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.
The repulicans will like this... Another 50 million that pay taxes... Oh, "taxonomy" is something else... sorry!
But that on the condition that i can downgrade some humans to monkey.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
People don't seem to realize that we didn't actually evolve from chimps, but we actually are related in the way that we split off in the evolutionary timeline from the same predecessor. Why not put them in the same Genus as us? They've had just as much time to evolve.
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
to see if they can make babies?
I think Senator Santorum needs to open an investigation into whether public tax money is being spent researching Homo chimps.
I've often wondered if some of the people I see driving on the freeway belong in the Human Genus, based purely on their lack of motor ability. If those people can make into that classification then surely our furry, feces-throwing relatives can make it. (I'm talking about the chimps, here.)
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.
All over North America, greasy rednecks with pimpish moustaches and long mullets are saying "What 're them scientist-types saying? They're calling me "homo"? I'm gonna kick all their asses."
Trolling is a art,
Goodman added, "In terms of culture, social behavior, language and other factors, we share many things in common with chimpanzees."
There was a guy at a nursing home I worked at that would throw poop at the staff.
First they discover that fish can feel pain - and now this! Damn science! What am I supposed to eat?
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.
For what it is worth, the raw similarity in the genome sequence doesn't need to indicate the same degree of similarity. Transcription is quite complex (much of it we still don't understand) and it is possible that small differences in regulatory regions can cause completely different parts of the sequence to be expressed.
A little of topic but a few days ago the result of Italian research project was published. The result of DNA comparisons between Neanderthals and Humans found that most likely no interbreeding have occured.
Help fight continental drift.
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.
Humans are the only living species in genus homo, currently.
If we are the only species, that would make us "homo genus".
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
What I have always wondered -- if you can cross a Horse, zebra, or donkey -- couldn't you cross a human with a chimp? Has anyone ever tried this?
Is there some web page out there that has information on this?
I am curious.
Not that I am curious enough to try :)
We're turning over lots of taxonomies based on some cladistics-minded genetics lately. National Geographic threw in a chart and a couple of pages about re-grouping mammals a while back.
The chimps percentage might be a bit higher than we usually hear, but that number's basically been around. (Question is, how could our definition of a genus be this open to debate?)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Kings Play Chess On Funny Glass Stairs.
(Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species)
That's the only damn thing I can remember from high school biology.
Bonus mnemonic -- the only thing I remember from high school history: "Divorced, Beheaded, She Died; Divorced, Beheaded, Survived." (How King Henry VIII's wives ended up)
Based on this evidence, I'd say they've actually got a pretty good case.
Why not put them in the same Genus as us? They've had just as much time to evolve.
Clearly, we made better use of that time than they did. They slacked off instead of evolving, so they don't get to be in the same rank.
I don't get this desire to uplift losers with false titles designed to boost the self esteem of those who fell behind.
Of course now with Hollywood and TV causing humans to devolve, the Chimps will have a chance to catch up.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Actually, it doesn't matter whether we use only Homo or Homo and Pan for the lineage of chimps&humans, since both genera include a monphyletic lineage. For phylogenetic taxonomy, it's matter of taste, mostly. MY taste is that there is no need to introduce changes.
Supergenus Gorilla
* Genus Gorilla
- Gorilla gorilla
Supergenus Homo
* Genus Homo
- Homo sapiens
- Homo neardenthalensisâ
- Homo habilisâ
- Homo erectusâ
[- Homo demens (e.g. Bush & al.)]
*Genus Pan
- Pan troglodytes
- Pan paniscus
[Caveat emptor: I did this from memory, there might be a mistake somewhere]
The fact is, it doesn't mean a thing to use genus, supergenus, or subgenus. What matters is that the lineage chimps&humans is monophyletic, that is, that chimps and bonobos are more closely related to us than to gorillas or orangutans.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Does anybody else find this repetitive and redundant?
It should have been edited to "Humans are the only living extant species in the genus Homo, currently at this time."
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
5 million years apart and we still fling our poo at eachother...
I think i see how we're 99.4% alike...
Wolves are not genetically identical to dogs, any more than beagles are genetically identical to rotweilers: the consistent phenotypic differences between dog breeds, and between dogs and wolves, are genetically determined.
If being genetically identical were the key, each human (or pair of twins) would be a species unto himself.
But what people mean by species is usually more determined by whether the animals interbreed and produce fertile offspring (this gets fuzzy with plants and is more or less irrelevant to bacteria, but still...).
Dogs and wolves are close enough to interbreed, successfully and often, and a lot of people would class dogs as a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus latrans).
