Bonobos Join Chimps As Closest Human Relatives 259
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."
Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it just a matter of behavior? If so, has it been proven that the behavioral differences aren't cultural?
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming you're not trolling here:
There's morphic phenotypes that are different, for one. Bonobos are actually a lot smaller than chimps as mature adults. They are also much less able to solve complex puzzles, a difference that persists even when raised in complete separation of others from their own species. There's also the biological definition of species that requires that they be able to interbreed, we have never seen that happen.
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Interesting)
They are also much less able to solve complex puzzles,
I believe bonobos are usually considered to be more [apecampaign.org] intelligent.
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Funny)
I take issue with that campaign about bonobos being the most intelligent ape. Humans deserve at least an honourable mention.
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Insightful)
Bonobos spent a greater percentage of their lives copulating. I think it's pretty obvious which species is more intelligent...
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different species?
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Informative)
So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different species?
No. They may be physically incompatible, but they are not genetically incompatible. If you inseminate a Great Dane with Chihuahua semen, it would have fertile puppies. Additionally, they could both interbreed with dogs of intermediate size. If A is the same species as B and B is the same species as C, then A is the same species as C.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly that logic holds even when they aren't genetically compatible. Some ring species have that property. All neighbours can interbreed, but distantly separated individuals cannot. If the distribution forms a circle then you have a rather curious type of species.
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Informative)
Not so. See "Ring Species"
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Informative)
Irrelevant. Geographic separation is a direct cause of speciation. Gene pools stop mixing, genetic drift pushes two similar groups far enough apart that they are no longer compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Geographic separation is a direct cause of speciation. Gene pools stop mixing, genetic drift pushes two similar groups far enough apart that they are no longer compatible.
Yeah I get that, but if the physical separation has not existed long enough to allow genetic divergence, then they would just be isolated populations.
Re: (Score:3)
But have they been separated long enough to become reproductively incompatible? For 12000 years, aboriginal Americans were separated from old world humans, but when Columbus sailed, lo and behold the people were reproductively compatible. Australian aborigines were separated even longer, and dingos longer than that if you count generations instead of years, but no speciation occurred.
Reproductive isolation is apparently necessary for speciation, but not sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
>But isn't that more a matter of geographic distribution rather than lack of interest or ability?
What, exactly, is your problem with this?
The ability to freely (without human intervention) interbreed and produce fertile offspring is central to the definition of what a species is.
No interbreeding can come from various factors - oestrus times, physical separation, genetic separation, etc. Physical separation, over time, leads to genetic separation, and that's what we have between bonobos and chimps in add
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Insightful)
The ability to freely (without human intervention) interbreed and produce fertile offspring is central to the definition of what a species is.
This definition is crap though. If animal A can interbreed with animal B, and animal B with C, but A cannot with C, then you cannot define the species. There are real world examples of this, albeit a little more convoluted : see the herring gull and lesser black backed gull.
Re: (Score:3)
This definition is crap though. If animal A can interbreed with animal B, and animal B with C, but A cannot with C, then you cannot define the species.
This makes all definitions of species crap. Species is a human construct that nature does not care about. As long as you are aware of that, it is fine to use definitions with problematic corner cases.
Re: (Score:3)
If animal A can interbreed with animal B, and animal B with C, but A cannot with C, then you cannot define the species.
Seriously, if A can breed with B, then we have a scenario where A is male and B is female. This makes the Pairing between B and C such that B is female and C is Male. Animals A and C could never (successfully) breed as they would be both male.
Also B is somewhat of a slut.
Re: (Score:2)
Bonobos and chimps have interbreeded succesfully. They differ genetically less than some groups of humans do.
Seriously, cite your source if you're going to say stuff like this.
Have chimps and bonobos interbred and produced fertile offspring? Yes, there have been bonobo/chimp matings that produced live offspring, but were the offspring fertile? (None of the information I found appears to answer that question).
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Informative)
I decided to look, I found this:
Hybridizations [sandiegozoo.org]
Hybrids between common chimps and bonobos in captivity have occurred
But I can't find a lot more than that. I was looking for pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
>I don't think toy poodles and great mastiffs have been labelled different species yet
They probably should be.
We consider canis lupus dingo a separate species from canis lupus familiaris, and they interbreed more often than most people think.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I missed this in my previous message:
>Are these isolated populations or different species?
Given enough time (a few thousand years) divergence will happen. There is no question about it. We see it time and again in species that were once one species, and became separated by a river or ocean (Darwin's finches for example).
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
They don't interbreed.
HTH.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Informative)
I read about this yesterday on Ars [arstechnica.com]. In the second-to-last paragraph, they talk about how Bonobos are well within the standard deviation for chimps, so genetically speaking, they should be the same species. I believe they were even once considered to be the same species, but were separated due to the size and behavior differences. In light of this new evidence, I believe it may cause them to be considered a "sub-species", much like dogs are to wolves.
