Page 14 of 19
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:56 pm
by Beagle
grunabona246 wrote:
beagle,
thanks to you, i'm going to enjoy the john hawks weblog also. that's like finding a treasure trove for me.
Glad you like it Gruna - sometime we may get a chance to talk about our favorite "caveman."
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:44 pm
by grunabona246
Beagle wrote:grunabona246 wrote:
beagle,
thanks to you, i'm going to enjoy the john hawks weblog also. that's like finding a treasure trove for me.
Glad you like it Gruna - sometime we may get a chance to talk about our favorite "caveman."
that would be fine, beagle.
i note from the hawks blog that neanderthals and homo sapiens are estimated to share 99.96% dna. i wonder if you or anyone else on this site could give me some idea how this would compare to other mammalian species which interbreed, particularly those with fertile offspring as a result?
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:17 pm
by Minimalist
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:07 pm
by Beagle
Min is correct here, actually I think it's a tad closer than that.
And then there is "junk" DNA, which we all have but don't understand.
There is much to look at, but right now, the geneticists rule. No denying it. But still - we see through a glass darkly. More is bound to come.
About the chart Marduk posted - that is this years. Last year had HE in direct line of evolution. It changes every year. Grab a seat and watch the show.
Looks grim though!
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:33 pm
by grunabona246
min, or bob, according to hawks it is 99% for humans and chimps.
by the way, another idea i have which came to me in a single moment, is that bonobos are more closely related to humans than are other apes. a few years ago i saw a film about bonobos and in watching them move i saw something almost human about them. i'm sure bonobos are more closely related to common chimpanzees than they are to humans, of course, but there is a perceptible difference in movement between bonobos and common chimpanzees that places them closer to humans i believe. perhaps genetic testing will eventually prove that.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:00 am
by Minimalist
You'll have to argue it out with the NIH. I just quoted their figure.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:15 am
by grunabona246
Minimalist wrote:You'll have to argue it out with the NIH. I just quoted their figure.
min,
i don't fully understand the difference, but that nih report does say 99% in direct comparison, then 96% after insertions and deletions.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:37 am
by grunabona246
regarding my earlier question as to mammalian species interbreeding, i'll be more specific. what is the genetic difference between wolves and coyotes? they are considered different species, yet they can interbreed, with fertile offspring being the result. surely they are not more than 99.96% genetically the same, which is the estimate of genetic similarity between neanderthals and homo sapiens.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:46 am
by marduk
One recent theory suggests that Red Wolves, Grey Wolves and Coyotes are all descended from a common ancestor population in North America between one and two million years ago. According to this theory, the ancestors of the Grey Wolf migrated to Europe and Asia at that time, becoming the Grey Wolf as we know it today, and then returned to the Americas about 300,000 years ago. At around the same time (300,000 years ago) the Coyote and Red Wolf populations diverged and began to differentiate. The modern Eastern Canadian Wolf population, in this view, is a mixture of different blood lines, including pure Grey Wolves, pure Red Wolves, and hybrids between Red Wolves and Coyotes, and Red Wolves and Grey Wolves. Grey Wolves and Coyotes do not hybridise directly. It has recently been proposed that the Eastern Timberwolf (Canis lupus lycaon) is actually the same species as the Red Wolf under the name Canis lycaon. The proposed Canis lycaon would be more closely related to the coyote than to the Western Gray Wolf. This is by nature of red wolves, timberwolves, and coyotes having all evolved from a common North American ancestor as opposed to the Western Gray Wolf which is considered a relatively recent arrival from Eurasia.
in other words coyotes and wolves have been interbreeding since they first diverged from each other making such coupling successful
sapiens and neanderthals have not
and seeing as there aren't any neanderthals left (except Arch) i doubt there wll be any coupling in future
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:15 pm
by DougWeller
Talking about a non-existent 'archaeology club' doesn't help discussion, in fact it can be used as a great excuse for not having discussion or providing evidence.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:53 pm
by grunabona246
marduk wrote:One recent theory suggests that Red Wolves, Grey Wolves and Coyotes are all descended from a common ancestor population in North America between one and two million years ago. According to this theory, the ancestors of the Grey Wolf migrated to Europe and Asia at that time, becoming the Grey Wolf as we know it today, and then returned to the Americas about 300,000 years ago. At around the same time (300,000 years ago) the Coyote and Red Wolf populations diverged and began to differentiate. The modern Eastern Canadian Wolf population, in this view, is a mixture of different blood lines, including pure Grey Wolves, pure Red Wolves, and hybrids between Red Wolves and Coyotes, and Red Wolves and Grey Wolves. Grey Wolves and Coyotes do not hybridise directly. It has recently been proposed that the Eastern Timberwolf (Canis lupus lycaon) is actually the same species as the Red Wolf under the name Canis lycaon. The proposed Canis lycaon would be more closely related to the coyote than to the Western Gray Wolf. This is by nature of red wolves, timberwolves, and coyotes having all evolved from a common North American ancestor as opposed to the Western Gray Wolf which is considered a relatively recent arrival from Eurasia.
in other words coyotes and wolves have been interbreeding since they first diverged from each other making such coupling successful
sapiens and neanderthals have not
and seeing as there aren't any neanderthals left (except Arch) i doubt there wll be any coupling in future
marduk,
i can't believe arch didn't respond to that jibe.
interesting post, but my understanding is all canines are capable of interbreeding, with fertile offspring resulting, even though most of the time they stick to their own. dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, african wild dogs, etc.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:00 pm
by marduk
my understanding is that all species of the same genus are attracted to each other under certain "ahem" conditions but that not all of them can produce succesfully fertile progeny and when they do the chances of their progeny being fertile are non existant. this is how sub species actually start off in the first place and the reason why we don't have sub sub sub sub sub species
its the same with felines but better documented which is why animals like this Liger (Female tiger male lion progeny)
are unlikely to ever have any offspring
in some cases only one sex of the offspring is fertile which in the ligers case is more common in the Ligress and never reported in the Liger male which ensures that the ligress can only mate with "raciallypure" (nazi loan word) tigers thus reducing the mutation
Praise the lord
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:07 pm
by grunabona246
that's some pussycat!!!
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:16 pm
by marduk
i have nightmares about it
the Alien Big Cats that allegedly roam the british countryside used to have the excuse that different species couldn't interbreed so there wasn't enough of a gene pool for a colony to be set up when in 1977 after the wild animals act was made law, big cat owners all over the british isles released them rather than pay for the required changes so they could continue to keep them legally
this makes it a whole lot worse doesn't it
I have to go now
i hear something scratching at the front door
near the roof
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:30 pm
by Minimalist
People who are involved in the conspiracy ALWAYS deny that there is one, Doug.
That's the first rule of conspiracies!