Slashdot Mirror
Chimps Belong in Human Genus?
Bradley Chapman writes "I found this interesting story from Discovery News about our ties with chimpanzees. Excerpts: 'Chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of functionally important DNA with humans and belong in our genus, Homo, according to a recent genetic study.
Scientists analyzed 97 human genes, along with comparable sequences from chimps, gorillas, orangutans and Old World monkeys (a group that includes baboons and macaques). The researchers then took the DNA data and estimated genetic evolution over time. They determined that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor between 4 and 7 million years ago. That ancestor diverged from gorillas 6 to 7 million years ago.'" Genus is the next step up from species, if you recall your taxonomy. Humans are the only living species in genus homo, currently.
Chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of functionally important DNA with humans and belong in our genus, Homo, according to a recent genetic study. Scientists analyzed 97 human genes, along with comparable sequences from chimps, gorillas, orangutans and Old World monkeys (a group that includes baboons and macaques).
We've only fully mapped the human genome so far. I bet if we fully mapped the chimp genome, we'd see many many more entries in the diff log than we thought.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
It is still amazing to me that the scientific community has such antiquated ideas about how unique and exceptional humans are. It seems obvious to anyone who understands evolution and genetic drift that we are simply another version of an already successful line of monkeys.
Fnord.sig
If you want to believe that you are almost a chimpanzee, that's fine, but I'm not believing. Note that the researchers ignored DNA that is not expressive. That may be a sensible idea, or it may be that the ignored DNA expresses itself in a way that has not been discovered.
Well, it may not be completely stinky, but it is close.
Our current system for categorizing the inhabitants of this is long outdated and is based largely on phsycal characteristics of the components on the creature, rather than the stuff it is actually made up of.
We find we've had to tweak this existing system to make new species fit. We've even had to add new kindoms! Many species bridge, these categories making them all the more harder to classify.
A better, more accurate, system needs to be devised based on current technologies that classify based on genetic code. The point of a classification system would be to allow us to draw similarities in creatures while studying them based on available data for ones in the same category. A genetic model would be very beneficial for this very reason.
IMHO.
The Antropomorphic principle is the name given by a tendency by us humans to believe that our situation is unique. It goes from believing in our divine origin, to the earth is the centre of the universe (Ptolomeic) to the sun is the centre of the universe (Copernicus), to the current incantation of the big bang (Gamow) with an ever expanding universe.
Placing humans in their own genus seems to fit right along those lines. We are unique, and no other animal deserves to be even close to us...
Keep your filthy hands off my genus, you damn dirty chimps.
I'm sure the creationists will pitch a fit if chimps are reclassified. I wonder if there would be any legal ramifications regarding the rights of chimps compared to other animals.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Nope. That's only for species. Two critters are said to be in the same species if they can breed and have fertile offspring.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
...They've had just as much time to evolve.
Yes, and which of us still defecates in his own nest? Evolution is a point of view; it really has nothing to do with how 'advanced' a species is. That term, advanced, is used in reference to our own subjective advancement, and shouldn't be a factor in scientific classification.
If you want to be subjective in your classifications, humans should be seperately classified from chimps, but only because we have more in common (socially) with rats and vermin.
Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
That's not what the anthropomorphic principle is. It's the tendency for humns to attribute human qualities to things that aren't human. It has nothing ot do with genus egotism.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I think a good parallel would be programming. Say you have a 4000000000 line program (I think someone estimated that this is what the DNA translates to in terms of code but it is irrelevant). I can go in and change 100 lines and make that program not behave anything like the original. On the other hand you can change a half of it without making any substantial difference in the final result. The sheer amount of identical code is a good hint but by no means an accurate measurement of how closely related to chimps we are.
Why don't I ever have mod points when I need them?!
"Richard Dawkins perhaps provided the best visual for our link to chimps," Fouts told Discovery News. "Imagine taking the hand of your grandmother, who was holding the hand of her grandmother and so on down the line. 155 miles out, one of the women would be holding the hand of a chimpanzee."
