The common statistic one hears tossed about is that humans are about 98% similar, at a genetic level, to chimpanzees.
Turns out that isn’t quite accurate
.
First, the 98% figure is probably overstated. An article in Science puts the actual figure at 94%. (Jon Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, June 29, 2007). But even these figures are only measuring about 2% of our total genetic makeup — that is, those genes that code for proteins, the building blocks of our physical bodies and functions.
The vast majority of our DNA, known as “non-coding DNA” — sometimes called “junk DNA” because it was once thought not to have function — is very different in humans from most non-coding genes found in chimps and other apes. However, recent research has found that, contrary to previous belief, this repetitive DNA isn’t “junk” after all, but has distinct purposes.
Research continues as to the exact nature and functions of non-coding genes, but given the wide differences between human and ape non-coding DNA, even if the purported 98% genetic similarity to coding DNA is true, it is actually only 98% of a much smaller percentage of our total genetic makeup, perhaps as low as 98% of 2%!
This isn’t really news, given that “more than a year ago” date on the referenced article, but it’s interesting all the same. It’s also not really a shot against e.g. the theory of evolution, although I’m sure that more than a few of my misguided Young Earth Creationist brothers and sisters in Christ will attempt to make it into something like that (which would be dishonest of them to do, and a pity).
That said, it is a bit of a shot in the arm to those silly people in Europe — was that Spain that it happened in? — who wanted to confer human rights onto great apes, based on their genetic similarity to humans.
Personally, I think the risks outweigh the advantages, but it is an interesting factoid.
One holds that an abundant supply of fat tissue acts like a factory, churning out chemicals called adipokines that help fight inflammation and infections such as sepsis — overwhelming bloodstream infections that are the leading cause of death in an ICU.
In addition, during severe illnesses, the body breaks down muscle protein and glycogen, the body’s primary source of stored energy. Obese people may be better able to cope because of greater nutritional reserves.
“With the increased rates of obesity, we’re seeing more and more morbidly obese patients in the intensive care unit,” says lead author Dr. Folu Akinnusi, of the University of Buffalo’s division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine.
“We thought, if they were at increased risk and likely to die, we needed to do something, we needed a different kind of intervention to try and reduce or stem that wave of increased mortality,” Akinnusi says.
Instead, they found the opposite to be true.
Interesting. Still, given the choice, I’d rather not flirt with the increased risk of, say, heart disease or diabetes.
