Chris Colby
Herb Huston
Brett J. Vickers
HH> There's a minority view that holds that the division of pongids
HH> and hominids is unjustifiable based on findings in molecular
HH> biology. These folks would group chimps, bonobos, and us
HH> (and possibly gorillas) together leaving the orang as odd ape
HH> out.
CC> "It is (IMHO) ridiculous to put humans in a separate family when
CC> we are more genetically similar to chimps than many sister
CC> species are to each other. Pongids are (in the current
CC> classification) a paraphyletic clade; e.g. species derived
CC> from others within the clade are excluded.
CC> orangutan gorilla chimp human
CC> | | | |
CC> \ \ \ /
CC> \ \ |
CC> \ \ /
CC> \ \ /
CC> \ |
CC> \ /
CC> |
CC>
CC> To me it doesn't make sense to have a group consisting of
CC> gorillas and chimps, but not humans. (The same could be
CC> said for reptiles and fish, incidentally -- these groups
CC> are also paraphyletic.)
BJV> "The traditional phylogenetic reconstruction looks like this:
BJV> orangutan human chimp gorilla
BJV> | | | |
BJV> \ \ \ /
BJV> \ \ |
BJV> \ \ /
BJV> \ \ /
BJV> \ |
BJV> \ /
BJV> |
BJV>
BJV> but (as you prove) there is a dispute as to which phylogeny is more
BJV> accurate. Some studies and data suggest that your phylogeny
BJV> is the best, but others suggest the traditional one.
BJV>
BJV> "Some tentative chromosomal data have suggested that
BJV> humans and chimps share a more recent ancestry after
BJV> separating from gorillas (Yunis and Prakash, 1982).
BJV> A more controlled study, however, with consideration
BJV> of within-species variation of karyotype (Stanyon and
BJV> Chiarelli, 1982), has supported the more traditional
BJV> branching order, where humans and both African apes
BJV> diverge first -- followed later by a separation of
BJV> chimps and gorillas." [1]
BJV>
BJV> The following amino acid, antigenic and DNA distances are reported
BJV> here just because I find them interesting:
BJV>
BJV> Amino Acid Antigenic DNA
BJV> Distance Distance Distance
BJV> ------------ ------------ -----------
BJV> Human--chimp 0.27 1.0 1.8
BJV> Human--gorilla 0.65 0.8 2.3
BJV> Human--orang 2.78 2.0 4.9
BJV> Human--gibbon 2.38 2.6 4.9
BJV> Human--macaque 3.89 3.6 --
BJV> Human--spider monkey 8.69 7.6 --
BJV> Human--tarsier -- 8.8 --
BJV> Human--loris 11.36 11.2 42.0
BJV> Human--tree shrew -- 12.6 --
BJV> Primates--other placentals -- 12.11-14.91 --
BJV> Placentals--marsupials -- 15.83 --
BJV>
BJV> The numbers listed above are unitless. The scales are relative.
BJV>
BJV> If you buy the hotly contested molecular clock theory that antigenic
BJV> distance determines phylogenetic branching dates, then you can pick the
BJV> branching dates out of the data above. I have to admit I'm a little
BJV> partial toward the theory because one of my anthropology professors had
BJV> Vincent Sarich as his advisor.
BJV> Some people believe chimps and humans should belong to the same genus.
BJV> That way we'd have Homo sapiens and Homo troglodytes [1]. I think the
BJV> only reason that we don't is because humans like to think they're special.
BJV>
BJV> [1] H. Nelson, R. Jurmain, _Introduction to Physical Anthropology_,
BJV> 4th edition, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, 1988.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.