7 ms·

Goat and sheep lineages diverged approximately five to eight million years ago[1]. For reference, human and gorilla lines diverged roughly six to eight million

by grey413 13y ago

Goat and sheep lineages diverged approximately five to eight million years ago[1]. For reference, human and gorilla lines diverged roughly six to eight million years ago[2]. Also, different breeds of dogs are considered the same species (and likewise with cats). [1] http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/44/91/PDF/hal-00894491.pdf http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/44/91/PDF/hal-008... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Divergence_times_and_ancestral_effective_population_size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Div...

jeremyjh 13y ago
There are multiple species of cats (e.g. domestic, bobcat, leopard) and some can interbreed.
- xahrepap 13y ago
  There was a Liger at the local Zoo out here in Utah. It died before I was born, but they had it stuffed and on display for years. No mystical powers though.
giardini 13y ago
Humans and gorillas? What about our ancestors and those of pigs? I found this hypothesis fascinating: "A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?" http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html from the article: " I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan)."
- Noishe 13y ago
  There isn't enough attention to this in my opinion. When you research it, everything lines up so nice.
- Steuard 13y ago
  That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. We've done genetic studies on humans and apes, and we share some huge fraction of our genome with them (99%+, right?). It's quite telling that in this era of abundant genetic data, this guy bases all of his arguments on anatomical similarities and says nothing about genetics. It's all but impossible that a link like what he's suggesting would have been overlooked if pigs had made any significant contribution to the human genome. (Just for example, we've got all sorts of estimates of species divergence dates among primates based on genetic data that should have given nonsensical results if there had been massive influxes of pig DNA in the middle of that history.)
  - grey413 13y ago
    The champion of the theory attributes the lack of genomic similarity to repeated back-crossing to one of the parent populations. To put it in other words, the droplet of initial hybridization got diluted in the larger gene pool, but the novel genes (and thus traits) remained and underwent selection. That being said, diluted gene contribution is not the same thing as no gene contribution. To even begin accepting such a theory I would require direct genetic evidence showing considerable horizontal gene transfer between porcine and hominid lines.
    - Steuard 13y ago
      I saw that claim in the article, yes. I'll admit that I don't know enough about genetics to make strong claims here, but it doesn't sound remotely plausible to me. He wants to simultaneously claim that 1) hominids got so much porcine DNA that they have lots of substantial, recognizable anatomical features as a result, and 2) hominids have so little porcine DNA that it's all but invisible in our genetic code. I'm not going to say that's impossible, but it sounds like one heck of a stretch. Even just sitting here thinking about it, most genetic inheritance happens one full chromosome at a time. We clearly don't have any full pig chromosomes, so to make this theory work you'd have to have a whole lot of lucky recombination events (chromosomal crossover, etc.) that preserved only the precise genes involved in all these "distinctive pig traits" and got rid of the rest. So what's the selective effect that selects extraordinarily strongly for this random selection of pig-like anatomical traits but against all of the other pig genes that would have usually been linked to them? In short, this is a very extraordinary claim, and it requires equally extraordinary evidence, especially given how remarkably consistent the known genetic evidence has proven to be.
riffraff 13y ago
I believe GP meant canine (wolves and dogs) and felines (tiger and lion) which interbreed "frequently".
- upquark 13y ago
  Wolves and dogs are the same species too, AFAIK
  - guhemama2 13y ago
    They have the same genus (Canis), but their species are different.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      Different subspecies. Considered the same species though (Canis lupus.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
thret 13y ago
Are you implying that the story "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family" By H. P. Lovecraft is not in fact so far-fetched at all? That such a thing is possible?

by grey413 13y ago

jeremyjh 13y ago

There are multiple species of cats (e.g. domestic, bobcat, leopard) and some can interbreed.

xahrepap 13y ago
There was a Liger at the local Zoo out here in Utah. It died before I was born, but they had it stuffed and on display for years. No mystical powers though.

giardini 13y ago

Humans and gorillas? What about our ancestors and those of pigs? I found this hypothesis fascinating: "A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?" http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html from the article: " I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan)."

Noishe 13y ago
There isn't enough attention to this in my opinion. When you research it, everything lines up so nice.
Steuard 13y ago
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. We've done genetic studies on humans and apes, and we share some huge fraction of our genome with them (99%+, right?). It's quite telling that in this era of abundant genetic data, this guy bases all of his arguments on anatomical similarities and says nothing about genetics. It's all but impossible that a link like what he's suggesting would have been overlooked if pigs had made any significant contribution to the human genome. (Just for example, we've got all sorts of estimates of species divergence dates among primates based on genetic data that should have given nonsensical results if there had been massive influxes of pig DNA in the middle of that history.)
- grey413 13y ago
  The champion of the theory attributes the lack of genomic similarity to repeated back-crossing to one of the parent populations. To put it in other words, the droplet of initial hybridization got diluted in the larger gene pool, but the novel genes (and thus traits) remained and underwent selection. That being said, diluted gene contribution is not the same thing as no gene contribution. To even begin accepting such a theory I would require direct genetic evidence showing considerable horizontal gene transfer between porcine and hominid lines.
  - Steuard 13y ago
    I saw that claim in the article, yes. I'll admit that I don't know enough about genetics to make strong claims here, but it doesn't sound remotely plausible to me. He wants to simultaneously claim that 1) hominids got so much porcine DNA that they have lots of substantial, recognizable anatomical features as a result, and 2) hominids have so little porcine DNA that it's all but invisible in our genetic code. I'm not going to say that's impossible, but it sounds like one heck of a stretch. Even just sitting here thinking about it, most genetic inheritance happens one full chromosome at a time. We clearly don't have any full pig chromosomes, so to make this theory work you'd have to have a whole lot of lucky recombination events (chromosomal crossover, etc.) that preserved only the precise genes involved in all these "distinctive pig traits" and got rid of the rest. So what's the selective effect that selects extraordinarily strongly for this random selection of pig-like anatomical traits but against all of the other pig genes that would have usually been linked to them? In short, this is a very extraordinary claim, and it requires equally extraordinary evidence, especially given how remarkably consistent the known genetic evidence has proven to be.

riffraff 13y ago

I believe GP meant canine (wolves and dogs) and felines (tiger and lion) which interbreed "frequently".

upquark 13y ago
Wolves and dogs are the same species too, AFAIK
- guhemama2 13y ago
  They have the same genus (Canis), but their species are different.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    Different subspecies. Considered the same species though (Canis lupus.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

thret 13y ago

Are you implying that the story "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family" By H. P. Lovecraft is not in fact so far-fetched at all? That such a thing is possible?