We're Really Chimps???

we know there is more to the difference between chimp and human than just a simple fold in the DNA structure, the usual figure bounces around 98.5% similarity in the total sequence.the problem with a fold scenario that I see is how to get it into a general population if it is immediately incompatible in reproduction? It is much more likely that a fold evolved after the divergence of the two species from their common ancestor.another similar bit of information is that humans lack one pair of chromosomes compared to chimps but that one of ours looks like two of theirs joined together. again this probably happened after divergence. you have a similar thing going on between horses and donkeys.I did a google on {chimp DNA folding} and got nothing that I could find that looked like what you were talking about.That's my take on it anyway.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and there are scientists that think the chimps should be classed in Homo rather than Pan family.Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study SaysThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-16-2005 01:27 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Remember that we are talking Genus level, and that in other Genus groupings include species with much more divergent {genes\structural\morphological} differences than those between humans and chimps.Consider that this {human only} view is solely due to {original\on-going} bias that view humans as somehow special in nature to all other animals, certainly it was born in the days of rampant racism that originally had some races as inferior to others.For myself I would be happy to put them in Family Homindae that would put them equal to Australopithicus and the like -- that would be a reasonable place until more information comes along.Certainly Bonobos would qualify based on their sexual behavior alone

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Well something here doesn't add up, because the human genome project is not concerned with other species.As far as genetic comparisons go I was given this link (I think it was Trixie, but it may have been Deneesha) on another thread:Search NCBI databases - NLMThis was in relation to any studies for closeness of human DNA to Bonobos (Pan paniscus) and Chimp (Pan troglodytes) regarding which is closer to human. This site is a database of genetic information.What is clear is that the full genomes of both Bonobos and Chimp are not complete yet (and thus the relative genetic closeness in tentative at best), and thus the statement that the "only" difference is a folded sequence has to be totally bogus, imao.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

unfortunately, maybe: they are on the brink of extinction.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

First off, I am not so quick to rule out possible speciation due to dominant {cultural\sexual\behavioral} selection proclivities among the various sub-species of Homo sapiens, but to answer your question first:We have a model available in the amount of change needed to reach speciation in the "ring species" green warbler:
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/Greenish%20warblers.html You have 5 sub-species that form a ring around the Tibetan Plateau, each one interbreeding with it's neighbor to varying degrees, but the end overlap area has two species (non-interbreeding). {{added by edit: ther is a 6th sub-species but it is totally isolated from the others}}This offers a look at just how much differentiation is needed to create non-interbreeding populations, noting that they may still be genetically able to produce offspring that they are behaviorally isolated. And they can now be genetically compared to see just how much genetic difference is involved.

---

It also models for us criteria for population co-isolation if you will: each sub-species has an area of their own and areas of overlap with other species but which appear to be more bottle necks than broad overlaps.Now consider all the sub-species (races) of Homo sapiens living in mostly {race-monolithic} areas and only interbreeding on limited scales in spite of pressures to do otherwise. Much of this can be put to cultural selection, but sexual selection is also involved, and in either case they are both behavioral mechanisms - isolating people into different sub-populations with predominant internal domination by one race or other.One can argue whether these {population co-isloation barriers} are real {cultural\sexual\behavioral} selection barriers or just cultural left-overs, the fact remains that they exist and can be observed in virtually every city, as opposed to a more homogeneous mixture that (one thinks) should have evaporated all racial differences by now if they were not operating.It is possible that genetic drift within each sub-population is occuring and that continued behavioral isolation could result in increased infertility between overlap breeding pairs.This too can now be measured with the genetics, particularly with the "Human Genome" (shouldn't that be plural?) Project to see if there is increased or decreased inter-racial differentiation.

---

Conversely, as a model for "a chance meeting of the 2 (sub)species" look at the europeans discovery of america, with the native population derived from asian stock and isolated from european stock for ?thousands? of years ... and geneticaly able to interbreed, even though that too was (relatively) rare due to cultural behavior (ignoring the impact of horny-sailor-raping-native factor for now).The ability to breed genetically extends long after {behavioral\geologial\other} barriers arise, so the question is: will rational considerations overturn basic fundamental behavior ... can "liberal thinking" prevail over "dogmatic behavior" eh?Or to be radical: do we need to force a monolithic genetic culture or let things happen as they will to allow for a greater genetic diversity overall, and if it results in speciation we can have a (birthday) party. EnjoyThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-17-2005 14:02 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

yes. recent survey in one national park there found none in their habitat area. poachers, rebels, army, number of factors. not good. Andya posted it on another thread.