Orangutan Gramps and Chimpanzee Grammy

One peculiarity of Human genetic history is “where did we come from” in relation to the “other great apes”.

Generally, this is held to be a more or less linear advance off of the Chimpanzee line. Some speculate on a Chimp / Gorilla hybrid. (Modulo the religious belief that we were created de novo by God and the Flaky Alien theories that have various sorts of Space Alien creation myths – from the Sumerian ‘created as workers’ that got out of hand to the ‘alien hybrids’ to … well, you get the idea. LOTS of imagination, facts on the ground, or in it, not so much.)

Not willing to let such fertile ground for speculation be left just to the whims of Religious Nuts, Space Alien Enthusiasts, or Scientists (but I repeat myself…) I feel compelled to jump in myself. Unfortunately, while I have lots of imagination, it finds wholesale invention just too easy / boring, and much prefers to start with a limiting subset of “known facts” and then try to imagine the missing bits.

So, right up front, my speculation is simple: The folks who come up with the crazy hybrid ideas have missed the most important player. The Old Man Of The Forest. The Orangutan.

First time I saw one I understood the “Old Man” name. These guys look at you and you can tell they are thinking. Contemplating life. Examining YOU. (Though often a bit bored with it, having seen lots of human samples they now know us already…) Looking at one, then looking at the average Football Fan with a paunch, the physical comparison is, er, obvious.

Besides, they have red hair. Never seen a Gorilla with Red Hair (though I suppose one might exist) nor a chimp (a redhead chimp would be interesting…) But we KNOW that Neanderthals had red hair and we know that many modern humans have red hair. Either there is one heck of a strong selection for Red Hair (and some of us would argue there is ;-) enough to cause three independent evolutions of it, or, well, “we’ve met” and knew each other… (including in the Biblical sense.)

Traditions Of Climate Science

So, in the best traditions of Climate “Science”, if we set out to find data that confirms our preconceived notions, can we turn up anything?

Well, mostly, no. Large swaths of data claim that the Orangs split off from the Human/ Chimp/ Gorilla group some 12 Million years ago and then the Human / Chimp group split about 6 million years ago (but with the occasional inter-species hanky panky for about another 1.2 million years. Hey, folks have to party, don’t they?)

I think they have it wrong.

My reasoning is pretty simple. Most of the ‘duration of divergence’ comes out of gross averages. Averages are used to hide things. (This is used to great effect in Climate “Science”…) One could easily have a chunk of DNA from Orangs that hangs around more or less unchanged, and another chunk from Chimps that has changed more, and the average stats would say that while we had a common ancestor “way back when” we were more recently related to chimps. One could just as ‘recently’ be related to Orangutans and have a large chunk of common DNA, but with the “Chimp bits” being in the more change prone areas of DNA causing a false divergence time.

Alternatively, the original Human line might well have had a lot of Orangutan DNA. Then we mixed in with Chimps. Now we’re going to classify all that Orangutan DNA as “Human” and only the divergent bits where our more distant Orang relatives (perhaps even different species of Orangutan Cousins) off in South East Asia managed to survive as “Orangutan”… Basically, we’re using the wrong baseline for what is “Human” DNA.

An example of “that problem” shows up in this paper. It is looking for some decent modern orangutan samples so that a decent non-chimp non-gorilla non-human sample can be used to compare our relative distances inside that group. (Basically, figuring out how much is in common with something “more distant” so you know where to look for the ‘interesting bits’. It spends some amount of time complaining about the lack of analysis and samples for Orangs and more time complaining about other problems, but it’s still a decent summary of the state of things.


Re: Proposal for BAC library construction of Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus)
Date: November 15, 2001
From: Evan Eichler, Ph.D., Dept. of Genetics, Case Western Reserve University
To: BAC Library Resource Network, National Human Genome Research Institute

Importance: The orangutan is considered as the outgroup hominoid species for most great ape/human genetic studies. Its estimated divergence from the human lineage (12-14 mya) places it at an evolutionary midpoint between human and Old World monkeys (separation 25 mya) (Chen and Li 2001; Goodman 1999). It is, therefore, considerably sought after for comparative sequencing for molecular evolutionary analysis and testing for models of selection. Among immunologists, for example, comparative sequencing between human and orangutan has been used to provide compelling evidence for models of balancing selection regarding genes associated with human blood group antigens (Adams et al. 1999; Bontrop et al. 1991; Otting et al. 1998). Recently published SNP studies emphasize the value of genomic sequence from this organism to determine the ancestral and derived status of human alleles (Chen and Li 2001; Kaessmann et al. 2001). This species is particularly valuable when data from gorilla and chimpanzee are ambiguous with respect to the ancestral status of a common human polymorphism. Genetic data from both subspecies of orangutan suggest extensive polymorphism (Warren et al. 2001; Zhang and Ryder 2001). Unlike human and most African great apes, there is no evidence for a recent genetic bottleneck in the population history of this species. Coalescent ages of 1.1 –2.1 million years have been proposed for orangutan alleles (nearly 10-20 fold that of human), providing a critical backdrop for testing the impact of genetic drift and rapid expansion on the frequency and structure of contemporary human haplotypes.

OK, so about a decade old paper. Likely some results by now. Still, we can see that folks are still trying to sort out where the Orangutans fit in things and want a better sequencing done. We also see hints of the recursive definition basis of our present ‘genetic distance’. We also have a hint of why gross numbers can be misleading and why averages can hide that. Orangutans are highly divergent inside their own population. No “bottleneck”. So if one, or a few, Orangs “crossed” into our history, but those particular “variations” didn’t survive off in Borneo; then you can have an ‘average difference’ saying we are very different, when we’re really a ‘lost cousin’.

We also note that “blood groups” matter…

The next block of text is a bit thick, but I’ll translate it some. Mostly it lists a bunch of ways that “genes move”, then asserts a lot of these happened before the “trichotimization” of the Apes happened. That is just saying when Human / Chimp / Gorilla were all the same bunch of apes, before we split up in to threes… Karyotype is number and “look” of the chromosomes in the nucleus. So the first line just says “The way Orangutan chromosomes look is more like the original.” It then goes on to talk about how many and what kind of “rearrangements” it takes to get from that to other types.

The orangutan karyotype is the best representative of the ancestral hominoid ancestral state–both humans and African ape chromosomes are believed to be largely derivatives requiring a minimum of 10-15 chromosomal rearrangements from this hominoid archetype (Muller and Wienberg 2001; Yunis and Prakash 1982). Specific regions of the hominoid genome evolve much more rapidly than “generic” DNA and therefore require a closer primate outgroup species (other than macaque and baboon) in order to resolve the complexity of these regions. Processes such as Y chromosome evolution, pericentrome ric duplication, subtelomeric rearrangements and centromere repositioning necessitate the construction of this library. As an example, the orangutan genome is most frequently used to determine the timing and movement of recent segmental duplications associated with chromosomal rearrangement disorders (Velocardiofacial/DiGeorge, Prader-Willi Syndrome, Smith Magenis, etc), pericentromeric duplications and subtelomeric rearrangements. These regions comprise an estimated 5-7% of the human genome and exhibit accelerated rates of evolutionary turnover (Bailey et al. 2001; Consortium 2001; Eichler 2001). Most of the available Human Genome Project data suggest that the bulk of duplications occurred after the separation of the orangutan but before the trichotimization of the African apes.

