8
   

Why are there no half monkey half human?

 
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 07:19 am
@Fido,
Weren't monkeys also monkey-eaters? Not exactly seeing how that is relevant?

Doesn't the possible theory of a missing link come into play into this discussion? Perhaps whatever that link was has since disappeared. Maybe at some point it'll be found?

My non-scientific research about genetic similarities between the human genome and other animal genomes turned this up:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated."


Another extract from further research :
"- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 10:18 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

Weren't monkeys also monkey-eaters? Not exactly seeing how that is relevant?

Doesn't the possible theory of a missing link come into play into this discussion? Perhaps whatever that link was has since disappeared. Maybe at some point it'll be found?

My non-scientific research about genetic similarities between the human genome and other animal genomes turned this up:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated."


Another extract from further research :
"- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

My point is that while some monkeys, even chimps can be predatory and cannabalistic, anyone like us and not us was doomed... Cro mag man taught us how to fish, and was bigger and stronger... Then he asked for our bud lite, and that was that..

We have traditionally treated all people unlike ourselves as animals, and our myths reflect this... We behold super humans like Jews with near terror, but we hold in absolute contempt all people we consider sub human or low in intelligence...

Life is an intelligence test, and clearly, many people have not made the cut.. This situation is very much reflected in language... We have relatively few word of Gallic in English and those we do have reflect the fact that the Celts of Britain who were allowed to live gave a few words to the Anglo Saxon as houshold slaves... The fact that we have two words for a lanimal alive and as food reflects the fact that the Anglo Saxons raised the living animal that the Normans did eat, so that sheep to one was mutton to the other...

We may look at our white bread and mayonaise cutlure and wonder at the loss of cultural diversity... We should try to remember one thing... When cultures die, it is not just an abstraction of their combined knowledge that is dying, but real human beings... Other people bury them and take over their places who may themselves in time be swept away, but it is not just people then and cultures that are dying, but genetic diversity which we have too little of, and bad ideas/ forms that we have in plenty, which is generally what kills all societies...

The Romans had some great ideas in their time which allowed them to utterly destroy many cultures... What was said of the Bourbons might have applied equally to the them or to us: That they forgot nothing, and learned nothing... People learn in adaptation to problems, and when they arrive at a form of society which protects them from problems it also protects them from adaptation... Look at us... Our society is falling around our ears and just like the Romans or the Greeks we think we are living with perfection and so cannot change anything... It is an intelligence test; and we are failing it...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 12:02 pm
@tommot2002,
tommot2002 wrote:
Yeah but when this common ancestor evolved into other stuff why didnt they mate with each other?


Because they were separated and were not in contact with each other.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 12:24 pm
@MontereyJack,
cHOMOSOME 2 OF HUMANS IS A BUNDLING OF TWO OTHER CHIMP (OR COMMON ANCESTRAL) CHROMOSOMES. so iM NOT SURE THAT A HYBRID COULD BE VIABLE. bE NICE TO TRY.
Ive seen the "SCience Channel" show about the "HUMANZEE"
Very Funny , I think most of the scientsts they hd were from gungasnkes college of dubious knowledge
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 01:16 pm
farmer, apparently greater mismatches in numbers of genes don't bar hybrids, e.g. in equine species, probably make them more difficult, but not necessarily impossible. The jury seems to be out amongst geneticists from what I can tell, with the possibility there but no consensus on the probability. I know quite a lovely lady chimp if you know someone that would like to experiment....

On another part of the thread, the genetic exidence seems to show that in fact there was some hybridization between human ancestors and chimp ancestors for about a million years after the split.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
So the question remains are we Chimp chumps or champs?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:51 pm
rag: I vote that a hybrid should be called a hump
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:53 pm
@MontereyJack,
I've know a lot of humps in my day... but....!

(Good one, BTW)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:33 pm
@MontereyJack,
There are no equines that have entire mismatched chromosomes. Chimps have 23 pair and humans have 22 THere would be a difficulty in a natural hybrid without extreme intervention (A lot more than is necc for a horse and a donkey).
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:40 pm
Quote:
On another part of the thread, the genetic exidence seems to show that in fact there was some hybridization between human ancestors and chimp ancestors for about a million years after the split.
Im not sure where that comes from because the split , and the insertion of specific pseudogenens and genetic retroelements as well as developing the specific 10 major chromosomal differences tween chimps and humans has , by logic and evidence, shown us that all these occured since the humans and chimps split from a common ancestor. Itd be difficult to identify when the "hybridization" even occured , if ever-- because we can only deal with "Back CAlculating genetic inferences. We do have lots of genetic evidence to a contrary.(NANOG elements, Alu,etc)
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 04:20 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
cHOMOSOME 2 OF HUMANS IS A BUNDLING OF TWO OTHER CHIMP (OR COMMON ANCESTRAL) CHROMOSOMES. so iM NOT SURE THAT A HYBRID COULD BE VIABLE. bE NICE TO TRY.
Why are you shouting ? Are you losing your hearing ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 04:21 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
rag: I vote that a hybrid should be called a hump
Nope . It would be a Chum .
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 01:05 am
farmer, there are other equines than horses and donkeys (3-4 species of zebras, probably including quaggas, wild asses, and Przewalski's Horses), all of which seem to be capable of producing hybrids with each other, with varying degrees of fertility of the offspring (often depending on which species is the father and whicthe mother). Zebras are alleged to have between 32 and 44 chromosomes, depending on the species (I'm a bit leery of that reported range, I'll admit). Przewalskis are a never-domesticated species of feral horse with 31 chromosomes who can reproduce with regular horses with 32, which supposedly makes them very similar to the chimp-human situation.

