Chimpanzee/Bonobo/Human/..........Sasquatch?.........DNA

[Huntster]

In another thread, when chimpanzees/bonobos were mentioned, I asked if anybody was familiar with a bonobo DNA study. Eventually, Drew replied with this link:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128

 

I started reading the work, of course with sasquatchery in mind, and was literally blown away with similarities and possibilities. Consumed with life at the moment, I don't even have time to finish reading the work right now, but I believe it deserves its own thread here. 

 

To be resumed.........

 

 

[Marty]

Hmm, I'll have to read this over, thank you for this link. 

[hiflier]

I know the article was published in June of 2012 but even to this day scientists keep hammering this home:

 

"Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus)."

 

Lately, I couldn't possibly disagree more. I still look forward to reading the paper though.

[Marty]

We all know that Chimps are *genetically* close to us, but I dunno, intelligence wise I think Orangs are our closest relative. They say give a Chimp, Gorilla and Orangutan a screwdriver. A Chimp will ponder for a min and play with it, a Gorilla will toss it, an Orangutan will escape his cage. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Marty

[Huntster]

Here are the first two sentences of the published work:

 

Quote

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours^1,2,3,4, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other.........

 

First, social and sexual behaviours are not, nor should they be, even considered as criteria for species independence. If so, I could be a different species than an urban, liberal, Indonesian homosexual. I'm not going to an extreme here. The authors go on with this line. Behold their range map below. There are no fewer than four separate ranges for four different recognized chimpanzees (Western, Eastern, Central, and Nigerian-Cameroonian), and the bobobo is specifically placed south of the Congo River, yet between the Eastern and Central chimpanzees. Nowhere do they state that chimpanzees share habitat with bonobos, yet the specifically state that bonobos are south of the Congo River. 

 

In accordance with Bryan Sykes in The Nature of the Beast:

 

Can chimps and bonobos interbreed? If so, I counter the premise that they are a different species, based primarily on differing social and sexual behaviours on an adjoining range. 

 

 

[guyzonthropus]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Here are the first two sentences of the published work:

 

 

First, social and sexual behaviours are not, nor should they be, even considered as criteria for species independence. If so, I could be a different species than an urban, liberal, Indonesian homosexual. I'm not going to an extreme here. The authors go on with this line. Behold their range map below. There are no fewer than four separate ranges for four different recognized chimpanzees (Western, Eastern, Central, and Nigerian-Cameroonian), and the bobobo is specifically placed south of the Congo River, yet between the Eastern and Central chimpanzees. Nowhere do they state that chimpanzees share habitat with bonobos, yet the specifically state that bonobos are south of the Congo River. 

 

In accordance with Bryan Sykes in The Nature of the Beast:

 

Can chimps and bonobos interbreed? If so, I counter the premise that they are a different species, based primarily on differing social and sexual behaviours on an adjoining range. 

 

 

There's a number of different vertebrate species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And while I know that the basic definition of a species says that can't happen, it's been shown again and again, that that's just not the case. So either we(or science/taxonomists) need to modify our view of just what a species is, or we 'll need to combine a fair number of thought to be distinct species into a single taxon. I know that within reptiles not only animals of different related species may interbreed, but also animals of different genus as well, which throws an even bigger wrench into the machine! 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

There's a number of different vertebrate species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And while I know that the basic definition of a species says that can't happen, it's been shown again and again, that that's just not the case. So either we(or science/taxonomists) need to modify our view of just what a species is, or we 'll need to combine a fair number of thought to be distinct species into a single taxon. I know that within reptiles not only animals of different related species may interbreed, but also animals of different genus as well, which throws an even bigger wrench into the machine! 

What species that belong to different genus’s can bred and produce viable offspring?

[guyzonthropus]

There are fertile offspring between the royal python (python regius)an African species, and the Australian Woma (aspidites ramsayi) Another example is a hybrid of carpet pythons (Morelia spilotes variagata) and the royal python, and another between the carpet python and the green tree python (chondropython viridis). Also crosses between the boa constrictor (boa constrictor constrictor or boa imperator) and both the more common anaconda species, the green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) and the yellow anaconda (eunectes notaeus) then there's all sorts of crosses made with North American colubrid snakes (pine/gohpers/king/rat/corn) I heard of a 7 species 3 genus cross....

 

There are quite a few between members of the same genus, in pythons and colubrid snakes, as well as a few within the monitor lizards (varanus)

Of course, most of these occurred within captive situations, but it the delineation of species were so absolute, even that should not be possible...yet it has indeed occurred...

Edited December 23, 2020 by guyzonthropus

[norseman]

1 hour ago, guyzonthropus said:

There are fertile offspring between the royal python (python regius)an African species, and the Australian Woma (aspidites ramsayi) Another example is a hybrid of carpet pythons (Morelia spilotes variagata) and the royal python, and another between the carpet python and the green tree python (chondropython viridis). Also crosses between the boa constrictor (boa constrictor constrictor or boa imperator) and both the more common anaconda species, the green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) and the yellow anaconda (eunectes notaeus) then there's all sorts of crosses made with North American colubrid snakes (pine/gohpers/king/rat/corn) I heard of a 7 species 3 genus cross....

 

There are quite a few between members of the same genus, in pythons and colubrid snakes, as well as a few within the monitor lizards (varanus)

Of course, most of these occurred within captive situations, but it the delineation of species were so absolute, even that should not be possible...yet it has indeed occurred...

Huh. Different snakes from different genus. Amazing.

 

But what about in mammals?

[Huntster]

As late as my childhood brown bears from various parts of the world were considered different species. That has been corrected. They are all now recognized as a single species, even though divergent populations can be recognized. 

 

With respect to bonobos, I would consider them as a divergent "race" or "tribe" rather than a different species.

