Skip to main content

dna, cookbooks, maps and chimpanzees

Let's take it as a given that 98% of human dna is similar to that of a chimpanzee.

For those who believe that it is a spiritual dimension that makes humans different, the closer this % is to 100, the better supported is the claim that genetics does not suffice to account for the differences between humans and their closest neighbors on the tree of life.

It is worth pointing out that a 2% difference in (non-junk) dna doesn't necessarily imply a similarly low level of phenotypic difference. To think that it does is to take dna as a kind of model or image of the human body. But it isn't: it's a set of instructions on how to grow, or as Richard Dawkins says in The Greatest Show, it is more like a cookbook than a blueprint. An even more creative simile by RD: a set of instructions for "auto-origami." In such a case, a slight difference in the instructions can yield a great difference in the final product. Think of a cake without baking soda. That might be less than 2% of the volume of the cake, but oh what a difference!

Moral of that story: it is a mistake to posit a linear relationship between the percentage of difference in phenotype and the percentage of difference in genotype.
Labels:

Comments

Leo White said…
Also, the lessor the difference in DNA between human and chimp, the stronger the argument that something other than a difference in DNA differentiates us phenotypically
from chimps
11:16 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more