OK, so 5% to 7% of DNA changes a whole lot faster than the rest, and “things move”. Got it… Then we have that a specific KIND of moving happened mostly after the Orangutan divergence. “Duplications” of genes. But before we split up into Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla. So this fairly specifically says that Orangutans show what we looked like before we split up. But IMHO the implication is also that “He’s Grampa” in the genotypic sense.

Then there is this bit:

Usage: The primary use of this library would be for comparative sequencing purposes of targeted genomic regions. It is anticipated that select regions of high biological/biomedical interest (immunological genes, genes under positive Darwinian selection, regions of rapid genomic rearrangement, haplotype characterization, etc) would be primary targets. Due to the relative high degree of genomic sequence identity between orangutan and human (95-96%) it is unlikely that the orangutan BAC library would be used for a complete genomic sequencing effort.

So we’ve got 95% to 96% identical DNA. THE major divergence is in area with “duplication” of genes (something that tends to happen in ‘odd crosses’ anyway) and THE major area of interest is all those parts that change really fast / a lot.

I think this is missing the forest for the trees…

Question: Is human DNA and chromosome structure more like old Grampa Orangutan, or more like our Chimp / Gorilla cousins? (Even if we have been “kissing cousins” for a long while…)

There are other ways that the “Out Of Chimps” thesis could have the relationship degree wrong. But in good Climate “Science” form, I’m going to just allude to them and leave it as a presumed strong reinforcement. (Waves hand dismissively and smiles at the interviewer, breaks the “Fourth Wall” with a knowing, understanding look to the camera…) With that, lets go look our our DNA…

OK, any useful stuff?

Well, yes.

I’ve only modestly ploughed down this row. But already several very interesting bits turn up. The strongest is a comparison of the chromosomes at a gross level between Humans, Chimps, Gorilla, and Orangutan. No, not as fancy as all those DNA sequences and point mutation averages. But, IMHO, the big picture matters.

Only recently have folks found that the “Junk DNA” was in fact largely coding for control sequences. What gets turned on and off when. In most programs, that matters at least as much as which subroutines are in the library… Also, many parts of the DNA change at much higher rates than other parts. This isn’t mentioned much by the folks calculating ‘genetic distance’, but WHICH part of the DNA matters. Break your Krebs Cycle and you die. It tends to be ‘very conservative’. Change your hair color or size? Hey, might be a feature… So looking at the chromosomes in bulk, IMHO, ought to be the very first step.

As a brief ‘side bar’ on genetics: There are many specific ways that “things change”. Some packages of genes are called transposons. These are whole chunks of a chromosome that can jump around. From one copy of the chromosome to another. From one individual chromosome to another. Sometime being stuck in backwards. Sometimes duplicated (so a coding for ‘growth factor’ might suddenly give you twice as much and a bigger child) and sometimes deleted (shrinking growth factor, and giving a midget, for example.)

These large chunks of DNA might well be from a ‘well conserved’ sequence (in terms of point mutations and single point changes) yet still “they move”. Furthermore, THE single thing that most determines our “humanness” is “Neotony”. The tendency to retain juvenile traits into adult age. So humans have larger head to body ratio. We have weaker muscles (many species have deliberate reduction in per pound muscle strength in infants to prevent self injury or injury to litter mates). We have many other neotonous traits as well. It only takes a very small change to the “control group” to slow development…

In short, it may not be quantity of genetic difference that matters, but exactly where it is in the larger scheme of things. Where those transposons landed. What is next to which control sequences on the genes. Looking at the overall “pattern” of the chromosomes may have more to do with ‘what makes us human’ than just looking at point variations and their averages. (In fact, I’d assert it has way more to do with it…)

Normally I follow the path of discovery in a posting. This tends to put the Ah Hah! moment near the end. I’ve noticed some folks comment before reading the whole thing ;-) so I’m going to reverse that pattern a bit this time. The Ah Hah! came right at the moment of looking at the comparative chromosomes. Prior to that, I’d had things that lead me to this point. Some of those will be given below. Some blood group things. Some genetic distance things.

Comparing Chromosomes

This page has a map of the chromosomes of Humans, Chimps, Gorilla, and Orangutan laid out side by side:


Looking down that set, inspecting the patterns closely, there are some very clear chromosome connections with Chimpanzees. There are some distinctly Human bits (like the fusion of 2 chimp / gorilla / orangutan chromosomes called, now, 2a and 2b into our chromosome 2, and some wandering divergence.

To me it works most easily to start at the last chromosome and work forward. (Often problems are best solved backwards, or inside out. Always look at things ‘the other way round’…)

Comparison of Human, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutan chromosomes

Comparison of Human, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutan chromosomes

There’s a very high def PDF version in this link to the Original PDF Source.

While looking at this, realize that we have information that some chimpanzee chromosomes came into our Human line about 1.2 million years after the first “human” separation. The general “story” is that human and chimp were still close enough genetically that crossing continued for 1.2 million years. An alternate “story” is that while we were separate, there were the occasional crossings, until we diverged so much it was not longer possible.

OK, back at that chart. It takes a close look at some tedious things, but “that’s what I do”… Folks unable to cope with that can just jump down past all the A/B stuff, assume I’ve done it right, and pick up the story there. Me? I think this matters (or I’d not have done it… ;-)

Chromosomes have a little ball that sticks them together in the middle, called a centromere. It shows up as a ‘pinch’ in the middle of the chromosome. On each side of the centromere are long stretches of DNA that stain in particular patterns. Chunks can move around (those transposons) so a given “pattern” might swap what side of the centromere it is on, or even what chromosome it is on. So really we need to look for matching patterns over the whole set. But for now, we’re just (mostly) going to compare the various species for the same chromosome number (modulo that Human 2 is Ape 2a and 2b) in bulk “look” and pattern. We’ll start with number 22 and come back to the Y and X chromosomes for special mention. Remember, during this, that the Chimp, Gorilla, and Orangutan DNA have not been static since our divergence either… The Chimp and Gorilla ‘look’ is often different due to a dark ‘end cap’ on a chromosome. It is quite possible that they developed that after a split with the human line and we are still closely related. IMHO, unlikely, but possible.

Chromosome 22

Notice that the middle two (chimp and gorilla) have a dark spot at the bottom. The first (Human) and the last (Orang) look almost identical.

The top of ours is a little shortened. Like the Gorilla one, but with a tiny deletion.

Overall, the “look” is more like Orangutan with deletion than anything else. Alternatively, it looks a whole lot like the top half is Chimpanzee or Orangutan with a deletion while the bottom is Orangutan.

Chromosome 21

Again the descending part from the pinched centromere is more like the Orang than anything else. The upper bit looks to have suffered a small deletion and the centromere is not as dark stained as any of the other apes.

