I wonder what would happen if...

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

This past weekend I went out of town to visit a few museums and a couple of different zoos. While I was there, I got a chance to hold a chimp. I've never held one before. I thought it was pretty amazing seeing how intelligent they actually are. Of course everyone knows the old theory about humans evolving from apes and stuff. Well, I was reading the information they had about the chimps and other primates there, and some of the information I read said that humans are very similar to chimpanzees because they have 98% of our DNA. At one time I thought they had the same number of chromosomes we had, but they don't. They actually have 48 while we have 46.

The lady that was giving the presentation about the chimpanzees got a little irritated with me, because I kept asking her questions she couldn't answer. o.k. so I was a bit of a skeptic at first, my reasons for all the questions to her. 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?" She kind of changed the subject. Then I asked her again, and she said it could be a lot of things. I said "Like what?" Then she asked me what do I think it could be. I told her I didn't know, but the only thing I could think of was that the small changes in regions of the DNA that have a regulatory function probably can have major effects on the appearance, I guess. I told her that maybe chimps and humans have different developmental trajectories, who knows? lol

When I left the zoo, on the ride back home, I started thinking about some of the things she said. Well, if chimps and humans are so close in DNA and chromosome number, what if we were to use the science of In vitro fertilization. Would something come from it? I looked it up, but I didn't see anything.

The way I look at it is, every species has a typical number of chromosomes revealed by it's karyotype. Like in a dog. Dogs have a total of 78 chromosome as an example. Another example, would be in some deer, I do know of two species of Asian deer. They look similar in appearance but have very different chromosome numbers.

Horses have 64 chromosomes, while donkies have 62. Not the same number, but yet they can produce a mule. Of course mules are usually sterile, because genetically mules have 32 horse chromosomes and 31 donkey chromosomes, giving them a total of 63 altogether...I think.

So through In vitro fertilization I wonder what would happen, since we're supposedly so closely related to chimps. That was one of the questions I asked the tour guide lady. I think she thought I was nuts, which is why I was a little skeptical about posting this. What the heck, I thought it would be something to chit chat about.

Are you kidding? She's a tour guide. She's not a DNA scientist or something.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Are you kidding? She's a tour guide. She's not a DNA scientist or something.

At first I was being sarcastic with her about the in vitro fertilization, because she kept going on and on about humans and apes being so closely related, so I brought up the dog and wolf example, along with other questions I had. I was just trying to get her to think about what she was saying. So yes, at first I was kidding a little until I started thinking about what I was kidding about.

I had questions, because I felt that some of the information she provided was inaccurate. She was making it seem like though chimps are a different species from us, that we're considered to be cousins.

She said that our DNA are very close as if we came from them. I felt that she wasn't understanding what biological species concept really is. I had questions, because biological species concept bases it's classification on reproductive compatibility. Organisms that can successfully reproduce together are considered to be of the same species, and those that can't reproduce together are a different species. There's only one living human species. Us. Of course the bio species concept definition leaves a lot to be desired because many closely related organisms can interbreed yet are clearly different enough to be separate species, which is why I sarcastically brought up the in vitro fertilization to her.

Another method of classification, one that I actually think works a little better, is knowing that species are groups of organisms that maintain unique identities, genetically, physically, and geographically over time and space. Like I said earlier, in dogs and wolves. They're both in genus "Canis". Before I get ahead of myself, just so you know, sharing a genus name tells you that organisms are quite similar and very closely related. We don't share the same genus name as chimps. Just because we share similar DNA doesn't mean we came from them. I felt she was way off. We're homo sapiens, chimps are pan troglodytes (not sure if I spelled that right) but it's something like that. Anyway, as I was saying with the wolves and dogs, they're species names are different. Dogs are always Canis familiaris, but there are many different species of wolves, all beginning with Canis but ending with a variety of species names to accurately describe how different they are from each other. Genetically dogs and wolves are very distinct, but they aren't so different that they can't reproduce. That's why I jokingly asked the in vitro fertilization question to her. Later, I started to wonder what if? I was really nice about it though. I mean, it's not like I was being mean to her or anything.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

At first I was being sarcastic with her about the in vitro fertilization, because she kept going on and on about humans and apes being so closely related, so I brought up the dog and wolf example, along with other questions I had. I was just trying to get her to think about what she was saying. So yes, at first I was kidding a little until I started thinking about what I was kidding about.

I had questions, because I felt that some of the information she provided was inaccurate. She was making it seem like though chimps are a different species from us, that we're considered to be cousins.

