|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not So Distant cousins after all. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Chimp study shakes human family tree (the AGE 18-05-06)
Stephen Cauchi of The AGE.au writes: {My Bold} The very roots of the human family tree have been redrawn thanks to a groundbreaking study that has compared the genetic codes of humans and chimpanzees. The US research, published in Nature, shows that the evolutionary split between humans and chimpanzees was not clean and sudden 7 million years ago, as previously suspected. The split happened 6.3 million years ago at the earliest, say the scientists. But more importantly, the genetic analysis shows that chimpanzees and the earliest hominids continued to have sex with each other and swap genes for another 1.2 million years before the final break. This finding sheds new light on the earliest hominid fossils, all of which have been found in Africa over the past 15 years. The fossils have puzzled scientists with their inconsistent and unusual blend of human and chimpanzee characteristics. The scientists, working at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, completed an exhaustive analysis of human, chimpanzee and gorilla genomes to find out the evolutionary history of each. "The genome analysis revealed big surprises, with major implications for human evolution," said the paper's co-author, Harvard biologist Eric Lander. "First, human-chimp speciation occurred more recently than previous estimates. Second, the speciation itself occurred in a more unusual manner that left a striking impact across (the female chromosome) chromosome X." The paper says "the two species split no more than 6.3 million years ago and probably less than 5.4 million years ago". The finding casts new light on the famous Toumai skull, found in Chad in 2002, which was dated to 6.5 to 7.4 million years. Toumai was believed to be the earliest hominid skull. Because Toumai now seems to be older than the final split between chimpanzees and hominids, it is probably neither chimp nor hominid but a common ancestor of both. "It is possible that the Toumai fossil is more recent than previously thought," said the paper's lead author, Nick Patterson of Harvard University. "But if the dating is correct, the Toumai fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has human-like features suggest that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period with episodes of hybridisation between the emerging species." Australian National University anthropologist Colin Groves said the idea of humans and chimpanzees swapping genes had been around for decades but the Nature paper was the first hard evidence. Different species interbred in the wild "quite often", said Dr Groves, and the paper made a very strong case for hominids and chimpanzees doing the same. "It's very interesting and I can't see any other option from their evidence," he told The Age. He said the paper allowed scientists to place the three earliest hominid fossils - Toumai and the later specimens Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipithecus kadabba - more accurately on the human family tree, although debate would continue. Toumai "represents something that lived before the human and chimp lines speciated. The other two . . . I've accepted that they're on the human line." Dr Groves said that even today it could be possible for humans and chimps to have sex and produce offspring, although there would be ethical problems. While I am deeply skeptical, that Homo/Pan hybridization could be even remotely possible, the concept is tantalizing. If a hybrid zygote could be formed (ABE- To say nothing of a living embryo or fetus -ABE) the implications would be fundamentally groundbreaking. A living hybrid zygote would shatter any notion of the genus Homo being separate divorced from the rest of the animal kingdom and underline in stark terms the kinship between Homo and Pan. In this light maybe Prattchett, Stewart & Choen’s concept that Humans should really be classified as Pan Narrans (the storytelling ape) isn’t that far wrong. Edited by ohnhai, : No reason given. Edited by ohnhai, : No reason given. Edited by ohnhai, : Added a link to the nature article
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CACTUSJACKmankin Member (Idle past 6294 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
It wouldn't be Pan-Homo, I'm not even sure it would have been an Australopithecine. If the interbreeding is occurring while they are separating it isn't that big of a stretch. Viable offspring from closely related species do occur rarely. Still interbreeding after a separation of 1.2 million years? That seems to stretch it a bit, not impossible, but not very likely. Although, They just found a polar bear-grizzly viable and they are separated by about 2 million years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Thanks for the link, ohnhai.
From it:
The central theme in the book is that in order for humans to understand anything it must be encapsulated in a story. In the fictional part of the book this is symbolized by the fictional element 'narrativium'. The science section suggests that, rather than Homo sapiens (Wise Man), we might be better described as Pan narrans (Storytelling Chimpanzee). I agree with the central point. Our working consciousness is fundamentally narrative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
But more importantly, the genetic analysis shows that chimpanzees and the earliest hominids continued to have sex with each other and swap genes for another 1.2 million years before the final break. Then that wouldn't have been the "final break", would it? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Did I not say I was sceptical? I just wanted to comment on the out come of such an unlikely event of it being shown that hybridisation was not impossible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Humans don't monkey around?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Possibly. But they frequently ape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
Does anyone have the research article documenting this work?
Has this research actually been published, or was it just released to the media? "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The OP mentions that the original research was published in Nature.
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees Nick Patterson, Daniel J. Richter, Sante Gnerre, Eric S. Lander, and David Reich1 The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human-chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human-chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.
TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : to remove annotations from abstract
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
Love your work, WK!
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
The paper is a good deal less certain about the hybridization than the news article suggests. The authors present hybridization as a provocative hypothesis -- they're not at all convinced themselves that the hypothesis is correct.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024