Chromosome 20

Noticing a pattern here? The descending part (long part) of the chromosome is substantially identical to the Orangutan. BOTH Chimp and Gorilla have an added “dark bit” at the bottom. Above the centromere (pinched spot) we are all identical until it looks like we’ve got a bit of the “chimp / gorilla” batch glued on as a transposon to the basic Orang pattern (or a bit of deletion of the end of the Chimp pattern).

Chromosome 19

This looks to me like the Human version is substantially the same as the Orangutan version, modulo any minor drift over the millenia.

Chromosome 18

This is our first really complicated one. Follow closely…

The long hanging down part looks largely the same for us, Chimps, and Orangutans (Gorilla have an added dark band at the far end) then as we approach the centromere, it looks like the fat white band and thin grey next to it (in the other primates) has swapped to the other side of the centromere. (Not all that unusual…). Then it is a bit hard to decide if we lost the other side (the ‘arm’ could be gone entirely or might have ‘jumped’ to another chromosome) or what. It did NOT just stay on the centromere and get swapped to the other side, though. A fine toothed study of those genes, and where they might be elsewhere in our genes, would be in order. (or just finding out if they are in use at all…)

Still, the overall impression is “Orang like with an inverted centromere and a small deletion / transposition”.

Back at the Y Chromosome

OK, at this point you ought to have enough experience looking at these things to be able to match patterns more broadly. Look at the Y chrmosome (bottom row, far right). The Human one is bigger. Overall, it looks like the “Chimp one” with some added stuff on the bottom end. Two medium sized dark bands and one big fat one, with white bands in between. Rather like the parts of the Orangutan Y in the top half.

Most likely they are things “lost” from some other chromosome that ended up on this one. (Yes, genes and chromosomes do that… it’s really a very sloppy system…) Doing very targeted analysis of what those sequences are, and where they are in other hominids would be quite interesting. Though they might also just be duplicates of things already on this chromosome or on some other one.

But there is another, more interesting possibility. Notice that the Orangutan Y has more “stuff” than the Chimp? It is also more banded than the Gorilla. In fact, it looks a lot like the Human one, but with a larger ‘white patch’ below the pinch and a larger ‘grey patch’ above. Visually divide those two, the white and the grey, and rotate about the middle. Glue them together. Golly, looks a whole lot like the Human Y with a centromere inversion…

No, not perfect. a bit of ‘offset’ to one side, and a snip from the end of the Orangutan Y. But very very close.

This would clearly benefit from a very close gene map of particular genes and even alleles (variations) of them. But I’d bet a decent bottle of wine we’ll find that is the pattern.

In short, I’d bet “Grampa was an Orangutan” and then we had some inversions and transpositions over the millions of years.

It is also possible that those bands “jumped” here from some other chromosome (as duplicates or as moves). That would not be a bad thing either. It lets us have “sexual dimorphism”.

So, say, the gene for “Big and Mean” ends up on the X chromosome. Might end up with a woman who does not attract many mates, or might end up with a Matriarch Society. Nature rolls the dice and sees what happens. While most human societies today are Patriarchal, there is strong evidence that Celts and some others were Matriarchal. Also some evidence for Neanderthals being Matriarchal. Celtic women lead armies into battle, roman women generally did not.

Personally, I find the idea of a woman who can swing a sword, um, “interesting” ;-) but I’m a Celt type… Such is the stuff of what gene ends up on which chromosome… The Neander type has some evidence for higher levels of testosterone generally. BOTH in women and in men. And some evidence for high estrogen too. Generally more hormone driven ;-) So is some of that on the X or Y chromosomes? Probably. That’s the game nature plays with ‘which gene goes where’ and why it keeps rolling those dice….

Chromosome 17

A very complex one.

The Gorilla version is “way out”. Not at all like the others.

The Human version looks like a ‘mush’ of some of the Chimp and some of the Orangutan. The overall size and shade density is about right, but the pattern is off and the centromere is moved. Things have jumped and swapped.

The bottom third looks like the chimp with a little ‘snip’ off the end (or Chimps have added a spot at the end). Then the middle. Sigh. What a mess. It matches the upper arm of the Chimp up until it joins the already identified lower part. Somebody had the centromere do a flip. Us? Or the modern Chimp? The “fat white and dark” of the Chimp lower looks like it moved to the upper side of the centromere in this flip; then we pick up with what looks like the rest of the Orangutan top end. Though that upper dark band could be from either the Chimp or the Orang. The key bit is a centromere inversion.

Chromosome 16

This looks, generally, like a Chimpanzee type centromere with a flip (so the dark band above gets added to the below, and the grey band below ends up above) but with Orangutan ‘arms’ glued on. That is, the banding pattern matches the Orangutan pattern down until it reaches a ‘flipped’ Chimpanzee centromere pattern. It could also just be the Orangutan type with a couple of added bands below the centromere from a transposon jumping in.

Chromosome 15

The bottom part looks very much like the Orangutan pattern, then the top looks truncated, and perhaps with a ‘flip’. It isn’t really like any of the others as it stands. But I’d guess it has some of each ancestor and mapping exactly what genes they have, there and where they end up would be enlightening.

Chromosome 14

Orang, Chimp, and Human substantially the same below the centromere. Above looks like a small truncation / deletion or density change in the human from the Orangutan type.

Chromosome 13

Near identity below the centromere. Above, it again looks like a minor deletion / change to white ‘density’ from the Orangutan to the Human type. Though from the Chimpanzee or Orangutan? It could be either (though the Chimpanzee for requires a deletion). Detail gene maps might help some, but what is missing is hard to measure…

The X Chromosome

Substantially identical between Chimpanzee, Human, and Orangutan. The Chimp has an added ‘end cap’ on the bottom; but that’s about it. Even the Gorilla mostly differs in having those end caps.

Chromosome 12

Looks to me like it’s “All Orangutan all the time”. Though the Chimpanzee is close after a centromere ‘flip’.

Chromosome 11

This one looks very much like a Chimpanzee copy with a ‘snip’ of the upper end cap.

Chromosome 10

Looks to me like a Chimpanzee lower with an Orangutan upper arm. Alternatively, could be a chimpanzee upper with an end cap deletion.

Chromosome 9

(Hooray! Single Digits!)

Another complicated one. Nobody has their centromere “pinch” lining up. Sigh…

Below the centromere of the Chimpanzee, we all match. (Modulo the Gorilla having their nearly universal added ‘end cap’)

The Orangutan and Gorilla have a near identity below their centromeres. (And very similar above it, with the Orangutan having a bit more isolated an ‘end cap’, but not much, and the Gorilla having more dense one.)

For the Human one, the part above the centromere looks like it is an inversion of the part below for some of either the Chimpanzee or Orangutan. Either the Orang version “upside down” or the Chimp version with a centromere “offset”. Overall, I’d go with “Orangutan with a centromer flip over”.

Chromosome 8

Looks to me like “mostly Chimp” with an end cap loss, or possibly an Orangutan with some small deletions internally.

Mostly I’d lean toward “Chimp with an Orangutan end cap transposon” on the top. Though it also looks a lot like a ‘Chimp lower and Orangutan upper’.

