Chimpanzee Raeps Woman

Genetically speaking, the reason humans have one less chromosome then apes is that at some time in evolutionary history, two of the apre chromosomes combined into one -- in otherwords the genetics on one human chromosome are similar to the genetics from two from the apes.

^
Sir, thank you for the clarification and you are indeed correct about chromosome 2 of human as a fusion product of chimp chromosome 2A and 2B through the course of evolution. In fact all genes are conserved through this fusion.

With that in mind I would also like to point out a phenomenon known as position-effect variegation(PEV), which demonstrates that gene expression can be repressed as a consequence of spreading of heterochromatin regions through close association with the centromere. In this case, the telomere region from the chimp chromosome would be UNDERexpressed through the fusion in human, and the centromere region from chimps would be OVERexpressed in human. While I do not know to what extend the effect takes place(or rather I no longer have access to databases to look things up), I like to believe that the expression profiles would differ for chimps and humans. In conclusion, I believe differences between humans and chimps is not only a direct result of differences in DNA sequences but also a result of subtle epigenetic effect in play like this one(which has nothing to do with DNA sequence).

my bad, Anon is quite enlightening in his explanation. This is the stuff they should teach you in biology class.

All I know is that the definition of a species is two animals that can mate and produce viable offspring, so if a human could mate with a chimp and produce this technically we wouldnt be diffrent species

now we have ourselves a Takara Miwiki.
Who's reading those anyways?

^
Sir, I believe there is a misunderstanding. When the scientists say that we share 95% of the same DNA as chimp, they are referring to FUNCTIONAL genes which codes for protein. Just to pull some numbers, there are about 25000 functional genes in human, yet it only comprises of 2% of the entire human genome. If you take into account of genes that are non-functional, the percentage of similarity will undoubtedly be much lower. Also, they really didn't need to map out the entire genome to compare similarities. The way they came with up the percentage is by comparing protein sequences of, say, hemoglobin from two species. They would just take the difference in amino acid residues and divide it by the size of protein of interest. By the principle of statistical sampling, they would be right on the ballpark by extrapolating with that guesstimiate. In fact, that's how they do it in Evolutionary Genetics. Biologically speaking, a lot of motifs, especially those that are involved in cellular mechanisms, are highly conservative across eukaryotes(animals, plants, protists, etc). And that is essential in sustaining life. So the 95% similarity is not at all surprising.

Different species also tend to have different number of chromosomes, if the number of chromosomes in the egg and sperm don't match, they can't start dividing, and there's no fetus to begin with.

anon is right. The fetus automatically aborts if the species are not over 99% identical.

So horses and donkeys can breed and blacks and whites and corgis and chihuahuas, but not man and ape.

I also doubt the saying that we share 98% the same DNA cause that saying predates the mapping of the humane genome by 20 years. the real number would be in the mid 80s if I were to guess.

Realistic statistics are hard to come by, but the fact is that even on the most fertile calendar dates, unprotected sex without the kamikaze pullout only leads to pregnancy around 15% of the time.

HARDLY a reason to forgo good old rubbers, though =)))

Actually, even if it's human it's going to abort in most cases. Check out the statistics for failed implantation of fertilized eggs, and spontaneous abortion.
If there is a god, he's the #1 "baby killer".

There was actually some crazy scientist 100 or so years back (Russian, I believe - cannot remember his name) who went to Africa and tried to pay local women (even A LOT) to try to hybridize monkeys and humans. His diaries show that he was shocked that none of the 'natives' wouldn't go for it. THEN, he tried to pay local men to impregnate female gorillas...

What exactly happened and whether it did - his diaries do not state. But he failed to come up with any hybrids, whether due to genetics or the fact that no one was quite that desperate, even in the poorest regions of Africa!

Adieu is right... There was some crazy dude who did that. Think the project failed.. thank heavens?

Difference in Chromosome number would cause sterility in the offspring, but haploinsufficiency is not in itself fatal to the fetus. If it was automatically fatal, we wouldn't have bothered to give the symptom a name.

The genetics is close enough. VERY close.

"I also doubt the saying that we share 98% the same DNA cause that saying predates the mapping of the humane genome by 20 years. the real number would be in the mid 80s if I were to guess."
Where does you guess come from? Pulling 80% out of nowhere is not scientific. And you don't need full human genome mapping to know how much DNA is shared between species. You just need to put DNA from the two species together, heat them up until the twin-strands separate, and cool them back down and observe how well they recombine with one another.

Saying you think the difference is 80% is just your attempt at comforting yourself. Get over it; you are more than your genes. As long as you don't ACT like a brute (and many humans do), your humanity is intact.

Yeah, I'm going with the gentlemen anon for who's correct.

^
Sir, I apologize if I came off a little too rude with my comment.
First off, it is true that you can mate a donkey with a mare to obtain a mule. But it is such a rare occurrence that it is literally once in a blue moon. Just to put it perspective, you WILL NOT be able to fertilize rat egg with mouse sperm. There are a series of very stringent "security checks" that needs to be passed before the sperm can "penetrate" the egg. Since chimps and humans have different numbers of chromosomes to begin with, such event is unlikely.

You are partly correct that haploinsufficiency isn't fatal 100% of the time, especially for genes that have redundant copies. But often times it is, especially in the case you are missing an entire chromosome. Missing any one of the 22 autosomes is fatal, with the only exception being Turner's Syndrome(X0), which I assume that's what you are referring to. We don't observe abnormality resulted from missing other chromosomes because the phenotype=death/miscarriage! (the beauty of genetics)

With the advent of modern biology, as unethical as it may sound, I am sure there must be nut jobs out there who at least attempted an in vitro fertilization instead of actual mating. Yet we have not heard anything like that. This leads me to believe human egg cannot be fertilized by chimp sperms. Again, you are entitled to what you believe.

the silent anon

or maybe invisible anon O_O

how much more anon can you get?

LOL!!! This made me laugh so hard! Not just the article, but the shy anon!

hahaha...