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:5, Funny)
"Is it just a matter of behavior? "
That too. Chimps will fuck you up, given the chance, Bonobos will just fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
What reason is there to consider the Bonobo and Chimpanzee different species?
You're misunderstanding the numbers. Simplified Example: We share genes A-Y with Chimps, and Genes B-Z with Bonobo's. Chimps and Bonobo's share Genes B-Y, but you can see that Chimps have gene A, and Bonobos have Gene Z, and are therefore not the same species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bonobo Chimpanzee (Score:4, Informative)
They aren't. Chimpanzee is a genus (Pan) not a species. Bonobo (Pan paniscus) is a species on chimpanzee. The other extant species of chimpanzee is the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Those two species of chimpanzee are diffierent species from one another for the same reason any other two species of animal in the same genus are, they can't reliably produce offspring that can themselves reliably produce offspring.
Re:False (Score:5, Funny)
No real surprise here (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Always figured they were closely related to man, considering how endlessly horny they are.
Always figured they were closely related to me, considering how endlessly horny they are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
humans: somewhere between licentious bonobos and face tearing chimpanzees.
I've suspected this for a long time actually. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Real liberals, yeah. The socialists who think nothing of threatening others with violence to get their way - chimps.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess, the "violence" you are talking of is actually the fact that you have to pay taxes to finance part of the society that is supporting you?
Just like chimps, the coercive hierarchy is primarily enforced by the mere threat of violence. And, similarly, an occasional example [nytimes.com] must be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, the "violence" you are talking of is actually the fact that you have to pay taxes to finance part of the society that is supporting you?
Here, let me genericize that for you:
I favor non-violent regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you would be "fine" with paying taxes, as long as no one enforced it on you? I.e. making it basically voluntary?
Absolutely. Except you can't call them taxes, because taxes, by definition, are backed by violence or threats thereof. Voluntary payments are not a problem.
Except, say in the case of welfare, I'd donate money to the organization that has the best services and the lowest expense ratios. The government's expense ratios for welfare are sky-high, but if the same people were competing peacefully
Re: (Score:3)
You point out the repubs that don't pay taxes, but I'll bet there are just as many demos that don't pay...
Re: (Score:2)
Well I was trying to be an equal opportunity offender there, but it's good to see those competetive instincts are driving you to take the lead in the brittle, self-important market niche.
I was just being matter of fact about it. Nice of you to bring ego into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Real liberals or true scotsmen?
The usage of the word that predominated from the Enlightenment until FDR attempted to re-define it and conflate it with governmental positivism.. The liberal concept itself goes back at least to Sumer (that's as far back as we have written evidence).
Basically everyone threatens others with violence to get their way, especially if their way means not being murdered, enslaved, etc, etc, etc.
Political and moral philosophers make a distinction between the initiation of violence an
1% of three billion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:1% of three billion (Score:5, Informative)
The difference from humans to other humans can be 3 million base pairs, (0.1%), for perspective. 30 million (a factor of 10) doesn't seem like that much.
Re:1% of three billion (Score:4, Funny)
Humans have 23 chromosome pairs.... 46 chromosomes in total. In women, there are 2 X and in males, 1X and 1Y. Males of our species share 45/46 or 98% with females.
Explains why I understand male monkeys much better than female humans
Oooh Oooh Ah Ah Ah
Re: (Score:2)
While I respect scientific authority to a large extent, I'm not sure how serious to take their current understanding of the subtle interpay between various parts of our genome. There is still a great deal that is not understood, which makes it a great time to be in the field. I think in another 20- 30 years when the result of all of this reasearch is as obvious as the world champion 95 year old sprinter's bulging leg muscles, I'll have more faith in their prouncements on the ultilization of various parts of
Re: (Score:2)
No, its not an argument.
On one level its like brining in a fifthgrader and having them watch a lecture on quantum electro dynamics and then asking him if he agrees with the lecture.
On the other level its a questioning of the confidence level of the field's understanding. Science moves at a certain rate, growing more confident of findings over time as the wealth of research.
Left out importance facts! (Score:2)
Are they single?
What next? (Score:2)
What next? Donald Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how this is surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but in science we still test what we expect to be true. Also, I'm sure that the '% difference from humans' number was not the primary goal of this research, just an easy and interesting number to calculate once you have the data for other purposes.
Rates of genetic evolution can vary along different lineages, so it is possible that since the Bonobo/Chimp split, one had evolved faster than the other. It would have been surprising, however, for the rates to be substantially different after such a short ti
Re: (Score:2)
So what if they share 99% of our DNA? We perhaps share 50% with a banana. And we all share 100% of a few dozen chemical elements.