Chromosome 7

Largely “Chimp minus and end cap up top” IMHO. But a lot in common with the Orangutan. Slightly shorter than the Chimpanzee chromosome, so perhaps a couple of genes lost.

Chromosome 6

Substantially identical with the Orangutan, though also with the Chimp (modulo that end cap thing up top).

Chromosome 5

All Orang all the time! Easy Peasy… The Chimpanzee looks to have taken a centromere inversion.

Chromosome 4

A bit complex. The lower half is identical in all four. “Strongly conserved”. The centromere is a bit displaced.

Looks to me like “all Chimp” but with a centromere flip. We have “Fat White, Fat Dark, Thin White, Medium Black, Medium White, two thin grey bands” headed down from the Centromere, Chimps have it headed up. We have a medium gray band on the other ‘opposite side” too. Looks like a simple centromere flip with differential chunks.

Chromosome 3

All Chimp all the time. Doesn’t get much easier than that.

Chromosome 1

As #2 is very complex. we’re saving it for last.

Chimp and Orangutan nearly identical. Gorilla “close” but with some swaps. Human? A bit more complex…

The centromere is shifted. It looks like we’ve added or duplicated a couple of bits in it. Mostly, looked at from ‘the ends in” we’re identical to both Chimps and Orangs up until that centromere change where it looks like we have a couple of added bands. Duplicates? Things moved from other chromosomes? Who knows.

But generally “not a lot different” just some added…

Chromosome 2

This has the largest divergence. At some point we had 2 chromosomes for this just like the other Great Apes. They got mushed together. Hey, it’s not a perfect system…

This is why our chromosome count is not the same as the other great apes.

OK, there’s some evidence for the second centromere still in our genome. (Frankly, as that is where the spindle threads pull the copies apart in cell division, I’m surprised it works at all, but “shit happens” and life adapts).

The lower leg of our 2 matches the 2a of the Chimpanzee, then some of the bottom of 2b up to that centromere. It does look like some ‘end caps’ get lost. Wonder if they ended up on chromosome 1 as those added bits?

2b largely looks like the Chimp form down to the centromere as well.

There is an alternative explanation. Swap the centromere on the Orangutan so part of what is ‘up’ is down, then glue on the rest of the Chimp 2a. To me, that one looks like a slightly better pattern match.

Which was it? Have to look at Chimpanzee AND Orangutan AND Human sequences and mutations BY Chromosome, to know for sure.

The tyranny of “over averaging” will hide that detailed information. We really do need to remember that genes move as chunks, that transposons exists, that centromers can ‘swap ends’ or sides, and that bulk averages hide that detail. We need to sequence the WHOLE genome, find where the individual genes are located, and compare them for drift, not just gross drift.

Why? Because there may well be millions of years of “drift” in one chromosome that is not in the other, if we picked them up at different times….

Remember: The “species barrier” is only a strong “suggestion“… (And you thought folks in San Francisco were kinky ;-)

Some added bits

That’s the major evidence, and the major thesis. Here I’ve got a bit of ‘grab bag’ of backing data, other speculations, some science links, and the path I took to get to the above blended in.

First up, an interesting list. From an ant with ONE chromosome (for the boys; the girls get 2) to a fern with 1440 ( a dozen dozen times ten… odd that) chromosomes. That has got to be an exotic cell division… and I wonder how big each chromosome might be…


A fascinating site with lots of interesting articles. Looks at many things that interest me. I’ll likely spend several weeks finding out someone else is going things / has done things I’d planned to do or also did! So this article looks at blood group.


Basic thesis is that Gorillas are one blood group. Chimpanzees are another. Humans are both. Are we a hybrid Gorilla / Chimp?

I’d assert, from the above, that we’re Orangutan / Chimp; but could not find enough on Orangutan blood groups to connect the dots here. There are other possibles. Such as “Gorilla added end caps to the chromosomes” or that “we had both A & B but chimps lost one and gorilla the other”. Etc.

I’m hoping to find Orangutan blood groups match Gorilla… If not, then that we preserved both…

In an unrelated thread, this look at human blood “proximity” is interesting:


The author points out that present genetic haplogroup studies obsolete some of this. I do not agree. The haplogroup studies look at broad things. Details do NOT always move with the broad groups. So looking at things like blood group still matters. Furthermore, even if the haplogroup stuff does obsolete some of it, knowing HOW it was done (either rightly or wrongly) can also inform how better to study things.

At any rate, I like it. Period. Haplogroups be damned…

Of particular interest is the “dendrite” graph. Scroll down past the “puzzle” one to the answer one. Arabs are “off to the side” from Hebrews and Egyptians. This adds credence to the idea of Jews and Ancient Egyptians being closely related. The other interesting thing is the other side of the middle.

No surprise that New Yorkers are strongly related to Hebrews. But we also have the Celts as modestly close. Spanish have more Basque in them, and Arabs have some closer relationship to south African blacks. Egyptians and Hindus are very close. Was there a very ancient connection? Then passing through Hindus we move on out to the Asians. Oddly, Australian aborigines are nearer to French and Dutch than anyone else.

Yes, only blood group. But still very interesting.


has an interesting chart of blood type by continent / ethnicity. Type O donors in Peru, BTW! The overall sense of it, to me, is that type B is probably highest in those with Denisovian ancestors while O is likely highest in those with some Neanderthals along with A; and Rh+ being high in Africa. But with lots of variations and exceptions.

I also ran into some links asserting that various interspecies crosses had / had not been done and that various Chimpanzees were / were not more human like than others. There are several kinds of Chimpanzee, including the Bonobo (that is more like humans than many others and like having sex just for fun / social reasons.)


is one example. (Though why they exclude humans is an interesting question).


In “The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication” Charles Darwin noted: “Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens.”

In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity – a female Siamang produced hybrid “Siabon” offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn’t. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In “The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication” Charles Darwin wrote: “A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus.” In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.
Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: “I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, N’schigo, M’bouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc”. Yerkes reported several “unclassifiable apes” with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book “A Study of Anthropoid Life”. In fact most of these are regional races of chimpanzee classified as separate species by over-enthusiastic naturalists.

In short, sometimes the “Species Barrier” isn’t even a very strong suggestion…

But I’m sure humans are ‘different’… somehow… /sarcoff;>

There’s more to the path that lead here, but I’m not so sure it is very interesting. Oscar the Humanzee that was tested and found to be largely / all chimp DNA, but had more interest in human women than lady chimps. (You’d think someone would have ‘given him a whirl’, but if they did, they’re not telling) The various odd crosses (including baboons, that I thought were too far removed from other primates) that cross. Things with different chromosome counts (like sheep and goats) that produce viable and fertile offspring and are more divergent than humans and chimps (or, as we’ve seen, Orangutans).

But that’s not nearly as important, IMHO, as that chromosome map.

To me, it just SCREAMS Chimpanzee / Orangutan cross.

