Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Smithalicious 1814 days ago
I am very skeptical - they have 99.7% identical DNA, but supposedly an extremely different phenotype.
2 comments

Eh, it's not that different. Humans have ineffective fur, and disorders exist that create a lot more of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis

Claims about skeletal differences are probably pretty well supported by physical evidence, and again, it's a reasonably small difference in size and scale.

Differences in facial structure seem likely just from differences in skeletal structure, our face maps pretty closely to skeptical structure. But also, we can see pretty wide genetic variation in facial structure in humans, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Pastrana

Humans are pretty cannibalistic already, I don't buy his evidence that neanderthals were, but a human could survive on an almost entirely meat diet, no reason to think neanderthals weren't more inclined to.

Pupil shape seems like the farthest out there, but there is variation in pupil shape within the human population too. It's plausible... again I don't really buy his evidence as proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloboma

In general I don't think this article is meant to say "they looked exactly like this", but "they probably looked monstrous", if it turns out there pupils were the same as humans, but also they had sharper more claw like nails, the point wouldn't change in the slightest.

The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is about the same IIRC.
Googled this, quite a bit less is shared with a chimp.

https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-ot...

If you consider 98.8% to be quite a bit less than 99.7% then fair enough. It's still a lot.