I wonder what would happen if...

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Usually when something is produced with less chromosomes than its parents it has significant defects- I would think that Mules are a rare exception to this. The hybrid would have to have alterations on all 23 chromosome pairs- an alteration on one usually results in a severe disorder. I would guess that the offspring would be unable to develop or survive.

Mules have a defect too. They can't be a parent. Usually they're sterile. The only way they can be a parent is through cloning.

There's aneuploid and euploid. Aneuploid refers to an imbalance in the number of chromosomes. Euploid refers to the number of sets of chromosomes an organism has. Like diploid tells you that the organism in question has two sets of chromosomes, often written as 2n with n being the haploid number of chromosomes in the set. I'm not quite sure, but as I can remember, I think when an organism is euploid, it's total number of chromosomes is an exact multiple of it's haploid number. So, I think mules would be diploid. I can't remember exactly how it works in humans, but I'm thinking in mules, during meiosis, chromosomes often come together in groups of 3, 5 or 6. As a result, mule gametes don't get a full compliment of chromosomes, which causes the defect.

[Leslie Anne]

PhiGam,

Could you explain the term "alterations" in this context? I'm trying to follow what you're saying, and I think I've got most of it, but I'm still curious.

Thanks

[BigRedBeta]

As for the other argument going on...I agree with the others that it is in poor taste to continually ask questions that clearly exceed the other person's knowledge base. There's also a major difference in challenging someone on what they believe (and why they believe it) compared to challenging what someone knows about a particular subject when it's clear they won't be able to answer your question. Was it really necessary for you to ask the presenter the same question a second and third time?

It's called being tactful.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Was it really necessary for you to ask the presenter the same question a second and third time?

It's called being tactful.

I thought she was ignoring me, because she was answering other questions from other people. All she had to say was that she didn't know.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

One of the questions I asked her was "If the DNA sequence in humans is so close to that of chimpanzees, why do the two species look so different?"

A 2% difference in DNA may not sound like a lot but it is. I think there is a large amount of shared DNA across many different Eukaryotes, because a large number of our genes are just coding for the basics that we share (e.g. mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, nucleus, ribosomes, cell membrane, centrioles, lysozymes, proteins, enzymes, ion channels, metabolic pathways, chemical pathways, replication, transcription, translation, cytokinesis, etc). We share about half our DNA with bananas and cabbages. That sounds like a lot of shared DNA, yet we look nothing like bananas or cabbages. If a 50% is that significant to produce such a difference between humans and fruits/vegetables, then think about how big a difference a 2% is still going to make.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by SOPi_Jawbreaker

A 2% difference in DNA may not sound like a lot but it is. I think there is a large amount of shared DNA across many different Eukaryotes, because a large number of our genes are just coding for the basics that we share (e.g. mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, nucleus, ribosomes, cell membrane, centrioles, lysozymes, proteins, enzymes, ion channels, metabolic pathways, chemical pathways, replication, transcription, translation, cytokinesis, etc). We share about half our DNA with bananas and cabbages. That sounds like a lot of shared DNA, yet we look nothing like bananas or cabbages. If a 50% is that significant to produce such a difference between humans and fruits/vegetables, then think about how big a difference a 2% is still going to make.

Yes, this is true, but this is why I asked the tour guide lady about the small changes in regions of the DNA that have a customary or regular function in the appearance of the organism. That's why I also asked her if it could be a different developmental trajectory between chimps and humans. I mentioned that in an earlier post too.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Yes, this is true, but this is why I asked the tour guide lady about the small changes in regions of the DNA that have a customary or regular function in the appearance of the organism. That's why I also asked her if it could be a different developmental trajectory between chimps and humans. I mentioned that in an earlier post too.

Enough already.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Yes, this is true, but this is why I asked the tour guide lady about the small changes in regions of the DNA that have a customary or regular function in the appearance of the organism. That's why I also asked her if it could be a different developmental trajectory between chimps and humans. I mentioned that in an earlier post too.

Why don't you go give the damn tours then since you know so effin much, give me a break, you've clearly proved to everyone here and at the zoo that you're a pompous asshole who tries to make yourself look better and smarter than every one else. If you are really that interested in it, go to school and learn about it and study it yourself, otherwise get off your damn soap box, stop watching national geographic, and shut the hell up. If the lady knew that much about animals do you really think she'd be working as a tour guide at a zoo? Most of them are trained to know where the animals reside in habitats, what they eat, general knowledge of the animals, not stuff you were asking about.

Thank you, rant finished.

[sjsoffer]

Asking how if humans and chimps are closely related, why they look so different is a bit silly. Different breeds of dogs look radically different from each other. I'd say a chihuahua and a St. Bernard look a lot more dissimilar than humans and chimps, and they're very closely related, genetically.