And near as I can tell, nobody is looking there. All due to the “bulk averages” that say we split off from them prior to becoming “human”. But averages are used to hide things…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in History, Science Bits and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Orangutan Gramps and Chimpanzee Grammy

  1. Pingback: Daily Linkage – September 25, 2012 | The Second Estate

  2. Richard Hill says:

    EM: have you read Aldous Huxley’s “After Many a Summer”? Its a delightful book that picks up human neoteny and extrapolates what happens when humans fully mature. If my memory is right the Earl of whatever ends up as a reddish haired hypersexual ape. A sort of orang?

  3. adolfogiurfa says:

    The “Origin of Species” was caused by a scam: The fake “Piltdown man”. Someone knowing that the son of a rich man was seeking for the “missing link” to prove his nanny theory of man descending from the apes, managed to combine a human skull with the jawbone of an ape, made it then look “old” by yellowing it using nitric acid and afterwards interring it in order, afterwards, to “find it” and sell it to Darwin. Something resembling the Climate Gate scandal.

  4. adolfogiurfa says:

    I am one of such type “O” in Peru. Here we also have, in some regions the presence of the “B” group, which is found also among the north american indians.

  5. Pascvaks says:

    Well I can tell you that I’m definitely going to try to stay off desert islands with just an Orangutan Gramps and a Granny Chimp if I can possibly help it. Don’t want to get between those two;-)

    @Adolfo –
    Really, whoever came up with that crazy idea did change the world, and it didn’t hurt that much. I’m afraid, today, of the genetics clowns who go mixing and matching genes with their little chemistry sets; talk about Pandora’s Box. If I were a crazy Iranian out to rewrite world history I’d have some pretty super-secret caves cranking out all kinds of genetic bugs and potions. Nucs don’t scare me as much as bugs, and nobody’s watching Iranian bugs.

  6. Pascvaks says:

    @Adolfo –
    You’re an O? Pro O or Con O (+/-)? You come from “Old Blood”;-)
    Natives with B in N.A. are supposed to have gotten it from European (admixture?) long after everyone else was here from Asia; as far as I know. (Vikings? Who knows;-)

    PS: I’m B+ (I can take you but you can’t take me, I think;-)

  7. KevinM says:

    The consequential idea is up front. Science is a tool we use to look at data and rule out what seems to be nonsense. The conclusions reached by science are philosophy. The philosophies we tend to are defined by faith. Thanks for recognizing that the self selection bias of faith (in god, nature, self, whatever) effects where and how we look when we develop our philosophy.

  8. Pascvaks says:

    One Rock with different Worlds, different Gods, Natures, Selfs, Whatevers, and Philosophies. Got that right. At least over the past 6 million years we’ve knocked down the number of Gods, Natures, and Philosophies, while increasing the number of Selfs and Whatevers to an all time high. We seem to be making progress, but I have a feeling it’s still too early to tell for sure; better hold off on the “Progress” evaluation for a little while longer, the Gods and Philosophies are getting restless again.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    Presumably there were several spaceships which came in different epochs….

  10. Ian W says:

    There may be more proof of hybridization from a different quarter – in the British services the slang term for a member of the British Army is ‘pongo’. So perhaps the Brits beat Stalin to it ;-)

  11. Chuckles says:

    E.M. I think you can expect a flood of letters from the chimps and orangutans lawyers claiming libel, slander, defamation racism, specieism etc etc? :)

    Adolfo, , I believe the best known and most likely of the spaceships is the ‘B’ Ark?


  12. Alexander K says:

    As one of my major bloodlines is Highland Scot (big chest, skinny legs, reddish hair and lumpy nose) I can relate to this article. In fact, many of my male ancestors who were captured in photographs look a little like Orangs in kilts and bonnets! And the family mythology is replete with ferocious female leaders.

  13. Pascvaks says:

    Checked the Wikipedia listing:
    Interesting. Endangered, habitat encroachment, etc. (Hope they can make it to the next Ice Age –glacial period)
    “The orangutans are the two exclusively Asian species of extant great apes. Native to Indonesia and Malaysia, orangutans are currently found in only the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra. Classified in the genus Pongo, orangutans were considered to be one species. However, since 1996, they have been divided into two species: the Bornean orangutan (P. pygmaeus) and the Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii). In addition, the Bornean species is divided into three subspecies. The orangutans are also the only surviving species of the subfamily Ponginae, which also included several other species like Gigantopithecus, the largest known primate. Both species had their genomes sequenced and they appear to have diverged around 400,000 years ago. Orangutans diverged from the rest of the great apes 15.7 to 19.3 mya (million years ago)…”

  14. p.g.sharrow says:

    I also examined that set of charts a number of months back and reached a similar conclusion.
    The present human population shows a close connection to Pongo. Too bad we have to work with only a part of the deck of cards. At one time there were as many as 80 species of great apes in central and southern Asia. A full deck to shuffle, mix and match. We can only examine the results of those that survived. Humans show the results of severe selective breeding, with in and out crosses of blood lines. Whether by design or environmental stress, or both, the result is a creature that can exist in any environment on the planet and is it’s own worst enemy.
    @EMSmith; If you want to see a Celt woman, My daughter is 6’1″ and as broad shoulder as I. A sword in her hand would scare any two Romans. ;-) pg

  15. E.M.Smith says:


    Has a rather fascinating bit of information:

    The project has verified that the blood of different ape species isn’t interchangeable between species or humans, she said. It found that bonobos have only Type A blood, while orangutans have all four types, A, B, AB and O.

    That “Out of Orangutan” thesis just got a tiny bit of support…

    So “in the beginning” the hominids had all 4, the Orangutans preserved that, the Chimps ran off to be Type A only. And Humans have all 4 types.

    To me, it looks like “the simplest answer” that accounts for all the known facts is one of two:

    1) The hominid that mixed with Chimpanzees ‘way back when’ was not a Chimpanzee. It was either a Orangutan or a “primitive hominid” that had not diverged all that much from the common ancestral line. (i.e. a primitive Orangutan like precursor).

    2) Chimpanzees have managed to (somehow) loose all their blood type diversity …

    Given the large genetic diversity of Chimpanzees (some folks think there are several species / sub-species) I think that #2 is very unlikely.

    @Richard Hill:

    Not read it. Sounds interesting.


    The presence of one counterfeit coin in a vault full of gold does not turn the rest to dross.

    B is quite common in Asians. Most likely came over the land bridge, or via boat.


    Just to help you sleep:

    In High School, my kids were taught how to introduce genes into other species. There is a “kit” sold for schools to use that lets you put “glow in the dark” into things like flat worms. Some folks have now made a ‘glow in the dark cat’… It is a very very small leap from “glow” to “botulism”…


    I try to be always aware of how bias works, and guard against my own. When choosing to “run with it” I like to flag it, preferably with some humor attached…

    Science is a tool kit for “lower level of lies and error” but not a perfect one. Especially if used badly…

    @Ian W:

    Weren’t the Brits in Borneo and Sumatra a lot? Think they…. Nah…… Maybe? ;-)

    Hmmm…. Watching the nightly news, I think I know where the “B” ark landed…

    If the Chimps and Orangs sue, I’m counter suing for “child support” / paternity ;-)


    Yet the two “species” freely exchange genes. Ran into one article where many (most?) of the Orangs in US zoos were in fact crosses of the two, so they are rabidly being sterilized to prevent “genetic pollution”… in order to save them, of course…


    It will be very interesting if they can find some DNA for the other extinct great apes….