But classification by genus and higher levels is fairly arbitrary, based mostly on what people see as significant differences and similarities (e.g. people are different from apes, cats all kind of look alike). The only important thing is that the basic nesting is right, so that if species A and B have a common ancestor, and C and D are descended from B, then if A and C are in one class, B and D are also in that class.
It might be more rational to have a system that took each branching into account, but we don't have enough information for that, and it would be inconvenient to deal with.
To sum up: the argument that no one calls a wolf a dog is incorrect, but there's still no point in calling a chimp a Homo.
So far
total human reads: 23 million
total chimp reads (Pan troglodytes): over 12 million
having worked on annotation of a few of the chimp BAC clones, I can assure you the two species range from about 97% to over 99.9% similar at the DNA sequence level.
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'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Joey: If the Homosapiens were, in fact, "Homo-sapien", is that why they're extinct?
Ross: Joey, Homosapiens are people.
Joey: Hey, I'm not judging.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
OTOH, Bubbles feels violated.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
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.
oooo oooeee eeeeoooo oooo
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
And in other news, the Chimpanzee World Spokesman, uu uu waaa uuu u, says they want no part of any "tree" that has humans in it, thank you very much, and, besides, it's against THEIR religion to believe that humans evolved from Chimps. Especially the ones with fake hair.
You bet that we may see differences? So what you are saying is that dispite the fact that you nor anyone else has any evidance one way or another to believe that there will be more 'diff' found in the future you still feel you should express you oppinion about it. You seem to really only be expressing what out come you dessire. Not what out come is likely.
Sex is what happens when people think no one else will ever find out
REAL:..........MNEMONIC:
Phylum.........Please
Class...........Come
Order..........Over
Family..........For
Genus..........Gay
Species........Sex
Thanks to Robert Smigel (his cartoons) and Saturday Night Live!
1) You are obviously correct.
2) Species is most often defined: If two animals can and do interbreed, then they are the same species.
So, they argue, timber wolves and huskies are physically separated, if not genetically separated, and are thus different species. Huskies and poodles are not physically separated, so they are not different species.
Of course, this is a ludicrous argument, because poodles/huskies/great danes etc. were all recent man-made breeding experiments, derived from wolves under 5000 years ago. If they're really all that separate, they've only been separate momentarily.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
From the article: "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."
If you'd met my family you'd know that a line round the block would pretty much get you there.
> They also are willing to interbreed.
And you're saying that mice and humans aren't?
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Do you *know* humans and chimps can't interbreed? Have you *tried?*
"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
Creatures even more closely related to humans, actually our ancestors, are also classified in a seperate genus. The Australopithicines are our earliest ancestors following the divergence of chimps from our lineage. They, though closer, are in a seperate genus, so it makes little sense to classify chimps into the same genus as we are.
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."
We share 50% of our DNA with lettuce - that's how common much of our genetic code is on the planet.
Last time I checked, nobody was comparing the salad aisle of the supermarket for long-lost relatives.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Karma Points Come Only For Geeky Slashdotters
(Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species)
Does this mean I can eat a chimp and indulge in 99.4% cannibalism?
Having seen the lack of selectiveness in sexual matters exhibited by Bonobo chimps, calling them 'Homos' would seem to work on several levels.
Cheers, Paul
(Disclaimer: This isn't a phrase I like or normally use, just required for the purposes of this joke, until I had to qualify it, when the joke kind of died...)
This is kinda old news, it was covered in the book The Third Chimpanzee by Jared M. Diamond. He talks about the similiarities in the genome, plus the differences that do exist in other traits. He maintains that chimps, bonobos and humans belong in the genus Trogolodyte, but humans made the genus Homo because they didn't really want to think of themselves so close to the chimps. Really interesting book though.
Scientists then discovered that Apes have a 100% DNA match with Vin Diesel.
Vonal Declosion
that'll be fun. "you seem to be 96% human. you get 96% of a vote in the next elections."
Please no...how would the Florida elections turn out with that in the mix?
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."
Or from the electronics geeks, for resistor values: Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly. (Black 0, Brown 1, Red 2, Orange 3, Yellow 4, Green 5, Blue 6, Violet 7, Grey 8, White 9).
Boy did my HS Physics teacher get some weird looks for that mnemonic.
Get off my lawn.
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)
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
I agree completely. In fact even the concept of species is not so well-defined any more, because there are examples of groups of animals where group A can mate with group B and group C, but groups B and C cannot mate with each other. Are they different species or the same?
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.
The answer to your question is called cladestics, where species are classifed not based on observed similarities, but rather based on common heritage.
Common heritage can be established either from genetics or from counting the number of significant traits that differ or are the same, and using sophisticated computer programs to calculate probable common starting points.
