't evolve from any animal alive today (chimps or pigs). We share a common ancestor with both. We have a much more recent common ancestor with chimps. The dates derived from DNA and from other scientific fields are in remarkable agreement.

Is it possible to find out if pigs dna contain human genes, as if a wild pig was taken and fused with human dna? In this case human dna wouldn't contain pig dna. I heard of a theory and would like to know how valid it is. According to this theory, humans were created in a similair way using primate and alien dna.

Is it possible to find out if pigs dna contain human genes, as if a wild pig was taken and fused with human dna? In this case human dna wouldn't contain pig dna. I heard of a theory and would like to know how valid it is. According to this theory, humans were created in a similair way using primate and alien dna.

RedAngel,

Yes it is true but the aliens are actually us.

I am not a biologist so I can't give you the specifics.

It was mooted at one stage that a person requiring a lung transplant would have their DNA injected in to a pig fetus solely for the purpose of overcoming the problem of rejection. Even though pigs are a long way from us in terms of common ancestors the size of their organs appears to be an attractive feature.

I think the other avenue of exploration centred on the possibility of eliminating the gene in pigs that cause humans to reject pig organs. In other words, the greatest problem when it comes humans receiving pig organs is rejection.

Tut

To tut317


even studying bio.eng.ing for a little bit has yielded to me that protein injection and DNA modification is the vary definition of gen.eng. The resone why they use pigs is that they have the same blood type as us in the fact they can carry O-, which you should be fimilier with.

So when we transfer the sequence in to the embryo, all its really doing is allowing the creature to manufacture cells that carry that alliel(gene)to produce the protein that makes the cell do what it does. Such as become a lung or a hart cell.

This process can be done to any animal except for humens thus for. In fact that how we get insoline, we egeneered goats or cows idr which one but they produce the protein in there milk for extractions.

So really its because of there blood type

What is the difference?
We have the answer but we will not give it to you

SDNIL.

@ nonono

The difference between any animal with a common ancestry in what proteins are active. Just one gene that says make a serten protein is ether on or off like a switch. We still have all the genes from when we where reptiles its just those are not turned on.

So the difference between pigs chimps and humans is if there is a new gene make new proteins or if old ones are on or off because nothing you find on lets say a human in new. You can find all of are parts in older species.

So. I think you are saying that the three animals in question have a amount of gene material in common, similar amounts to have them be close. However, the gene pool is programmed in each to switch on the chain reaction of gene instructed proteins (that is on and off) to manufacture the entire structure as we perceive them to be, pig, human, chimp.
I assume however, that the chimp and the pig and have missing genes when compared to the human!
If one was able, by adding that missing gene(s) to produce a switched on protein, to say the pig or the chimp, would one produce something nearer a Human?

Which is the Human new gene over its ancestors?

I am just trying to get a handle on my thoughts!
Thanks.

The reason I asked is because in the Quran (koran) states that there are people whom were smited into pigs and other people into apes, so I just find it fascinating that these two animals are the most similar and/or compatible with humans and if this is not coincidence but rather clues. Just like the same Quran gave the earliest embryological development evidence 1400 years before the microscope.

It would be worth researching the possibility that pigs and apes are in fact descendants of human.

Well if I was right thinking before that logically is the case, yet there is no evidence to say it is a retrogression. Which leaves deliberate design.
Yet all this depends on which way one wants the investigation to go, and to what end and fuelled by what motivation!
If we have always been the dominant intelligence and adept at movement and dexterity to boot, we may well be the authors as well. Who knows?

We did not come form chimps and schwine any more than they did us we share a common ancestor with chimp because we both came out of the same animal and that animal has common ancestry with the other apes. And pigs come out of a branch that links to lemurs. Lemurs are grandfathered to the primate.

So over time animals grow to match or fill certen needs for the envirment. Something interesting though, in every enviorment/ecosystem/region if there isnot a curten type of animal, anouther one evolves to take its place. For example there is an island that is as divers as africa in animales. How ever, they are descendants of lemurs, shruws slothes apes cats dogs, there all lemurs. That is interesting because that means you can make an argument that says the bipedle humenoid design is going to be the most common "intelagent" structure in zinology

By the way
Remember to like someone's post if its useful

Basically, Pigs, Chimps and Bear are those nations of humans who disobeyed God thousands years ago and then they were cursed into animals. Disobedience could be of not listening of the God's messengers and carrying out their evil tricks which eventually ended into turning their presence into animals. Later those animals left human civilizations and settled into jungles (God knows the best).

Not quite
Dear sir, even from a theological pov

Genome to god in a few notes. Um starts with the same letter I observe!

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
[DeWitt, D.A. Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. TJ 17(1):8–10, 2003.]