    Your daughter sounds like a Celt to me… Give her a Sword and a Battle Hammer then she can scare 4 Romans at once ;-)

  16. Impressive but well beyond my ability to make useful comments!

  17. E.M.Smith says:


    Thanks! But I doubt it’s all that impressive, really. Mostly just looking at the pattern of dots and dashes and saying “these bits match!” (gorilla not so much…)

    At its core, just wondering how far back in time I can push the probable (what likely happened).

    But it was interesting to some part of my brain, so I had to go there… (it works that way…)

  18. Pascvaks says:

    Something very peculiar happened to the 2’s and Y’s, we’re not to sure what it was and we don’t know why, but if it hadn’t happened I think the internet today would look very different and so would we.

  19. Pascvaks says:

    PS: After my last, it occured to be to add –
    I bothers me a little to see that except for the difference between the 2’s and Y’s we’re all very much alike (in shades of black and white and grey) and I just know there’s some wierdo out there that has known this for sometime, and s/he’s got the old chemistry set out –and a Federal Grant– trying to insert a human 2’s and y’s into a chimp zygote. (Hell, judging from the decline in human intelligence in the last 30 years, maybe they already have.)

  20. adolfogiurfa says:

    What is the story is the other way around?, what if the we do not descend from the apes but the apes from the human beings, after a “liberal” induced inter species sex? Each species of apes keeps a resemblance to another species of animals, like the baboons to canines…

  21. Pascvaks says:

    @Adolfo –
    LOL – Great minds do think alike! Hay, have you ever thought that we have ‘Time” backwards too? To wit: Last time I was on-planet was 2018-2097, this time I’m here from 1948-2018, next time I’ll show up –for example– from 1873-1948, etc. It would sure help explain how some can ‘see’ the future, and others can invent some great time savers;-) I really do think life is stranger than fiction; maybe the universe has been contracting all along and we were just too blind to see. (Couldn’t Resist! And I have thought all that too;-)

  22. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve actually pondered that same thing: Who descended from whom? In writing this up.

    The Chimpanzee and the Gorilla both have an ‘innovation’ of those end cap spots on some chromosomes. Missing in Human and Orangutan. Orthodoxy says they were missing in the Orangutan, came in for the Chimpanzee, then left in Humans…. Hmmmm…..

    While my approach is to assert that Humans have an Orangutan heritage (either via a crossing with Chimpanzees or via a ‘preservation’ in a parallel line); it remains a problem. Yes, it’s possible that the Chimpanzee and Gorilla have innovated a large chromatin block to protect the ends of the chromosomes (they need it, replication doesn’t handle the ends well… so we put telomeres on the end; they might just have overactive telomerase related pathways). But just as possible is that there was an earlier “Human” type that crossed into a parallel line of Chimpanzees and gave us, well, us.

    The thing that argues against that is “stuff in the ground”. Both the lack of human type bones prior to the clearly human leading line, and the presence of a clear set of hominids leading to “modern man” (with the odd sidebar of a deadend hominid or two).

    So, for example, say Gigantopiticus was really human in mentation, but a big softy who just liked eating leaves a lot and being left alone. Gets crossed into a chimp line (say, after a night of fermented fruit ;-) and we end up with a semi-meat eating gregarious Big Chimp with Attitude and with some of their more volatile behaviours emotionally. AND a brain big enough to plot and plan attacks…

    At any rate, one of the simple facts in the ground is that humans had larger brains in the past (about 10% for Neanderthals) and look to have been less violent (even recently, that major city oldest in the world in South America has no defensive / military structure or weapons…) so we do seem to be getting dumber and more violent over time… in aggregate.


    Also the 1 looks to have picked up some extra stuff. One reference said that some genes from the 1 ended up on the Y, so we may have a ‘chain displacement’ were something hopped onto the 1, displacing a bit to the Y.

    But yes, the degree of common DNA is argued to be between 96% and 99.5% depending on what tests are used. (So, for example, mutations that do not change the protein since different codons of DNA give the same amino acid can be counted as ‘different’ or ‘same’ but have no effect). Like it or not, we are substantially identical to Chimps and Orangutans with a couple of added skills ( complex speech, complex tool making) and some group violence habits.

    Most of the details come out of one shift of neotony, so we’re like very overgrown INFANT Chimps and Orangutans. Our fur doesn’t develop fully. Our heads stay ‘too large’ compared to body size. Genitalia in chimps are more forward facing in infants. We are more “upright” and can’t knuckle walk as our arms don’t grow enough. Etc. All that takes changing only the single gene sequence controlling development rate.

    FWIW, folks have already tried to make a Humanzee. With present methods, we could do it rather easily (IMHO). More distant crosses have been make many times. Given the more closely similar Orangutan karyotype, I’d expect that cross to be easier. Humangutan?

    Heck, just putting the particular ‘strength’ genes back in us would be spectacular. We have most of the machinery in place, just need to get back to the “usual” adult primate muscle type (probably from just letting the development run just a bit longer).

    I’m pretty sure that’s going to happen. Just a matter of when…

    FWIW, the change to the 2 group may not be significant. Chromsome ends tend to be a bit ‘sticky’ to other chromosome ends, and having them join is not all that unusual. (Some existing humans have variable chromosome numbers for just that kind of reason). So those “2s” likely have pretty much the same genes and do pretty much the same things; just mixed a bit differently. The gross “look” isn’t as important as the details… So “what makes us human” could easily be some much smaller more subtle change on some other chromosome.

    It could even just just a tiny ‘snip’ with a band dropped out. The one that says “Now that you are a young adolescent, develop into an adult Chimpanzee”…


    On the “crossing” point, from the link in the article:

    Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity – a female Siamang produced hybrid “Siabon” offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn’t. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In “The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication” Charles Darwin wrote: “A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus.” In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

    So, Adolfo, the “look” of the Baboon as “dog like” isn’t nearly as important as that it has genes in the primate form. So can cross with monkeys…

    I’d assert that the tendency for one kind of primate to look like some far removed species is more a function of human imagination than actual similarity… though there is some room for ‘parallel evolution’. Baboons live in packs and move like dog packs, so will be slowly evolving toward the strategies that work best in such packs, be they dog or baboon or hyena; or human…


    While there is very little to prevent “time running backwards”, all evidence is that it only runs one way. One of the big mysteries of physics. Why?

    But one way, it is. So I don’t think we have ‘stochastic time’.

