After the other primates, which species are the most closely related
them...@hotmail.com
I've often wondered this. Would it be possible to build a chart that
shows, through DNA analysis, which of the other mammals and animals we
are distantly related to.
I think this would make a nice graph or possibly a great visualisation
that may go some way as to convincing people how humans are just
another animal. Most people would agree that we are closer to bears
than crocodiles for example.
For instance (And I am no scientest, so this is probably TOTALLY
wrong).
It could look like:
`Humans'/Apes/Bears/Horses/dogs/giraffes/bats/birds/ lizards
100% 95% 85% 84% 83% 75% 65% 61% 54%
But with fancy graphics and all that jazz.
Wouldn't that be neat?
Cheers
Alex
Ken Shackleton
Primates includes quit a few species of animals. To get past the
primates, we would have to go back some 70 million years, according to
Richard Dawkins in his book, The Ancestor's Tale. That woul see us
branching off from tree shrews and colugos. The next major branch is
at about 75 million years, where our lineage split from rodents and
rabbit-kind.
Greg G.
Dogs and bears are more closely related to each other than to humans
so they should be the same distance from us. Same would probably go
with giraffes and horses. We would also be the same distance from
lizards and birds as they are more closely related to each other than
to mammals. We would probably more closely related to bats than the
others listed.
It is also interesting that chimpanzees are more closely related to
humans than they are to gorillas and gorillas are more closely related
to humans than they are to orangutans.
marks...@yahoo.com
try searching for phylogenic tree or phylogenetic tree.
John Harshman
Ernest Major
<f400f099-4751-4ab1...@d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jul 12, 10:20 pm, theman...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I've often wondered this. Would it be possible to build a chart that
>> shows, through DNA analysis, which of the other mammals and animals we
>> are distantly related to.
>>
>> I think this would make a nice graph or possibly a great visualisation
>> that may go some way as to convincing people how humans are just
>> another animal. Most people would agree that we are closer to bears
>> than crocodiles for example.
>>
>> For instance (And I am no scientest, so this is probably TOTALLY
>> wrong).
>>
>> It could look like:
>>
>> `Humans'/Apes/Bears/Horses/dogs/giraffes/bats/birds/ lizards
>> 100% 95% 85% 84% 83% 75% 65% 61% 54%
>>
>> But with fancy graphics and all that jazz.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be neat?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Alex
>
>Dogs and bears are more closely related to each other than to humans
>so they should be the same distance from us. Same would probably go
>with giraffes and horses. We would also be the same distance from
>lizards and birds as they are more closely related to each other than
>to mammals. We would probably more closely related to bats than the
>others listed.
According to the current consensus dogs, bears, giraffes, horses and
bats (collectively laurasiotheres) are equally closely related to us.
Previously bats were thought to be our nearest relatives after other
primates, tree shrews and colugos (the Archonta hypothesis); Linnaeus
even classified bats as primates.
>
>It is also interesting that chimpanzees are more closely related to
>humans than they are to gorillas and gorillas are more closely related
>to humans than they are to orangutans.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Darwin123
I think the OP doesn't have a cladogram in mind. I think he is
asking for a more biochemical basis of relatedness. He wants the
fraction of the DNA sequence in an animal genome relative to a human
genome. The metric would have to be a bit more complicated than a
percentage, but I think a nice analog can be constructed.
This would be a bit different from a cladogram. The cladogram
would coincide, yet there would be differences. One reason it would be
different is because the rate of mutation varies slowly with time.
I forgot exactly where I read it. However, sharks are supposed to
be closer related to us than teleost fish. Of course, a cladogram
would show that teleosts are closer to us than sharks. However, the
variability of extant teleosts is much larger than that of sharks.
There are on or about 14,000 species of teleosts and maybe 400 species
of sharks. The species in the teleost line have been mutating at a
faster rate than the species in the elasmobranch line. So the fraction
of the DNA code similar to humans is larger in sharks than in
teleosts.
Hence, parts of his proposed study have been done. I agree that a
diagram based on similarity in genome would be fun to look at. It
wouldn't tell us very much by itself, though. If compared with a
cladogram, such a diagram would be very revealing. Just don't expect
the percentage diagram and the cladogram to agree at all points.