Slashdot Mirror
Bonobos Join Chimps As Closest Human Relatives
sciencehabit writes "Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA."
What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
Is it just a matter of behavior? If so, has it been proven that the behavioral differences aren't cultural?
Always figured they were closely related to man, considering how endlessly horny they are.
I always figured that conservatives evolved from the innocent-seeming but violent, territorial, face-eating chimpanzees, and liberals evolved from those oversexed, touchy-feely bonobos. Now we know the truth!
Three billion DNA pairs in human dna. 1% is 30 million. So we differ by 30 million dna pairs. To the layperson, saying we have 30 million differences explains the differences quite well versus 99% in common.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
That's OK you are still an ass :)
I jest, I jest.
Is she a bonobo or a chimpanzee?
What species is that thing on his head?
Young Earth Creationists scoff at any science related to genetics, no matter how it's presented.
OECs, less so, but Creationism as an "ism" that takes Biblical allegory and perverts it into something else.
--
BMO
Since you posted as AC, I guess that this makes sense.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
...but that's a conversation for another day.
Though commonly-used this way (particularly by atheists), to attempt to sneak a False Dichotomy Fallacy into the discussion by offering only one word implying both, and thus demanding the listener either accept or reject both premises together, this is invalid usage of any word, going all the way back to Aristotle...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Dog == wolf == dingo, yes (they are all in the canis lupus species). The other three are different species, but bonobos and common chimps are both often referred to as chimps: the only real reason they are considered separate species is that they have never been observed to interbreed (which doesn't mean they can't). They do have a few physical differences, but then again so do Asians and Caucasians.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Well dog == wolf == dingo is true, they are all Canis lupus (C. lupus familiaris, C. lupus lupus, C. lupus dingo).
Coyote and Jackal (and occassionally wolf) are used for other species within the Canis genus, so are closely related.
Foxes are members of the same sub-family, but a different genus, so the least related among the bunch.
Also Canis Lupus and Canis latrans are able to produce viable offspring, but the viability decreases across generations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_X_Canis_latrans
He effected a bored affect.
So the GP is right, and you are creating a complete straw man. Wolf, dog and dingo are all part of the same genus but for historic reasons dogs and dingos are only formally called wolves, not in colloquial speech. Foxes and coyotes are from different genera and are not dogs. "Jackal" is a colloquialism. Because pan paniscus and pan troglodytes are in the genus pan, they can both quite properly be called chimpanzees, just as we refer to members of the genus homo as "men", though we are no more like h. afarensis than bonobos are like p. troglodytes. When I tell my dog not to behave like a little wolf, he can reasonably argue that he is one, just one adapted for a specific ecological niche.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Nope. We're related to every living thing on this planet full stop .
After all, we all share the same ancestor if you go back far enough.
I didn't come from no monkey's butthole
It's an honest mistake. Most people just assume there's a family resemblance.
Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
Pick the word you want to use for that, as they're never mutually dependent.
The rest is the standard boilerplate Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy, so I'll be skipping that. Code to do.
And yes, I did test it. The test confirmed.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Doesn't the evidence show that bonobos and chimps split from their common ancestor long after protohumans split from the common ancestor of all three? In which case, isn't this more-or-less exactly what you'd expect?
You already fully demonstrated your failure to understand what a Genetic Fallacy is, so no need to cut-and-paste regarding Dover.
Other than that, I'm not sure why the topic-switch. I never contended that "Creationism" isn't "Religion", nor would that in any way be relevant to it being correct.
I contended that usage of a single concept to indicate two distinct and independent premises, is invalid formation and/or use of a concept. This remains your issue, which, again, some introductory epistemology should cure you of.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?