    More likely is that “time” is an artifact of our method of perception. All states over all ‘time’ still exist, and moving into other dimensions lets us have some perception of those other states. We can’t get off our time line progression, but can sense a tiny bit through those other dimensions. That would be in keeping with what we know of physics (that postulates those added dimensions) and that “we” would then exist in those dimensions as well, however dimly most of us could sense them…

    In that case “time” is our movement in one dimension (forced to be one way by momentum of the universe) while ‘out of time’ sensing would just be using that part of our existence that is in those other dimensions to ‘look sideways’ at the time line part and notice little bits…. but then it must decide at what point on that line to send back the understanding…. too early it would be an infant dream, in the middle, a puzzle of confusion, at the end, of little use (and perhaps just as much a confusing jumble and with a frightening / paralyzing end point…) So maybe we just protect our sanity by “not going there”…

  23. tckev says:

    Couple of ideas –
    IMO as far as we are descended from great apes, our physical abilities are lacking in comparison to most of them. Physically we are the runts of the litter and it was only our reasoning abilities (and possibly our swiftness on two legs) that has allowed us to flourish.

    On the little aside about time. We have no method of knowing if time is progressing in an orderly manner. Did an hour yesterday last as long as it does today? We have no method of finding out as we are within the frame of reference. If only we could step outside of this then we could judge for sure. As Douglas Adams put it “time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.”

  24. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: Perception of time it is real subjective and objective in the sense of relativity of vibrations: The higher the frequency of a train wave the shorter the perception of “time”for a particular being in such a train wave, “time” it is so a reference between two developments of train waves, it may be so correspondent to the heart beat or more exactly to the breath rhythm, the in taking of energy and of life within. How long are our Sun´s breaths for example? Through these comparisons we could phantom how fleeting it is our existence…
    Each one of us metabolism, oxidation and reduction, sets the rhythm of the processes within our body and so our inner perception of time.

  25. E.M.Smith says:


    We likely have the same size and strength capabilities in our genes and only need to find out how to selectively remove them from the neotony throttle…

    Oh, and on “time” being relative:

    If you fall into the gravity well of a black hole, “time” slows down. From outside, it looks like you plunge in and go splat on the even horizon. From your POV, time slows. A LOT. You feel like you never reach the event horizon. All you notice is that things far away start to change fast (then again, photons from them start to slow down as they approach you, so might also prevent you noticing for a long while…)

    The bottom line is that WE might be captured by and falling into a black hole right now and not notice… Say, that giant one in the middle of our galaxy…

    Just sayin’ ;-)

    (Now you just go to bed and have nice dreams, ok? ;-)


    I’ve done some playing with the perception of time. I can slow it down or speed it up to some degree (modest degree) at will.

    On one occasion I was on a motorcycle. Long story short, I was sideways about 4 feet in the air after a series of increasing “wobbles” and was going to come down on my right leg.

    At that moment, “time slowed to near stop”. I clearly remember thinking “Now this is a fine mess. We’re going to have 200+ pounds of motorcycle on one side and asphalt at 20 MPH on the other and that leg is toast. Have to bail off as the oscillations have gotten large enough it’s not recoverable…. Going to hit on the right side and that’s going to leave road rash… need to ‘spin up’ so ‘exit with rotation’, ok? OK, do it.” Time resumed…

    I did a very hard push off the bike, with rotation. I landed on my LEFT side (that elbow and shoulder got minor scrapes) and was in a tucked position. Rolled a bit up to a running position and ‘ran out’ slowing to a halt. Then walked back to pick up the bike… No significant injuries despite wearing only jeans and dress shirt…

    Now that whole time was MAYBE 1 or 2 seconds. It doesn’t take long to fall 4 feet. Yet I distinctly remember the “out of time” conversation with myself… and the feeling of just ‘hanging in air’ while I worked on things…

    Our perception of time is very different from what is time…

  26. Ian W says:

    By serendipity an article in New Scientist on Neanderthal and Hominids in a throw away line might lend credence to your theory:
    An earlier analysis of ancient DNA in 40,000 and 50,000-year-old Neanderthal bones, respectively from Spain and Italy, suggested that our extinct cousins had light-coloured skin and reddish hair in their European heartland. But the Neanderthals went extinct around 28,000 years ago – long before modern humans in Europe gained a pale skin. Evidently Neanderthals did not pass these useful local adaptations on to modern humans, despite genetic evidence that the two species interbred.
    That might seem unusual given that the two species lived cheek-by-jowl in Europe for several thousand years. But it makes sense if the interbreeding evident in the genes occurred in the Middle East, where modern humans and Neanderthals first met, says Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum, London.

    In that region, Neanderthals may have had darker skins, explaining why our species did not gain a pale skin after interbreeding with them. Indeed, a study earlier this year of ancient DNA suggested that Neanderthals living in what is now Croatia had dark skin and brown hair.

    What if the ‘Gorilla’ genes (and brown hair) were from the Neanderthal line adding to the original ex-Orangutang genes (and red hair) in the hominids?

    Interesting thoughts

  27. Pascvaks says:

    OT/Have to test this to see if comment box actually opening;-)

  28. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M. Your story about your motorcycle accident and your perception of time is true: Do you know that when Einstein was just married with his first wife, she asked him to hang a picture on a high wall, he fell down accidentally and experienced the same as you did: The story after is well known to all of us: His wife was a good mathematician…..

  29. adolfogiurfa says:

    @R.de Haan: When men have enough time/money for a leisure existence usually they begin “thinking” and believe such a “thinking” it is reasoning, which is not, instead a commoner,a peasant, any blue collar worker is closer to the truth than such a leisure “thinker”, Knowledge/understanding is the product of LIVING, of experience, of suffering, a combination of feelings, sensations and, why not, some thoughts or rather insights showing an order in such experiences, a perception of laws, of a sacred order: really we should talk rather of IN (within)telligence, of “revelation”, of an “apocalypse”.

  30. Pascvaks says:

    FWIW – ;-)
    dimension – di·men·sion (d -m n sh n, d -). n. 1. A measure of spatial extent, especially width,
    height, or length (and time;-). 2. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural …

    dement ion – State or aspects of dementia. Dementia – suffering from dementia or a loss of cognitive function. de·ment ed·ly adv. de·ment ed·ness n. demented [dɪˈmɛntɪd]. adj. (Psychiatry) mad; insane …

    As with one, so with the other; different aspects, levels of reality.

    Thoughts –
    Muscles and bones: If we need them, they will come (do more get more –bigger, harder – takes work). If we don’t need them, they will go (do less be less).

    Reality – it, really, is what we make it, and by “we” I mean ‘them’ (those others of us over whom we humans, or phantasms of the present, have no control –we used to call them gods, and later, our immortal souls, angels, whatnots– what if humans were nothing more than someone’s funny idea of ‘make believe’?). “Go Back in Time”? If it were in the present script I’m sure we would, I guess it’s just not in this script, so we can ‘imagine the impossible of this moment’ but it ain’t gonna’ happen this time. ‘One Way Universe’? Again, it’s just the way the current ‘show’ is written; and the script is the reality that defines the ’laws of this universe’. What about 14.5 Billion years? Who’s to say it ’really’ happened? Who’s to say ? They ain’t talking; not to us anyway. Remember the “Cave of Reality”? We know not what we see, and in our ignorance, with the tools we have and can fashion, we make ’sense’ of it all in our minds. Surely, if we didn’t we would all go mad. I’m still having problems with the idea that my reality, our universe, is someone else’s game; that none of ‘us’ are real and nothing we see and feel is real either. I want to think, in such a game, that I’m a ‘projection’ of one of those critters and that when the ‘game’ is over I’ll get sucked back into its consciousness and ‘know’ then as s/he knows now and I don‘t, that I (and each of us) were really real, that we were they, and that I was not just a paper doll (or less) that gets thrown in the trash when the game is over. In such a game, where nothing is real, we at least should be a little real;-)

    Sex and Apes –
    Sex has got to be a universal law and force, maybe just in this universe, and maybe that’s OK too. But it’s gotta’ be just like gravity. No other way to explain what’s happening around, to, and in us. Gotta’ be!

