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.
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Our current system for categorizing the inhabitants of this is long outdated and is based largely on phsycal characteristics of the components on the creature, rather than the stuff it is actually made up of.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.
Same genus is not same as same species. Species is the most scientifically and strictly defined term than any other classification terms. All others are mostly defined on the basis of some characteristics which does not necessarily tell us the distance between one type to another. Also, species is the only definition which can be determined experimentally. To determine if two group of animals are same species or no, you need to interbreed them. If they can produce male and female fertile offsprings, then they are same species. No such experimental definition can be made for genus. Read the comment in the article, it says, '...chimps and humans split six to 10 million years ago. "That's an awful long time to be in the same genus,"...'. You see, this is how they argue about genus.
So there is no big deal, when some scientist determines humans are mostly chimps. All that s/he says is that the distance between human and chimp species is less than we thought. And mind you, statistically, there was a 50% chance that this study would have said this!
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.
"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
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."
It's amazing to me that this comment was modded "Insightful". Chimps have had 4-7 million years since we split from a common ancestor (according to the article) and they're still swinging in trees. Humans are reaching for the stars.
It should be obvious to any cretin that there is a definite qualitative difference between human and chimp, indeed between human and all of (observable) nature. And that supposedly insignificant quality makes all the difference. The fact that we cannot (yet) measure its true magnitude in scientific terms does not make it any less ridiculously obvious. No human is just another monkey. Not even you.
> What animal has free will?
All of them do, given their ability to sense their surroundings.
> What animal can split the atom?
The sun splits atoms all the time. You don't have to be an animal to do that!
> What animal is loved by God?
I recall a passage in the old testament about how God tried to force the Egyptians to adopt frogs and grasshoppers...so it's gotta be them!
> What animal can build an engine?
Funny, I know millions of humans can't build engines either. But I have seen hamster powered bicycles!
> What animal can love?
Ever seen elephants visit the graves of their loved ones year after year? Ever own a dog?
> What animal can speak?
Quite a few parrots and other bird species are quite capable of speech. Remember that parrot that can speak the names of objects or name an action?
> What animal can appreciate beauty?
Peahens lusting after the prettiest peacocks.
There is a cool species of birds that builds multi-story birdsnests to impress the female birds of the same species. Complete with porch entrances, awnings, the whole works! The best house-builders get the most bird tail.
> What animal can write poetry?
Chimpanzee sign language could be considered poetry. It's probably better than the post-modern crap published in recent years.
> What animal other than man is the utter pinnacle of all creation?
Toxoplasma Gondii...it's the master of humans AND cats! It's the coolest parasite out there...
You forgot a few other questions:
What animal practices altruism?
Vampire bats.
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)
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.