As I assume, that Brits are Humans, they share 99.5% of their DNA with me, a Non-Brit Homo Sapiens.
Jack: Humans share ~96% of their DNA with chimps and ~93% with monkeys.
The genes are the recipes in the recipe book. It is a small part of the code that contain a set of instructions that usually make one particular protein. We have 20,000 genes, but this only comprises 2% of our genome (total DNA).
Studies comparing animal and plant DNA to our own are done by comparing the DNA base pairs in genes that humans and chimps share. So in the genes that chimps and humans have in common are approximately 98%. But that is misleading because it omits a large sources of variation (like duplications and deletions) and doesn’t look at ‘non coding DNA’ - which does influence the way our genes are expressed (so is important in explaining our differences
Human beings are basically identical if you use the metrics used with comparing to other species. So the genomic studies in humans look at minuscule detail compared to this, including things like SNPs - which are non coding markers used in things like 23 and me tests
All humans are ultimately related but we are all unique, with mixing and “de novo” alterations having at every generation. When the founding population is small, this happens a bit faster because the gene pool is smaller and the gene frequencies are different. This is called the founder effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRTn0iNkAHI
If you want to know where the greatest diversity of humans is - it’s Africa, because its where we came from. There is more genetic and phenotypical differences within Africa than there is in the entire rest of the world put together.
I think sometimes even non-contiguous sections of chromosomes combine forces to create a single protein to affect embryonic development, but I'm not entirely sure - thinking about it I can't see how separate sections of DNA would be able to work together to consistently create specific proteins.
You may well be able to tell me that I'm wrong about all of the above though...
Yes, genes work together, and the "code" is gibberish on itself, but that does not mean that it is indivisible.
This is like saying that the number of lines/blocks of code cannot be determined as the lines are part of a bigger code.
There are numerous genes identified which have even been transferred between species (there are light-emitting plants based on i think firefly genes). Some "simpler" genes have been identified, where the function is clear and isolated and where changes in code ("alleles") have a "clear" effect on those persons (e.g. missing enzymes, warrior gene, ...)
The main issue is the sheer amount of code, which is in fact very tolerant for "typo's". This makes it very hard to understand exactly what each and every part means (like we know it is code but we cannot read it yet). It does not mean there is no distinct division. There things like stop codons the mark the end of a certain protein strand.
So If you look at the population 1000 years ago in Europe, 80% of that population is related to *everyone* today in Europe. The other 20% died out. That’s what “I’m descended from an ancient king’ is so damn meaningless. If you are, then we literally all are.
From Adam Rutherford’s book, the story of everyone who has ever lived
The favourite simple message about human population genetics is that “humans have always been horny and mobile”
I suppose there was the distinction that unlike the other five, there wasn't a huge amount of Dutch settlement in the country (although there was a little bit).
The Normans entered vassalage to the king of France at the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte in 911. They settled in Normandy and assimilated into the local population.
By the time William, duke of Normandy, crossed the Channel 150 years later, he and his army were French and considered themselves to be so. Born in France, raised in France, speaking French and carrying French culture. In fact, it would take another 350 years before a king was crowned in England that would speak English (Henry IV in 1399).
Norman is a euphemism used by the English in order to avoid accepting the inescapable truth that their land was conquered by a Frenchmen 1000 years ago. Denial is a powerful thing.
It helps to remember that, around this time, France was a relatively tiny country covering not much more than the modern Île-de-France (hence the name). They were vastly influential for their size, of course, but their vassals the Normans were simply Normans, they weren't French. A vassal state, after all, by definition is not part of the state it is vassal to.