And lately some evolutionary geneticists say that the Y- chromosome difference between chimps and humans has a later date of divergence than the rest of the genomes, which implies later hooking up between the species. Randy guys, screw anything on two legs (well, maybe not ostriches, then again, who can tell for sure). "Hey, Ugh-Rarga, let's go visit the next waterhole over, there're these two really hot, really hairy women over there that we should get to know better--at least I think they're women, though they look kinda different."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 05:19 am
@MontereyJack,
The ability to hybridize when chromosomal differences occur would require intervention. (Im aware of the zebra hybrids and Pzrewalsi/ Dray horse hybrids. They are all done by human intervention and the hybrids are mostly an oddity .

The human chromosome 2 formed by fusion ofchimp chromosome 2A and 2B . It was evidenced to have occured after the split from the common ancestor. I suppose that in the interim, there may have been some interbreeding in the Sahelensis specimens or earlier. However, the rapid diversion of the human genome would not support a epriod of a million years. The rates of diversion have been very rapidALl the genetic elements clearly shows an African SUb-Saharan origin and rapid diversion between humans and chimps (x chromosome, y chromosome, mDNA diversity, Vasilov's concept being reinforced for human ancestors,Alu).

Perhaps there was a brief period of time that natural hybridization could occur (like polar bears and brown bears), but I think the diversion of the species had occured so quickly (reinforcing mutations every 10000years or so). I cant believe that any NATURAL hybridiation would have lasted for a million yearsThats almost 20% f the total time since diversion. The two species perhaps would have seen each other as something alien.

I failed to note that DArwin, in the "Origin of SPecies..." had a section devoted to artificial selection and hybridization since "zorses" and quagga hybrid mules were a fairly common hobby for the English nobility. Darwin amde the comment that is pretty much been confirmed that "These animals to not mate naturally"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 05:53 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
And lately some evolutionary geneticists say that the Y- chromosome difference between chimps and humans has a later date of divergence than the rest of the genomes, which implies later hooking up between the species


That is a new one to me so I would love to see anything that youve found re: the appearnce of the Y diffs. (Im going on the stuff from Wells and the nat geo genome projects) and DAn Fairbanks (Relics of Eden).

I love to read any newer stuff and would be much indebt . There is always some new theory coming up and new evidences chuck out older hypotheses.
Thanks in advance
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 06:14 am
@Ragman,
Quote:
Weren't monkeys also monkey-eaters?


Chimps kill and eat monkeys. I've never heard or read about monkeys eating other monkeys
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 06:16 am
Soviet scientists tried to create human/ape hybrids prior to WW-II. The basic idea was to create a super working class to do all of the heavy lifting involved in turning an agrarian country into an industrialized one. No new species was produced and as far as I know, none of the female subjects survived.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 06:20 am
@MontereyJack,
Apparently, geneticists seem to favor this theory:

"Clear evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is the number of chromosomes in human as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All Hominidae with the exception of humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes"
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 06:25 am
@farmerman,
It appears that human have 23 pair, chimps have 24 pair. Unless their chumps.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 06:31 am
For the benefit of any who might have missed it, the basic non-evolution of modern man:

http://able2know.org/topic/166283-1

The other major item in reading material involves new studies of the genetic divide between humans and chimpanzees:

http://able2know.org/topic/166910-1

THAT compounds the problem which the Haldane dilemma presents to evolutionites by several orders of magnitude and makes the formerly unbridgeable gap between apes and humans several orders of magnitude MORE unbridgeable. It also makes the gap between humans and the nearest hominids (Neanderthals), recognized to be about halfway between humans and chimps, several orders of magnitude more unbridgeable than it formerly was.

That means there is nothing on this planet which we could plausibly be descended from. That also means that evolution is basically a bunch of BULLSHIT, but then everybody with anything resembling brains or talent has known that for many decades.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Why was the political party named Whig? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 12:59:25