Hi, Chris-- An example of the complexity of the science. Most of the current articles don't seem to talk about percent overlap.
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):527-31. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Pr=FCfer K , Munch K, Hellmann I, Akagi K, Miller JR, Walenz B, Koren S, Sutton G, = Kodira C, Winer R, Knight JR, Mullikin JC, Meader SJ, Ponting CP, Lunter = G, Higashino S, Hobolth A, Dutheil J, Karako=E7 E, Alkan C, Sajjadian S, = Catacchio CR, Ventura M, Marques-Bonet T, Eichler EE, Andr=E9 C, Atencia = R, Mugisha L, Junhold J, Patterson N, Siebauer M, Good JM, Fischer A, = Ptak SE, Lachmann M, Symer DE, Mailund T, Schierup MH, Andr=E9s AM, = Kelso J, P=E4=E4bo S. Source Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, = Germany. prue...@eva.mpg.de Abstract 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, and for some of these = traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. 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. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the = two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions = that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis = of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the = exclusion of the other. On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Christopher Green wrote: > On 2012-08-14, at 11:25 AM, Paul Brandon wrote: > >> On Aug 14, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Christopher Green wrote: >> >>> On 2012-08-14, at 10:11 AM, Michael Palij wrote: >>> >>>> There a few papers causing a lot of discussion among researchers on the >>>> question of whether (a) humans and Neanderthals interbreed or (b) did >>>> not interbreed but date back to a common ancestor long ago. What is >>>> also interesting is the role that peer review and the length it takes for >>>> scientific papers to get published. There are a variety of sources on this >>>> but this article highlights the role of peer review and publication lag; >>>> see: >>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/mating-with-neanderthals-is-off-again-on-again/ >>> >>> I love the sleight of hand implicit in the turn of phrase, "what our >>> ancestors may or may not have done with Neanderthals" (at the end of the >>> first paragraph). If ancient sapiens were "doing it" with Neanderthals, >>> then the Neaderthals are every bit as much "our ancestors" as the sapiens >>> are. >> >> >> 4% genetic overlap, I believe. >> > > Depends on how you count, Paul. Since we have something like a 99% genetic > overlap with chimps, I'm guessing our genetic overlap with Neanderthals > probably covers pretty close to 99% (96%, if you prefer) of the remaining 1%. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=19755 or send a blank email to leave-19755-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
