Reclassification of Homo sapiens.

Yeah, but I'm looking for the current scientific reasoning. Its anatomical differences.

from this link here:

As of 2007, no taxon is universally accepted as the origin of the radiation of Homo.
Click to expand...
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, but I'm looking for the current scientific reasoning. Its anatomical differences.

from this link here:
Click to expand...

Anatomical differences ???

"The study also shows that there can be greater genetic differences between individuals within a particular species of yeast than there are between humans and chimpanzees. The DNA of individual yeast organisms can vary by up to 4 per cent, compared to the 1 per cent difference between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213114325.htm
 
I think the 1% difference and the 4% variation is apples and oranges.

Have you ever been confused between a chimp and a human?
 
"Modern genetic science offers researchers another way to establish the relationships between different species, by measuring the similarity of their DNA code.

It is a far cry from the traditional way of categorising organisms on the basis of what they look like, either live or in fossil form."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3042781.stm

And, from the same source:

"The Detroit team says its work supports the idea that all living apes should occupy the higher taxonomic grouping Hominidae, and that three species be established under the Homo genus.

One would be Homo (Homo) sapiens, or humans; the second would be Homo (Pan) troglodytes, or common chimpanzees, and the third would be Homo (Pan) paniscus, or bonobos."
 
As someone who works with DNA fingerprinting, I think solely going by DNA code and not gene expression is a mistake. DNA is not simply what is there, but what is active.

Its why your brain and your liver cannot be exchanged with each other.
 
So if the Pan and Homo Genus were merged into one Genus wouldn't it make sense to move all the species in the Pan Genus to Homo, rather than the other way around since there seem to be far more species in the Homo Genus, even though most are extinct?
 
Why not put the Hominids all in one family?

In fact, why not eliminate family and genus and just stick to species?
 
"The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit."

"On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into Homo, but would also include the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus)."

"His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins.

The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago."

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744
 
Lets put it this way:

whats the advantage of this reclassification? What new information do we get?
 
EntropyAlwaysWins said:
So if the Pan and Homo Genus were merged into one Genus wouldn't it make sense to move all the species in the Pan Genus to Homo, rather than the other way around since there seem to be far more species in the Homo Genus, even though most are extinct?
Click to expand...

No, there is no real basis for the Homo Genus.
Besides, you'd just end up changing the name Pan to Homo, and stick Homo sapiens in there.
Pan is an earlier line than Homo, so I suggest we keep it.
 
S.A.M. said:
Why not put the Hominids all in one family?

In fact, why not eliminate family and genus and just stick to species?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that wouldn't be a mess at all..
Besides, we at least need Genus or else some species will be indistinguishable by name alone.
 
The only advantage I can see putting chimps and humans together is cancer research, But chimps don't get all the same cancers we get.

Hmm but come to think of it, they don't suffer heart disease and are resistant to malaria. Also no menopause.
 
S.A.M. said:
The only advantage I can see putting chimps and humans together is cancer research, But chimps don't get all the same cancers we get.
Click to expand...

What advantage is there to leave it as it is, while we know it's wrong ? That goes straight against the whole goal of classification.
 
S.A.M. said:
The only advantage I can see putting chimps and humans together is cancer research, But chimps don't get all the same cancers we get.

Hmm but come to think of it, they don't suffer heart disease and are resistant to malaria. Also no menopause.
Click to expand...

What, you think you'll become a chimp when they'll be reclassified to be in the Genus Homo ? :D
 
No, but I'm thinking that experiments with rats are useless. :D

If chimps are humans we can put them in clinical trials with humans. :mufc:

Enmos said:
What advantage is there to leave it as it is, while we know it's wrong ? That goes straight against the whole goal of classification.
Click to expand...

Right and wrong is a matter of perspective.

Do you have other parallel examples in the taxonomical structure that seem like they are mischaracterised?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top