Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,331 Year: 3,588/9,624 Month: 459/974 Week: 72/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not So Distant cousins after all.
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5180 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 1 of 11 (313093)
05-18-2006 4:08 AM


Chimp study shakes human family tree (the AGE 18-05-06)
Stephen Cauchi of The AGE.au writes:
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.
{My Bold}
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-18-2006 8:28 AM ohnhai has replied
 Message 3 by Omnivorous, posted 05-18-2006 8:57 AM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 05-18-2006 10:44 AM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 8 by U can call me Cookie, posted 05-29-2006 7:33 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6292 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 2 of 11 (313126)
05-18-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
05-18-2006 4:08 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 4:08 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 11:18 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3983
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 3 of 11 (313134)
05-18-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
05-18-2006 4:08 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 4:08 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 11 (313170)
05-18-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
05-18-2006 4:08 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 4:08 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5180 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 5 of 11 (313176)
05-18-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-18-2006 8:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-18-2006 8:28 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 05-18-2006 11:21 AM ohnhai has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 11 (313178)
05-18-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ohnhai
05-18-2006 11:18 AM


Humans don't monkey around?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 11:18 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 6:33 PM jar has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5180 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 7 of 11 (313290)
05-18-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
05-18-2006 11:21 AM


Possibly. But they frequently ape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 05-18-2006 11:21 AM jar has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4971 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 8 of 11 (315885)
05-29-2006 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ohnhai
05-18-2006 4:08 AM


Primary Literature
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ohnhai, posted 05-18-2006 4:08 AM ohnhai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 05-29-2006 8:04 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 11 (315891)
05-29-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by U can call me Cookie
05-29-2006 7:33 AM


Re: Primary Literature
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by U can call me Cookie, posted 05-29-2006 7:33 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by U can call me Cookie, posted 05-29-2006 8:27 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 11 by sfs, posted 06-02-2006 10:29 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4971 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 10 of 11 (315892)
05-29-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wounded King
05-29-2006 8:04 AM


Re: Primary Literature
Love your work, WK!
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 05-29-2006 8:04 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2552 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 11 of 11 (316988)
06-02-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wounded King
05-29-2006 8:04 AM


Re: Primary Literature
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 05-29-2006 8:04 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024