A few provocative results are that birds are dinosaurs (dinosaurs are defined by a common ancestor, and since birds come from dinosaurs that make them dinosaurs too). Furthermore dinosaurs (including birds) are reptilians.
Tor
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
Umm not quite. Dogs have been selectively bred a lot longer than 5k years first. Second breeding Timberwolves and Huskies, while possible, positively requires human intervention. It could never happen in the wild, first because the wolf would more likely kill the dog than mate with it, and secondly because wolves and dogs have very different estrus cycles.
Wolves and dogs are thus clearly different species, just as asses and horses are. Remember, asses and horse *can* mate - but it's problematic and extremely unlikely without human intervention. To be the same species it needs to be possible to mate normally - not with great difficulty and lots of outside intervention.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"Yeah.. When monkeys fly out of my butt!"
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.
The question is, if the creator of humans used 99.4% of the code lifted straight from the apes... is it a large enough difference so it would not be considered violation of Intellectual Property rights?
Does SCO own the rights, and is it just a plan to lure IBM into buying humanity for a huge profit for the current SCO owners?
Or is this a Microsoft plot to buy the rights to the humans, copyright the genome and send pirate hunters to track license violators.
- Will they insert a product activation code into all new humans created, where the child stops functioning if not registered.
- Will they include new bugs and get the new humans bloated (wait...)
- Will we be equipped with a Start button? (:
- Will the newborns cry "bling BLING bling BLINGGG" instead of "WAAAAH!" with their first breath?
- Will the new children make secret phonecalls to Microsoft telling on their parents?
- How will copy protection work? Chastity belts?
And will the open source movement provide an alternative with fresh code not depending on any components of the human genome?
I have an uncle who stroked out. He's a vegetable!
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Recalling basic biology, species are capable of interbreeding (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species) . A little chimp-changa won't produce much of anything (HIV?)
I appreciate it may not be a necessary feature of belonging to the same genus, but I also note that horses and donkeys are in the same genus at least partly because they are capable of producing infertile offspring (mules). Is the rest not simple binomial taxonomy? The apparent physical differences are minor, and the mental? A little readinng will show chimps have a sense of 'self' (will recognize their appearance has been changed in a mirror), knowledge of others beliefs (they engage in teaching), and even a capacity for commerce! (SCIAM had a wonderful anecdote about chimps that were given vending machine tokens, learned to stockpile, trade, and even counterfeit them!)
I'm sick of all these wrong evolution theories so I'm gonna tell what really happened.
Let's set up the scene with some background information (it'll be short, I promise).
So there was Adam and Eve and they chilled in Heaven just minding their own business. (We're skipping the whole "On the first day" story because you already know about that.) So the Lord told Adam, "Don't eat the fruit of this tree or you'll croak. And tell your wife."
So Adam goes and tells his wife, "See that tree over there? Don't eat its fruit. In fact, don't even go near the damn thing; Pappy said if you touch it, you'll croak."
So Eve is chillin' when this serpant comes around and says, "Pssst... See that tree over there? Eat its fruit! It's good!"
So Eve says, "But if I even touch that tree, I'll croak!"
So the serpant says, "Nuh uh! See, I'll touch it... Nothing happens!"
Seeing this, Eve gathers a little bit of courage, goes up and touches the tree... Nothing happened. So she grabs a big juicy naranja off the tree, peels it and takes a taste. Mmmmm! Then Adam comes over and sees what's going on... "What the fsck, Eve, I thought I told you not to touch that tree!"
And Eve says, "But you see, I did touch it and nothing happened!"
So Adam takes a taste. Then, the Lord's voice comes booming over the public address system, "I told you kids not to eat that damn fruit!!!" Adam and Eve grab a leaf or something to cover up their privates, see, because they suddenly realized they were naked, and the Lord drove them out of heaven in his red '64 Chevy II.
So here they are, on Earth now, and they have a couple of kids... One of 'em kills the other and is subsequently punished by being forced to forever roam the Earth with a Windows logo tatooed on his forehead.
Now just so you understand, the Lord created a bunch of animals, like fish and tigers and whatever, and then He created people. The people he created were special... Much more intelligent than animals by a far measure. Much more intelligent than any person alive today. They were "superhumans." Now this hermano with the Windows logo on his forehead walks around and screws every chimp and gorilla and baboon in sight. (Yeah, I know, that's gross.) His superhuman genes mixed with their animal genes and created some "middle-of-the-road" creature.
That's the human being of today... It's why many of our genes are similar to those of the animals. I know all of this for a fact and I have undeniable proof: On separate occasions, two different people, who do not know each other, both told me they heard this somewhere.
Linux uses 100% the same hardware as Windows.
It's all in the software.
Hmm, I think I've met a few of the humans in the 99.9% range...