Are humans apes?

[hackenslash]

I notice you've got nothing specific to say. You might as well stick that gem back up the cow's ass.
.

Have it your way. I have read the work of this poster on several fora, and they are, without exception, solid. I have learned much from him on topics I already had good understanding of. Up to you, of course, and at least it means that I keep learning great stuff from him.

[Chuck Jones]

Hacky boy, you're not a scientist. You're Pete Waterman. So, you're not a musician either. What do you do anyway, when you're not crusading in the name of your faith?

[hackenslash]

Actually, I know Pete Waterman, so I can't be him. I am a musician, professionally. I took up production when I'd had enough of the road.

Oh, and faith? As useless as your posting history.

[Chuck Jones]

Liar. Not the bit about knowing Waterman, I do believe that, judging by your concept of what makes a good song. Ooh, ahh, just a little bit.

[Blondie]

Well I aint no monkey - sure can't climb no tree.

[JimC]

Well I aint no monkey - sure can't climb no tree.

Correct!

However, you are, sir, a relatively hairless and extremely puny ape.

[mistermack]

Have it your way. I have read the work of this poster on several fora, and they are, without exception, solid. I have learned much from him on topics I already had good understanding of. Up to you, of course, and at least it means that I keep learning great stuff from him.

Hackenslash, I had the feeling you were just being sarky and condescending. I always bite if I'm prodded. If I got it wrong, full apologies.
I know Genes knows his stuff. That doesn't mean he can't miss the point.
I know fuck all, but I miss it regularly.

[Trolldor]

Yeah, like the time you tried to argue we were a sub-species of Chimp.

That was fucking hilarious.

[mistermack]

Yeah, like the time you tried to argue we were a sub-species of Chimp.

Did I say "we"? I meant "you".
.

[Trolldor]

Go on, do another one.

[Blondie]

Go on, do another one.

Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries!


(You're quite the popular fellow it seems)

[hackenslash]

Hackenslash, I had the feeling you were just being sarky and condescending.

Not at all. Just a word to the wise.

I am well aware that even those of us most knowledgeable can still be wrong or miss out on something. I do it all the time (not that I count myself among the aforementioned, of course. There was a time when I may have done, but I have been well and truly disabused of that notion in recent years by people such as GFL, who have taught me how little I really know).

[JimC]

Still would love to know how significant the experts in the field think the chromosome fusion event was in human evolution.

[GenesForLife]

Still would love to know how significant the experts in the field think the chromosome fusion event was in human evolution.

This would depend on how much it would have affected trans-regulation, I would think, but I am not sure and I need to peruse the literature on the subject before being able to even comment on the significance of said fusion event.

But at the moment I have an interesting paper.

Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13–2q14.1. Portions of these sequences had duplicated to other locations prior to the fusion. Here we present analyses of the genomic structure and evolutionary history of >600 kb surrounding the fusion site and closely related sequences on other human chromosomes. Sequence blocks that closely flank the inverted arrays of degenerate telomere repeats marking the fusion site are duplicated at many, primarily subtelomeric, locations. In addition, large portions of a 168-kb centromere-proximal block are duplicated at 9pter, 9p11.2, and 9q13, with 98%–99% average sequence identity. A 67-kb block on the distal side of the fusion site is highly homologous to sequences at 22qter. A third ∼100-kb segment is 96% identical to a region in 2q11.2. By integrating data on the extent and similarity of these paralogous blocks, including the presence of phylogenetically informative repetitive elements, with observations of their chromosomal distribution in nonhuman primates, we infer the order of the duplications that led to their current arrangement. Several of these duplicated blocks may be associated with breakpoints of inversions that occurred during primate evolution and of recurrent chromosome rearrangements in humans.

Paralogues, by the way, are homologous sequences that do a different function. The full paper can be found here http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full

[mistermack]

Go on, do another one.

I just DID another one. It reminded me strangely of the mad hatter. It's gone now, I flushed it.