to compare two animals as a wholelets say 1) human2) ratyou cant put genomes of both onto a computer and make a comparison from first genetic markers to the last and everything in between, to check if human and rat are 50% the same, or 80% or whateverits not possible because human genome is like 4 gigabytes and rat is similar sizethese are too big for computer software!of course it might be fault of programmers, who knowswhat is possible to do, is to compare mitocholdria of a human and a rat and those would reveal to be 99% identical to no surpriseboth human and rat evolved from primitive rodents 80 million years ago, altough a human had several ape stages in between:1) flying monkey (lives on trees)2) macaque (lives on ground)3) something that resembles chimpanzee a lot more, has lost its tail4) finally human at some pointa rat evolved from squirrel much more directly
Markers are unique to the minds of the species for quantum extrapolation from memory neurotransmitters.
>>16958768>both human and rat evolved from primitive rodents 80 million years ago,You're stupid.
>>16958768That's crap. Spoof the replace function for a file and just do an audit of what files are replaced, but have each file be a specifically coded label, and you can reference the two feasibly. If the genomes have been mapped already, you can feasibly find the difference. Outliers would be "junk dna" that may be more ambiguous in its expression, being dormant.
>>16958768this freaks me outhow tf do we compare DNA? where is the start and end of the ribbon helix? I doubt it's fair to compare contiguous sub sequences only...
>>16958768The best real image of DNA you can find at the moment.And fantastic work too. Just look at that.
>>16958768>its not possible because human genome is like 4 gigabytes and rat is similar size>these are too big for computer software!Wtf are you talking about? 4GB is small these days. It's not the 80s, you schizo.But, shouldn't you be able to just compare form, like in >>16961023?
>>16961041The problem is the comparison process. Genes aren't ordered neatly with labels in the data and there's indefinite amount of junk DNA between each gene. The genes themselves aren't always positioned the same either within each chromosome or even in the same chromosome in the first place. You have to parse something like ACGTACGT vs CGTACGTA and figure out if that's an entirely different gene, or if because both of these have ACGT it's in fact the same or is that just a mutation with the later missing A from the start and the extra A at the end is part of the junk or next gene or some such etc.
>>16961045OK? Then use the algorithms to cut by the markers then sort (or not) and compare. Algos for sorting and comparing already are implemented so you don't need to implement them. Just focus in your strategy for the high level comparisons.
>>16961049You are free to do that if you believe you can.
>>16961053That's what I'm saying. You can diy. As far as I know, it's already being done. There's a Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics#MethodsEnlighten me: am I wrong?
>>16961328Until you prove someone has done it then yes you are.
>>16961376I read news all the time about how researchers compare DNA from humans and between humans and animals
>>16961382Surely it's easy enough for you to then link just one paper.
Needleman, Wunsch (1970)