 

But there's more.........

 

What if sasquatches or almastys can interbreed with humans? There are reports and native American claims that they can. Science now openly claims that both Neanderthals and Denisovans did. 

 

More from the link:

 

Quote

.......Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other........

 

Here the authors seems to tie human evolution to both so closely as to almost infer that the divergency of two million years wasn't much of a divergency, but what about something like another homo species with even more recent divergency? Our DNA and that of a sasquatch must be nearly identical.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

As late as my childhood brown bears from various parts of the world were considered different species. That has been corrected. They are all now recognized as a single species, even though divergent populations can be recognized. 

 

With respect to bonobos, I would consider them as a divergent "race" or "tribe" rather than a different species.

 

But there's more.........

 

What if sasquatches or almastys can interbreed with humans? There are reports and native American claims that they can. Science now openly claims that both Neanderthals and Denisovans did. 

 

More from the link:

 

 

Here the authors seems to tie human evolution to both so closely as to almost infer that the divergency of two million years wasn't much of a divergency, but what about something like another homo species with even more recent divergency? Our DNA and that of a sasquatch must be nearly identical.

An example would be Neanderthal hybrids. European and Asian populations have like 1-6% Neanderthal DNA. The interesting part is that all of that surviving Neanderthal DNA is from females. Or X chromosomes. No male DNA (Y) survived. So it’s theorized that our two species were far enough apart that only daughters of a Sapien and Neanderthal coupling could reproduce. Male hybrids were sterile!

 

This is getting close to something like a mule. A Horse and a Donkey coupling produce sterile offspring except in extremely rare cases. Sometimes a Molly can foal. Maybe many female Sapien/Neanderthal hybrids were sterile as well. Except a few?

 

https://www.paducahsun.com/news/kentucky/mule-gives-rare-birth-to-miracle-baby/article_814117db-99e6-58a4-8d11-16b971565d5a.html

[BlackRockBigfoot]

17 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

There are fertile offspring between the royal python (python regius)an African species, and the Australian Woma (aspidites ramsayi) Another example is a hybrid of carpet pythons (Morelia spilotes variagata) and the royal python, and another between the carpet python and the green tree python (chondropython viridis). Also crosses between the boa constrictor (boa constrictor constrictor or boa imperator) and both the more common anaconda species, the green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) and the yellow anaconda (eunectes notaeus) then there's all sorts of crosses made with North American colubrid snakes (pine/gohpers/king/rat/corn) I heard of a 7 species 3 genus cross....

 

There are quite a few between members of the same genus, in pythons and colubrid snakes, as well as a few within the monitor lizards (varanus)

Of course, most of these occurred within captive situations, but it the delineation of species were so absolute, even that should not be possible...yet it has indeed occurred...

Very enlightening.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer the question.  

 

To back up Norse's other question... anyone know of any cases of inter-genus breeding involving mammals?

[guyzonthropus]

Well theres always Zana....I wouldn't be overly surprised to find bovine hybrid, or amongst the pigs of the world...or rodents...

But I'd think it more prevalent amongst birds, in their being the modern dinosaurs....which brings up a whole new question, that being how "open" was the concept of species and speciation back then when dinosaurs ruled the earth(so to speak)??

Of course, Darwin and Linne probably werent foreseeing an age of captive bred non-domestic wildlife, in that, for the most part, conditions in zoos weren't conducive to captive breeding back in their days... Although, inversely to the hybrid curve, mammals were more apt to breed I  poor conditions  than were birds and reptiles. But still, usually when one exotic died another wild caught specimen replaced it. And in light of that, captive produced hybrids that bring into question the very definition of species, much less genus, were most likely not even considered ....or they compelled the reclassification of the animal(s) in question rather a rewrite of taxonomic standards....

 

Huntsters observation of the reclassification of Brown bears is of note, for with reptiles the trend is moving in the opposite direction, where what once was a wide ranging species gets subdivided first into a series of subspecies, which then get elevated to their own species. This was the case with the Asian water monitor,(back in my day it was known as Varanus salvator, of the subgenus varanus, with no subspecies) then consistent differences were noted among the regional locales(this species ranges from india&Sri Lanka through most of Indonesia, the Philippines, southward through sumatra, java, the Celebes, all the way up to, but not on, Papua New guinea, inhabiting most of the islands in between, so plenty of geographic isolation to enable speciation to occur. So subspecies were described, which later became species within the "salvator-complex". It's also been moved to a genus of its own. They can all interbreed. When I was growing up there were like 35 species of monitor lizards, now there's close to 80, though not all are due to simple reclassification, as more are also discovered as we move farther into the wilds. A good part of this is due to the use of genetic analysis and divergence points. Along with, I'm sure, taxonomy grad students in need of a thesis topic. An interesting note, the lizards of the genus Varanus display the greatest diversity of size while maintaining the same basic body plan, ranging from the smallest weighing in at a couple ounces in a good day, to the largest(the komodo dragon)at 11' 250-300lbs..and thats not including the recently extinct Megalania(varanus)priscus , a monitor gone extinct in the last 30-45K years that reached at least 7 meters in length. The monitor family also gave rise to the ancient mosasaurs, the largest sea predators known.....

[guyzonthropus]

don't you guys remember that book You Are Sasquatch that proposed the idea that we humans are merely (Self-)domesticated sasquatch? So of course we'd be nearly identical genetically...that is if you discard the giant lemur hybrid theory.....

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

don't you guys remember that book You Are Sasquatch that proposed the idea that we humans are merely (Self-)domesticated sasquatch? So of course we'd be nearly identical genetically.........

 

No, I'm unfamiliar with the book, but I'm almost convinced that sasquatches are as human as a Neanderthal was.