And this was later found to be an underestimate by more than a factor of 2. The actual DNA similarity is less than 86.7%!! And when the presence of other genome (two MHC Class I genes, the MICA and MICB, yet chimpanzees contain only one gene at this location, the Patr-MIC.) is figured in it will end up being significantly lower.
[Anzai, T. Shiina, T. Kimura, N. Yanagiya, K. Kohara, S. Shigenari, A. Yamagata, T. Kulski, J.K. Naruse, T.K. Fujimori, Y. Fukuzumi, Y. Yamazaki, M. Tashiro, H. Iawmoto, C. Umehara, Y. Imanishi, T. Meyer, A. Ikeo, K. Gojobori, T. Bahram, S. and Inoko, H. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100(13):7708–7713, 2003.]

So in the end, yes we are more closely related to Pigs from a DNA stand point.

Thanks for the update. How about our similarity to pigs has this also changed?

Please note that the article cited by OldManWinter is from the web site answersingenesis.org - not a reputable scientific source, so take it with a grain of salt.

Grain noted!

Please note that these were the peer journals not a web site. Take time to look at the citations for crying out loud.

Please note that these were the peer journals not a web site. Take time to look at the citations for crying out loud.

I did a Google search on "DeWitt, D.A., Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More.," and all that comes up is the suspect web site that I noted, not any "peer reviewed" journals. Is there another citation we should be aware of?

I did a Google search on "DeWitt, D.A., Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More.," and all that comes up is the suspect web site that I noted, not any "peer reviewed" journals. Is there another citation we should be aware of?

These should be adequate web references. If you wish to look for citation titles on the web please refer to Scholar Google it helps.


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111906005749
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/16/5012.short

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates. Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. People may use the appearance method espoused by Darwin's adaptation/evolution theory as support, but not through the use of genetic statistics.

This matters little in relationship to ones religious beliefs or lack of belief. This is a matter of workable science.

These should be adequate web references. If you wish to look for citation titles on the web please refer to Scholar Google it helps.


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111906005749
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/16/5012.short

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates. Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. People may use the appearance method espoused by Darwin's adaptation/evolution theory as support, but not through the use of genetic statistics.

This matters little in relationship to ones religious beliefs or lack of belief. This is a matter of workable science.

Well I looked around and this 'seemed' to have been peer reviewed : http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

I take the broad brush strokes first, on can always overpaint for detail later!

Not much on pigs!

These should be adequate web references. If you wish to look for citation titles on the web please refer to Scholar Google it helps.


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111906005749
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/16/5012.short

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates. Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. People may use the appearance method espoused by Darwin's adaptation/evolution theory as support, but not through the use of genetic statistics.

This matters little in relationship to ones religious beliefs or lack of belief. This is a matter of workable science.

Well I looked around and this 'seemed' to have been peer reviewed : http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

I take the broad brush strokes first, one can always overpaint for detail later!

Not much on pigs!

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates.

Whether we differ "considerably" is a matter if qualitative degree - I'll accept that term for purposes of this discussion, but I wonder if you are in the crowd that thinks humans and pigs differ genetically less than humans and chimps?


Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. ...This is a matter of workable science.

Current theory does not hold that humans evolved from chimps. The prevailing theory is that humans and chimps both evolved from earlier primates. So while I don't agree that the level of variations between species - "considerable" or otherwise - proves whether one evolved from the other or not, it's a moot argument.

Whether we differ "considerably" is a matter if qalitative degree - I'll accept that term for purposes of this discussion, but I wonder if you are in the crowd that thinks humans and pigs differ genetically less than humans and chimps?



Current theory does not hold that humans evolved from chimps. The prevailing theory is that humans and chimps both evolved from earlier primates. So while I don't agree that the level of variations between species - "considerable" or otherwise - proves whether one evolved from the other or not, it's a moot argument.

There seems to have been descovered other types of human in the bone record as skulls and 'stuff'. Origonaly my own question back when at the start of this topic was that there seemed little diffrence between what was said of the genom between man, as in the us now, and the chimp and the pig.
Personally I have never felt that evolution and survival belong in the same sentence or are good bedfellows.
If we, us humans now, do evolve I think it is from within a pool of the us that makes the environment, and one would not be able to draw an primate in succession turning into a upright human as we are now.
So for me no, not in a crowd. Just interested in the original question, which has expanded, for the most part, in a interesting way!
So for me pigs humans and chimps seem a good comparison to use to compare against. Better than tree say!

In Islam Muslims believe that pigs and monkeys were originally humans and were turned into these animals. No need to try to find your answers for all the big questions just take a look at Noble Quran. Scientists have estimated the age of the earth and also the time it takes for animals to evolve. The world has too many varieties and species of animals for evolution to add up.