That is not my gender ~ however you got other right ~ a boy indeed.
Super clever.
How is this relevant to this statement made by whoever else you’re referring to that said this:
“Analysis of DNA shows very little similarity, in the actual genes.”
They never mentioned anything about DNA being “separate” from genes.
OK, so what is your interpretation? What do you suppose DNA analyses entail?
While it is true that most of the genome is not genes, it is also true that genes were, for I hope obvious reasons, most often included in 'DNA analyses,' and this information is available to anyone that actually really wants to learn.
Here is an example:
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Naturevolume 437, pages69–87 (2005)
"Here we present a
draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (
Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular,
we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution."
Alas, by its very nature, a comparison of protein coding genes relies upon DNA sequence analyses. Thus, that paper also entails the DNA sequence analyses of the genomes.
And the results show the same things.
Here is one using mtGenomes, which was approved when used in Canids by the creationist in question but dismissed when looking at primates for some reason:
A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Complete mitochondrial (mt) genomes have proven to be extremely useful in deciphering within-order relationships even up to deep nodes. Using 454 sequencing, we sequenced 32 new complete mt genomes adding 20 previously not represented genera to the phylogenetic reconstruction of the primate tree. With 13 new sequences, the number of complete mt genomes within the parvorder Platyrrhini was widely extended, resulting in a largely resolved branching pattern among New World monkey families. We added 10 new
Strepsirrhini mt genomes to the 15 previously available ones, thus almost doubling the number of mt genomes within this clade. Our data allow precise date estimates of all nodes and offer new insights into primate evolution. One major result is a relatively young date for the most recent common ancestor of all living primates which was estimated to 66-69 million years ago, suggesting that the divergence of extant primates started close to the K/T-boundary. Although some relationships remain unclear, the large number of mt genomes used allowed us to reconstruct a robust primate phylogeny which is largely in agreement with previous publications. Finally, we show that mt genomes are a useful tool for resolving primate phylogenetic relationships on various taxonomic levels."
I could go on, but that would be piling-on.
To claim that DNA analyses have little similarity in the actual genes is, according to the evidence and facts and reason, just a really really dumb thing to say.
Actual genes themselves don’t exist. A gene is an abstract concept used as a unit to measure the different segment sizes and sequences of DNA and separate or unite their different functions and with either/or come more various definitions of “gene.”
That does not match any definition of gene I am familiar with in any way.
"a unit to measure the different segment sizes"? What does that even mean?
Here is
a reality-based treatment:
"This paper presents a history of the changing meanings of the term “gene,” over more than a century, and a discussion of why this word, so crucial to genetics, needs redefinition today. In this account, the first two phases of 20th century genetics are designated the “classical” and the “neoclassical” periods, and the current molecular-genetic era the “modern period.” While the first two stages generated increasing clarity about the nature of the gene, the present period features complexity and confusion. Initially, the term “gene” was coined to denote an abstract “unit of inheritance,” to which no specific material attributes were assigned. As the classical and neoclassical periods unfolded, the term became more concrete, first as a dimensionless point on a chromosome, then as a linear segment within a chromosome, and finally as a linear segment in the DNA molecule that encodes a polypeptide chain. This last definition, from the early 1960s, remains the one employed today, but developments since the 1970s have undermined its generality. Indeed, they raise questions about both the utility of the concept of a basic “unit of inheritance” and the long implicit belief that genes are autonomous agents. Here, we review findings that have made the classic molecular definition obsolete and propose a new one based on contemporary knowledge...
Here, therefore, we will propose a definition that we believe comes closer to doing justice to the idea of the “gene,” in light of current knowledge. It makes no reference to “the unit of heredity”—the long-standing sense of the term—because we feel that it is now clear that no such generic universal unit exists. By referring to DNA sequences, however, our definition embodies the hereditary dimension of genes (in a way that pure “process”-centered definitions focused on gene expression do not). Furthermore, in its emphasis on the ultimate molecular products and reference to GRNs as both evokers and mediators of the actions of those products, it recognizes the long causal chains that often operate between genes and their effects. Our provisional definition is this:
A gene is a DNA sequence (whose component segments do not necessarily need to be physically contiguous) that specifies one or more sequence-related RNAs/proteins that are both evoked by GRNs and participate as elements in GRNs, often with indirect effects, or as outputs of GRNs, the latter yielding more direct phenotypic effects.
Nothing about a unit to measure the different segment sizes.... nothing about measuring sequences of DNA... or whatever this is supposed to mean: "... and separate or unite their different functions and with either/or come more various definitions of “gene.”"
But I am curious - how does what you wrote support the naiveté expressed here:
“Analysis of DNA shows very little similarity, in the actual genes.”