We're related to just about every living thing on this planet that has a face. I think that's pretty mind blowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uninteresting consequence of the decimal system (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We are legion.
Re: (Score:3)
That's OK you are still an ass :)
I jest, I jest.
Re:Nope... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't come from no monkey's butthole
It's an honest mistake. Most people just assume there's a family resemblance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You think no one tried that one before?
Or vagina (Score:2)
Sorry.
Re:Chimps? (Score:5, Informative)
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
No... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:No... (Score:5, Funny)
If your dog's making reasonable arguments then he's filling a rare ecological niche indeed. Impressive!
Re: (Score:2)
Coyotes are in the wolf genus (though currently still considered a different species) - Canis latrans. Coyotes and wolves can actually interbreed and produce viable offspring, and have been shown to do so in the wild. Domestic dogs are considered a subspecies of wolf.
"Jackal" is, as you say, a colloquialism, and includes the species Canis mesomelas, Canis adustus, and Canis aureus
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
so both of these concepts are equally close , and share 99% of their content with each other?
Re: (Score:2)
We'll use High School geometry to answer all questions in any epistemological domain! Brilliant! ;)
A Ferrari is 99% close to a Ford Escort, then. Trade ya.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No. Creationism is the conflating of the Creation Stories (two of them) as science, or trying to use them as a basis of a weird frankenstein-monster of bad logic posing as science. like Intelligent Design trotted out by the Discovery Institute.
arguing semantics instead of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Day-age creationism (Score:2)
Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
Pick the word you want to use for that
I have a few words for that: "day-age creationism", and "sensible".
Re: (Score:2)
But Creationism is not science. It's not testable. It doesn't even come close to the testability of abiogenesis hypotheses. It is based on a Biblical interpretation. It is NOT SCIENCE.
With regards to your last sentence:
That is the same "la la la" fingers-in-ears that I get from Bible literalists.
And btw, I'm not the one who picked your name. You did.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
No, not at all. It is not testable -per your preferred methodology-.
Your preferred methodology is not the only one there is, because you say so by fiat.
Re: (Score:2)
If Creationism is not Religion, Capital R, where did it come from?
Do I have to cut-and-paste the Dover PA School Board case here?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
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 sh
Re: (Score:2)
Retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly because "god of the gaps" is a notion made up by atheists to reference something nobody means by the term "god"--a being that would be able to design particular biological entities, but unable to design evolution.
There is fallacious reasoning here, but it is introduced by the term referencing a meaningless definition, "god" as supposedly "of the gaps". The fallacious reasoning here is "owned" entirely by the person presenting the term.
My position would be that everything is designed, we simply don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To tie it back to biology, we will ultimately determine that there are, or are not, "Irreducibly Complex" structures per Behe's et al notion. If there are, it would be a case of "intervention", if not, it would be from my stance a case of initial process design, of the Big-Bang/abiogenesis/evolution. Either are compatible with the notion of a "designing g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What "caused" the atomic bomb explosion in Nagasaki? A nuclear chain reaction as describable via physics, or the President of the United States, ordering that it be dropped? The answer is, naturally, both. Specifying the former cause does not supersede or invalidate the latter cause.
Re: (Score:2)
On behalf of the Old Earth Creationists, let me request that this is presented such it doesn't practically beg Young Earth Creationists to scoff at science here.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Please clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is (obviously) variation within a single species' genome, "equally close" can only refer to a statistical model in any case. And I'm not sure what your comment about "descendents" has to do with anything. Chimps and bobobos both come from a common ancestor that had already split from the human branch, so it's seems fairly obvious that they would be equally close within any reasonable approximation of closeness.
Re: (Score:2)
So then, how is the OP informative? By that standard, the number "equally close" would be arbitrary. For some reason, these particular two are noted. Why?
The situation most resembling "optimally close" would be a chimpanzee and bonobo mating, which would obviously be... causally problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you seem to be the "OP" in this thread. Do you mean TFA or TFS? And I'm not really sure what the point of your original post is, but that may be because I don't keep careful track of the distinctions between the delusions of science deniers. But I really have no idea what point you're trying to make now. When it comes to comparing how closely related species are, bonobos and chimps should be expected to be equally close to humans. If you had any understanding of science, you wouldn't find that cont
Re: (Score:2)
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Do creationists really have a problem understanding that multiple objects could be equidistant? Hell, do they have a problem with multiple siblings all being equally closely related?
If any of these concepts pose the slightest difficulty for you, please refrain from forming any opinions on anything scientific or technical. Your brain just isn't up to the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Two. Different. Species. Equally. Close.
No surprises here as distance is symmetric.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yeah, we share a common ancestor. You're equally closely related to all of your 1st cousins.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you posted as AC, I guess that this makes sense.