Hrm. Now to me, this sounds likely to perpetuate the "we came from chimpanzees" style of (mis)interpretation not the idea that "we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees". So, to correct that...is the chain 155 miles long, with the common ancestor at 77.5 miles, and than it starts going daughter daughter daughter instead of mother mother mother, or is the 155 to the common ancestor, and then chimps are like 310 miles away instead?
I guess it would be useful to know what the assumptions are for generation length and armspan...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
They've had just as much time to evolve.
Uhm, for that matter every single species on the planet has had just as much time to evolve. That is, if you believe in a single common ancestor, which most evolutionary biologists do. Certainly for multicellular organisms, there's somewhere back there a single common ancestor.
Let's put every species in our genus!
Why not put them in the same Genus as us?
Cuz Linnaean taxonomy is an artificial human convention imposed on the world. It's not up to the world to divide itself neatly into kingdom, phyllum, class, order, family, genus, and species. And while most modern taxonomy is debated based on genetic distance, things don't divide up neatly into those slots.
The debate is a pedantic one that has no bearing on how the world works, or really, on our understanding of it.
I got news for you... not only does the scientific community have those ideas about how unique and exceptional humans are ("how" unique?), so does
the literary community,
the artistic community,
the philosophical community,
the musical community,
the educational community,
the list goes on...
You shall know them by their works.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I'd love for google to include scientific journals, but they all cost money, so we're forced to rely on the mainstream media for info (with all that entails).
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
What you're advocating is catagorization based on phenotype. That's a debate that's been going on for a long time.
The problem with that system is how much alike do two creatures have to be in order to be in the same family? If you're not specific enough, you might end up placing hummingbirds and flies in the same family because they both have superb control over their flight characteristics, and they both like sugarwater.
If you're too specific, you'll start separating (as an example from history) people of African descent from people of European descent.
Classifying species based on genotype allows us to trace nature's evolutionary path, and understand biological history accordingly.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Since then, other systems have evolved, and have been tagged on. In consequence, the current "system" is really a complete mish-mash of differing systems, with no real agreement on what system applies under what circumstance.
To those who advocate DNA-based classification, I'd argue that that only works on still-living species. If we don't have the DNA, we can't do that. So, we'd end up using some other system for those, anyway, which means we'd still be using a hybrid.
The argument that chimps belong to the "homo" group seems valid enough. We're not talking about direct ancestors, but about a common ancestor who is already established as a part of the "homo" group. (Percent then becomes irrelevent. Once you can establish that common ancestor, and establish that said ancestor is already classed as being in the "homo" genus, the rest becomes moot.)
The only rational argument I can see against it is if it can be established that the chimp branch has diverged in some critical way that, even though the divergence is small, would still place it in a different genus. You'd probably want to alter the genus to the verb, rather than the noun, in this case, to show the relationship while acknowledging the difference.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Science has a great way of trying to promote it's present ideas through naming. For example, many types of dinosaur have latin names relating them to birds, and your average joe-public says 'dinosaurs must have changed to birds. Even the name says so!'
What we, the inventor and sole user of the classification system, decide at any point what falls in which category adds nought to the truth of a particular theory, but it goes a long way toward swaying those of no particular interest, and also those with a vested interest, to the ideas of those who make the classification.
Just my 2p.
99.4 could be a bit of a low estimate if you ask me. IMOX, in recent years, evolution has gone into full-speed reverse ..... the evidence is all around us .....
Of course, the chrimbos are going to be annoyed about this. They're generally offended by any suggestion that human beings are descended from the same ancestors as other animals, and particularly sensitive about being reminded that superstitious / religious behaviour doesn't put us that far above pigeons.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
then the chimps would be analyzing our DNA.
Standard Creationist bullshit. Let me ask you a question -- if English evolved from German, why is the German language still around?
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
When you realize that humans and field mice share 93%+ of their genes, the percentages don't seem that impressive. Also, while the a large percentage of the genes are held in common, they are not in sequences in the same order. Moreover, these studies don't take into account the new breakthroughs in "junk" DNA studies, which seem to indicate that the "junk" DNA actually serves purposes. See http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/5/BORIS.UCD. html
Chimps ain't humans by a long shot.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Linux uses 100% the same hardware as Windows.
It's all in the software.