Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says

[Monique]

From my dear collegues:



National Geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

 

[BoulderHead]

Very interesting stuff, Monique...

But I simply refuse to consider myself of the same species as those disgusting hairless hominids!

Now give me that banana!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But I simply refuse to consider myself of the same species as those disgusting hairless hominids!

Now give me that banana!

Intelligently spoken! Well done!

While the claim is questioning something kind of big, it's questioning it in a direction AGAINST the way that anti-truth groups go, thus further positioning the average closer to truth. So, in short, I'm fine with it!

"DAMN DIRTY APES"

 

[iansmith]

It is an interresting paper. There methods, analysis and result appear to be good but it would of been interresting to see an unrooted tree for the evolutionnary distance which demonstrated better evolutionnary relateness.

The data also only sugested that the genes are evolutionnary relatd but that does not prove that chimps, bonos and human are the same species. I think there a need for more datas to support their claim.

The debate is still interesting because human and chimp have a high significant homology (for at least those essantial genes sequenced). I wonder where the modern human and its ancestor would be called and place (i.e. species or sub-species of a sub-species).

Genetics relatness can be a good tool to classified species but some strain of bacteria have 70% homology and are consider to be thye same species (ex. commensal E. coli vs. pathogenic E. coli)

 

[Zero]

Well, we've got one in the White House, so the timing of this report is good, I suppose...*grins*

 

[FZ+]

Don't insult chimps. They're family.

 

[Adam]

*Adam flings trouser pudding through the bars...*

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by iansmith
The data also only sugested that the genes are evolutionnary relatd but that does not prove that chimps, bonos and human are the same species. I think there a need for more datas to support their claim.

Do we know what the result would be if an artificial [...gulp.. ] but otherwise normal crossing between a human and chimp was attempted? I understand that this is one key test for speciation. Sorry, I know this is a bit touchy but I had to ask.

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Do we know what the result would be if an artificial [...gulp.. ] but otherwise normal crossing between a human and chimp was attempted? I understand that this is one key test for speciation. Sorry, I know this is a bit touchy but I had to ask.

Yes having a high homology for esssantial gene is one of the key test to determine species but it is not the only one. I work with bacteria and sometimes 2 species in the same group have an extremelly high homology/identity (98 to 100% at the amino acid and nucleotides level) but some other characteristic makes them 2 different species. Gene transfert from one bateria to another is not likely due to the fact that they belong to the same group. All I am saying that the argument for a single genus cannot be base on only the genetics evidence, other factor have to be consider.

I don't think chimp and human were cross. The datas from the experiement reinforce very well that human and chimps had a common ancestor and that it was not so long ago. So the chimp is part of our familly.

What I wondering is what would the genus be called if it includes human, chimp and bono? Would a new genus be use or one of the current one would be used. What would characteristic of the genus?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Adam;
*Adam flings trouser pudding through the bars...*

Don't forget to roll it into a ball first!

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Do we know what the result would be if an artificial [...gulp.. ] but otherwise normal crossing between a human and chimp was attempted? I understand that this is one key test for speciation. Sorry, I know this is a bit touchy but I had to ask.

http://www.silly2.com/funny_pictures_2/monkee_boy.jpg

 

[GlamGein]

I wonder which genus chimps will find themselves under in 100 years. Its an interesting article. No doubt, Chimps are closely related to us, and as we all know, phylogenetic nomenclature is arbitrary, so names don't really matter. But the interesting part of the article was the mention that chimps and gorillas will likely be extinct soon. The article went on to say that if chimps were given the Homo genus, that perhaps we sapiens would empathize better with them and their plight.

 

[Phobos]

I've only had a chance to skim the articles, but my initial reaction is that chimps should not be part of the genus Homo. The common ancestor was too long ago (pre-Australopithecus whereas other Homo species are defined post-Australopithecus). Hey, maybe they could be Australopithecus troglodytes instead. Anyway, I'll read the articles closer soon...

 

[GlamGein]

excellent point!