She said that our DNA are very close as if we came from them. I felt that she wasn't understanding what biological species concept really is. I had questions, because biological species concept bases it's classification on reproductive compatibility. Organisms that can successfully reproduce together are considered to be of the same species, and those that can't reproduce together are a different species. There's only one living human species. Us. Of course the bio species concept definition leaves a lot to be desired because many closely related organisms can interbreed yet are clearly different enough to be separate species, which is why I sarcastically brought up the in vitro fertilization to her.

None of this is appropriate for a ZOO TOUR. So, yeah, you were being a pain in the ass.

Regardless of our career specializations and our interests, you have to know when to turn it off. I know which settings I can have certain discussions, ask probing questions, and challenge people when they say something that I know is incorrect based on research or something concrete. People say incorrect things all the time and, even when I pretend like I'm joking, challenging people everytime I can (which is all the time, usually) is being a pain in the ass.

If you had said "we're not really cousins, though," that would've been better than going on and on about something that you know she didn't really know about. Turn it off the next time you partake in a zoo tour.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

None of this is appropriate for a ZOO TOUR. So, yeah, you were being a pain in the ass.

Regardless of our career specializations and our interests, you have to know when to turn it off. I know which settings I can have certain discussions, ask probing questions, and challenge people when they say something that I know is incorrect based on research or something concrete. People say incorrect things all the time and, even when I pretend like I'm joking, challenging people everytime I can (which is all the time, usually) is being a pain in the ass.

If you had said "we're not really cousins, though," that would've been better than going on and on about something that you know she didn't really know about. Turn it off the next time you partake in a zoo tour.

My God, DSTCHAOS you do it all the time. As you mentioned you do it everytime you can. Well, in this case I did too. People had questions and so did I. At the end she asked does anyone have any questions, people had questions and so did I. The next time I partake in a zoo tour, if the tour guide opens it up for questions, no I'm not turning anything off. If I have questions, I'm going to ask, and if I feel he/she is wrong I'm going to challenge him/her. If that's being an ass, then...oh well.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

My God, DSTCHAOS you do it all the time. As you mentioned you do it everytime you can.

No.

I don't post everything that comes to mind on GC and I don't say everything that comes to mind in "real life."

(Perhaps you misunderstood what I typed.)

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

If that's being an ass, then...oh well.

Well, this is a brand new admission. Just understand that there are consequences to being an ass and not knowing when to turn it off. I'm sure the zoo guide was asking for basic questions that didn't require an in depth discussion of genetics that would show her up. When you are clearly showing someone up on their job, know when to back off a little.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

No.

I don't post everything that comes to mind on GC and I don't say everything that comes to mind in "real life."

I don't either on every subject. I do if the subject is of interest to me though, and this one is.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I don't either on every subject. I do if the subject is of interest to me though, and this one is.

Uh huh...so like I said....

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Well, this is a brand new admission. Just understand that there are consequences to being an ass and not knowing when to turn it off. I'm sure the zoo guide was asking for basic questions that didn't require an in depth discussion of genetics that would show her up. When you are clearly showing someone up on their job, know when to back off a little.

I missed this part.

o.k. but I wasn't trying to embarrass her. I just had questions. That's all. Actually, I thought my questions were pretty basic.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I missed this part.

o.k. but I wasn't trying to embarrass her. I just had questions. That's all. Actually, I thought my questions were pretty basic.

You said you knew she was inaccurate and didn't know. You had basic questions that you knew were probably challenging her limited knowledge-base. When people do that they have to understand that there's a thin line between challenging discourse and being an asshole show-off.

What better way to put a dunce cap on her and put yourself at the forefront as the leading authority during a ZOO TOUR.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

My God, DSTCHAOS you do it all the time. As you mentioned you do it everytime you can. Well, in this case I did too. People had questions and so did I. At the end she asked does anyone have any questions, people had questions and so did I. The next time I partake in a zoo tour, if the tour guide opens it up for questions, no I'm not turning anything off. If I have questions, I'm going to ask, and if I feel he/she is wrong I'm going to challenge him/her. If that's being an ass, then...oh well.

When I've been on zoo tours, people's questions at the end usually ranged from "where is the nearest bathroom" to "when can I watch the lions being fed small furry animals" to "where can I find little Timmy here a Steve the Giraffe backpack...........not, "please explain gene sequencing in primates as it relates to in vitro fertilization in humans." That's like asking Steven Hawking his thoughts on the designated hitter and its affect on the strategic nuances of baseball over the past 30 years. He'd probably slap you with his feeding tube.