Matt Ridley, in his book, Genome, which I am reading with pleasure, discusses the fact that humans and chimpanzees have make-ups that, genetically, are 98% the same. Then he say, about human ancestors,
Are scientists really not interested in this issue? Is Ridley correct in saying that we don’t really know that humans and chimps can’t breed? Wouldn’t the ability to interbreed be a serious issue for archaeologists attempting to establish a family tree consistent with fossil records? Does this site or or this site contradict Ridley?
If chimps and humans can’t breed because of chromosomal mismatches, then how did the first human-like ancestor with the problematic mutation breed with anyone (the issue Chronos and Jois were discussing)? Any further thoughts on this? I haven’t seen a definitive explanation I can understand.
Can we assume the worst about human sexual proclivities and conclude that interbreeding is no longer possible because we would otherwise be seeing the results? (No hot monkey sex comments please.)
I must admit to experiencing a large “ick” factor when thinking about this topic. Is my response more likely cultural or genetic?
While not an expert of interspecies breeding I would say that while 98% common genome sounds like a pretty close match we’re still talking about hundreds or thousands of differences… anyone of which could eliminate the possibility of fertile offspring or viable offspring at all. (Remember when Planet of the Apes was first released… I think a lot people started thinking about this topic but I digress.)
Could a human and chimp have some sort of sexual encounter? Probably, but it’s a pretty disgusting thought. Would a pregnancy result from that union? Probably not… and if it did a viable embryo is pretty unlikely due to the 2% difference you mentioned. Has anyone tried the experiment? I sure hope not…
Can we assume the worst about human sexual proclivities and
conclude that interbreeding is no longer possible because we would
otherwise be seeing the results? (No hot monkey sex comments
please.)
Not to mention your opinion of monkey morals.
anonymouse
once again…
“Cynicism is intellectual dandyism.”
I seem to remember reading something about how the 98% figure is generally misunderstood by the lay public. In other words, it sounds like an impressive number, but reproductively speaking, all known life forms have a surprising amount of genetic overlap. Don’t we also have something like 70% of our DNA in common with, say, sponges? And doesn’t that make the 98% number much less significant, biologically, than it would initially appear to the lay reader?
I had always heard the statistic quoted as “Humans and chimpanzies (or maybe gorillas, I’m not sure) are more genetically similar than are horses and donkeys.”. The obvious implication is that us apes would be able to interbreed, but it’s probably best not to read too much into it.
No, mules are not capable of producing offspring themselves, but they are products of mating between two different species. Even though humans and chimps certainly can’t produce fertile offspring, even infertile offspring would be very interesting. I’m not going to say that it’s a good idea though.
Why all the disgust at the thought anyway? I assume that you all don’t find so much wrong in horses and donkey’s mating, no?
Having worked around chimps I can attest to the fact that adult chimps are smelly disagreeable creatures and not the lovable characters you see on TV. Having sex with a chimp, or any barnyard animal for that matter, is disgusting to most people I know. If such a thing excites you you might want to consult with a professional therapist…
I don’t think volunteers would be a problem. If there exists the possibility for a fetish, a group of people with that fetish will congregate somewhere on the 'net.
Slight hijack, but are there hybrids other than mules? I ask because I’m having difficulty imagining the offspring of such an unholy union. Seems like a lot of physiological gaps to bridge.
Jared Diamond’s The Third Chimpanzee cites the similarity at 98.4% (but that’s a ten year old source), so I did a search; This site says about 99% similarity.This page supports the 98.4% figure.. I dunno, I’m not a geneticist, maybe the more genetically-inclined among us can tell us if this number is wrong or out of date.
Seriously, though, this isn’t really my area, but I hang out with people that know a bit about this kind of stuff. The general impression I get is that production of a hybrid (probably infertile) wouldn’t be too surprising, but it would probably take a whole lot of trying and more than a few failures first, which is why the possible attempts by a hypothetical lonely zookeeper haven’t shattered our worldview yet.
Yeah, I also have a fuzzy recollection of reading about this. My take was a little different, though.
As the similarities near 100%, each point becomes more significant. That’s why we look much more like apes than like sponges. ‘Cept for my ex. (love ya, darlin’)
All living things share some DNA, I think.
Peace,
mangeorge
Seriously, if it’s possible, the most likely way it would happen is for some scientist to take some human eggs and fertilize them with chimp sperm (or vice versa), then implant the fertilized result into a chimp, to bring the offspring to term. That way no sex is involved, and you can try to mass-fertilize a lot of eggs in the hope of one taking.
(love ya, darlin’)