We are superior to them in terms of intelligence, but if a nuke explodes, they survive we don't, so from a different perspective they are superior.
Reclassification of Homo sapiens.
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
We are superior to them in terms of intelligence, but if a nuke explodes, they survive we don't, so from a different perspective they are superior.
there isnt even the most remote possibilty of a comparison as far as intelligence and the nuke thing is just in terms of radiation not sure why though. all you need is boric acid to kill them though.
You can just drown them in water, or squish them, you don't need boric acid
Well, the thing is humans are more complex than cockroaches, most invertebrates are simple creatures, though arthropods and some mollusks are more complex, they don't compare to vertebrates.
Vertebrates came later on, we are a newer species "technology" in nature keeps on improving too (You can take it like that) Billions of years ago you had only simple bacteria ("low tech") and now you have humans ("high tech").
No, I wouldn't care if they classified a banana differently. I've already stated that I don't hold taxonomy to be terribly important.So you wouldn't have a problem with it if they classified banana's as Lepus musa ?
My example was to show you how stupid it is to ignore genetic relationships between species when you're classifying them.
So, with that I will be back to ignoring this thread.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You must not like science then. See you around.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
By your own words, you are fine with denying the evolutionary lineage of a species.
Denying the evolutionary lineage? No. But in situations like this thread, where an apparent crusade is created to reclassify something unnecessarily I need to laugh. It's silly.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If you don't care that a species is classified wrongly, you are denying it's evolutionary lineage :shrug:
And what crusade ? Here's the OP again:
In my opinion the Genus Homo is a misnomer.
The latest studies found that 99.4 percent of important DNA sites are the same in chimps and humans.
Chimpanzees and Bonobo's are more closely related to us than to any other great ape.
In fact, they are so closely related to us that they should be in the same Genus as we are.
It has been proposed that Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Bonobo's (Pan paniscus) be put in our Genus (Homo) in stead of the Pan Genus.
But it seems to me, that the Homo Genus is completely arbitrary and solely a product of our arrogance (or vanity if you will).
Therefor Humans should be reclassified as Pan sapiens in my opinion, rather than reclassifying Chimpanzees and Bonobo's as, respectively, Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus.
While we're at it, perhaps Pan monastica would be more fitting
If it were any other species it would be reclassified without hesitation. What's the difficulty with humans then ?
And it seems you have some personal issues with the subject.. why ?
I disagree. There are many different rules that we can use to classify organisms. In your opinion, genetic classification is the only correct way, but that's not the opinion of everyone.
Again, I disagree. The difference in chromosomal number -- humans being the only species of great ape with 23 pairs (orangutans have 24 pairs, gorillas have 24 pairs, chimpanzees and bonobos have 24 pairs, etc.) -- should be enough to keep them in a seperate genus. Again, if we move a branch from our "tree of life" diagrams from one place to another, it doesn't change anything about how the organism's genes are expressed.
My problem with this discussion is that you're extrapolating my comments about a naming convention to indicate that I have no interest in science and that I reject concepts that are well understood. This is mighty presumptive of you, and is largely distracting to the overall discussion.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, by all means, don't hesitate to propose a better method..
Ok, and this is finally an argument. While two chromosomes have fused in humans the genes are still all there, and showing an extreme resemblance to those of Chimps and Bonobo's.
I'm unsure how current biology views this difference in chromosomes in light of the reclassification. I do know that there are other species that have varying chromosome numbers, so within the same species..
Ok, I apologize for that.
But it is still true that you showed the attitude I commented on in your very first post in this thread. So me wrongly accusing you of said things has got nothing to do with it.
Classification shows linkage in evolution, and is very interesting, take it down from Poriferans, and go up stage by stage, you get an idea of how life has started on this planet.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Here's the actual paper. I hope it's good enough.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/...IRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=4/1/2003
Perhaps one that doesn't simply view the statistics of base-pair similarity alone, and combines aspects of previous classification methods (which include phenotype).
Link for bold (not counting plants because they have a habit of odd polysomy)?
As mentioned above, phenotype and how genes are expressed is important. Also, minute changes in a gene can cause a radically different phenotype. Example: the gene for cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein (CFTR) spans 170,000+ base pairs, but dropping 3 base pairs (0.00176%) changes the phenotype of the protein enough so that it folds incorrectly and degrades faster than the wild type allele. The two alleles are 99.998% similar, but the effect is very large (leading to cystic fibrosis and a premature death for the affected).
Spread that amount of change (or change that's not even as significant) over a further 0.598% and the amount of difference between organisms will be astonishing. I don't think that the genetic make-up combined with obvious phenotypic differences is enough to reclassify humans as part of the Pan genus. It's these tiny, meaningless moves that I find unnecessary.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Classifying by phenotype could go fantastically wrong. There are many species that are not even of the same family that are hard to distinguish (mimicry).
Yeast - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213114325.htm
"Another interesting observation is that individual organisms from the same species can have extra genetic material. Most of these "extra genes" occur at the periphery of the chromosome (the telomer region), which lends support to the theory that these areas are very important in evolution."
Stick insects - http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/IT9870603.htm
-short abstract-
Ants - http://www.archive.org/stream/ants_11585/ants_11585_djvu.txt
"A high degree of variability in chromosome number may occur within a single genus (e.g. the genus Camponotus with haploid numbers varying between 9 and 26)"
There are no doubt many more examples, but I'm short on time now.
I doubt I will find any in mammals though, but I haven't looked yet.
Yes, but the research in question was carried on functionally important genes (the ones that are actually doing something).
I agree that they should look at gene-expression as well.
If the moves are correct they aren't meaningless.
And I don't agree that the differences are so big. Chimpanzees and humans seem pretty similar to me..
There is far greater variation in numerous other genuses, and we are perfectly fine with that..
Well, obviously. But I meant to combine previous methods with genetic analysis.
Thanks for the examples. I will have a look over the papers when I have a chance.
I would have thought that "functionally important" referred to the sections of the genome that are actually transcribed, excluding just the non-coding regions. Gene expression is phenotype.
Correct with respect to what? Seem pretty similar? How about Gorillas and Chimpanzees? Do they seem pretty similar as well?
Yes, there is a far greater variation within some genuses, but I don't see how you're using that as a reason why Home sapiens should be reclassified? What is causing the variation? Is it changing a gene or two or ten very slightly (which could lead to enormous phenotypical change)?
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What if the two methods contradict, which one should have precedence ?
Oki.
I'll see if I can find some more later (I'm probably not in tomorrow though).
Correct.
The convention regarding taxonomic grouping.
Gorillas and chimps are not as closely related as humans and chimps are.
Well, you used their differences in appearance as an argument against reclassification, I disagree. Humans and chimpanzees are more similar than a whole lot of other species that share a genus.