    Knowledge and Thoughts and Hope –
    Please don’t think that I ‘know’ anything I say, I actually say quite a lot and know very little; and the older I get the less I know and the more I say. And if I come out and say “I believe…” it really applies to whatever it was I was trying to express at that point in time –which I may not have expressed very well at all– but I do ‘hope’ that there’s more to all this than a meaningless blink of an eye; that ‘we’ ‘existed’ ‘before’ ‘now’ ‘and’ ‘exist’ ‘after’ ‘now’. OK! Back to watching the shadows move against the back cave wall..

  31. Anonymous says:

    If you are going to discuss genetics you should really keep up on the more recent work. The hypothesis you are promoting here was established when the tools for investigating the genome were rather crude. More modern tools have allowed more detailed examinations of the the supposed fusion site and show that it is NOT a plausible hypothesis!!

    “Our analysis of the available genomic data shows that the sequence features encompassing the purported chromosome 2 fusion site are too ambiguous to accurately infer a fusion event. The data actually suggest that the core ~800 bp region containing the fusion site is not a unique cryptic and degenerate head-to-head fusion of telomeres, but a distinct motif that is represented throughout the human genome with no orthologous counterpart in the chimpanzee genome on either chromosome 2A or 2B. The DNA sequence evidence for a purported inactivated cryptic centromere site on chromosome 2, supposedly composed of centromeric alphoid repeats, is even more ambiguous and untenable than the case for a fusion site. The alphoid sequences in this region are quite variable and do not cluster with known functional human centromeric sequences. In addition, no ortholog for a cryptic centromere homologous to the alphoid sequence at human chromosome 2 exists on chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B.”


  32. Pascvaks says:

    @Anon – “Our analysis of the available genomic data shows that the sequence features encompassing the purported chromosome 2 fusion site are too ambiguous to accurately infer a fusion event.”

    Guess that means we’re going to have to twiddle our thumbs and wait a little longer; oh well, nice to know we’re not alone thinking that something ‘whatever’ and ‘2’ were, are, will be in the mix and we weren’t just whistling Dixie. Amazing isn’t it?

  33. adolfogiurfa says:

    BTW: The Rh negative factor in blood is based allegedly on a “mutation of unknown origin” that began somewhere in Europe thousands of years ago and spread mainly to Spain, England and Ireland.
    Waiting for an article about this and your “celtic” blood line.

  34. E.M.Smith says:


    Didn’t realize that about Rh Neg… Hmm….

    Don’t know that I’d trust some random slightly whacky web site, though… Then again, I’m Rh Neg IIRC and fit some of their descriptions….

    From the wiki on Rh, it looks to me like it’s a ‘left over’ from the Neanderthal mix. Also how much you like cats. (As Egyptians liked cats and Africa has lots of wild cats, not surprising that their blood group is the one that handles cat origin infections better…)

    For a long time, the origin of RHD polymorphism was an evolutionary enigma. Before the advent of modern medicine, the carriers of the rarer allele (e.g. RhD-negative women in a population of RhD positives or RhD-positive men in a population of RhD negatives) were at a disadvantage as some of their children (RhD-positive children born to preimmunised RhD-negative mothers) were at a higher risk of fetal or newborn death or health impairment from hemolytic disease. It was suggested that higher tolerance of RhD-positive heterozygotes against Toxoplasma-induced impairment of reaction time [19][20] and Toxoplasma-induced increase of risk of traffic accident[21] could counterbalance the disadvantage of the rarer allele and could be responsible both for the initial spread of the RhD allele among the RhD-negative population and for a stable RhD polymorphism in most human populations. It was also suggested that differences in the prevalence of Toxoplasma infection between geographical regions (0–95%) could also explain the striking variation in the frequency of RhD-negative alleles between populations. According to some parasitologists [19] it is possible that the better psychomotor performance of RhD-negative subjects in the Toxoplasma-free population could be the reason for spreading of the “d allele” (deletion) in the European population. In contrast to the situation in Africa and certain (but not all) regions of Asia, the abundance of wild cats (definitive hosts of Toxoplasma gondii) in Europe was very low before the advent of the domestic cat.

    Don’t think it has anything to do with Space Aliens nor Reptile Ancestors though…. just how likely a population was to be exposed to infected cats…

    Looks like the Rh+ factor is a CO2 channel in cell membranes… wonder if that’s related to why I can go without breathing so long? Gasses just not moving around as much in any case. Less rapid CO2 build up in the blood… Hmmm….. I sometimes ‘forget to breath” for a minute at a time… and have ‘held my breath’ for over 2 1/2 minutes with hyperventilation first. Often breath slowly and have a low food / oxygen demand. Maybe I am part lizard ;-) Like to sleep a lot too and tend to become cool and torporous in the cold… I’ve joked that I’m preparing to hybernate ;-) But I simply don’t burn up all my energy trying to stay hot. I let extremities go quite cold (80 F or even lower for fingers and toes and noses and ears) while skin all over heads down too. Only the body core stays warm. Breathing slows too. Conserving fuel and warmth. I’ve been “numb cold” for hours at a time. (Once, spent most of the day in about 45 F to 50 F water at Santa Cruz. Was quite cold to the touch and extremities were near numb. Took several hours to warm up (even with lots of external heat). Drove home with heater on the whole way. Spent a few hours under blankets trying to warm up.)

    Wonder if it’s one of those Neanderthal cold survival things… go cold and slow, do low CO2 turnover and slow CO2 transport to ‘back up respiration’…

    Probably be a while before I can look any deeper into it. I’m way backed up on other stuff…

  35. E.M.Smith says:



    In a previous study on homologues of the human Rh-Hr types in apes, weak agglutination of orangutan red cells by human anti-Rho and anti-hr’ sera was observed. Lack of adequate amounts of orangutan red cells needed for absorption experiments did not allow to ascertain whether the weak reactions were due to variants of the Rho and hr’ factors on orangutan red cells or to anti-species (species-specific) agglutinins against orangutan red cells in the human typing sera. The present experiments indicate that homologues of the human blood factors Rhohr’ as well as rh’, rh” and hr” are lacking in orangutan red cells which are, therefore, comparable to the human Rh null red cells. In the search for homologues of chimpanzee C-E-F blood groups in other ape species, tests on 15 gorillas disclosed the presence in gorillas of polymorphism for Cc and Fc while Cc antithetical to Ccin chimpanzees, as well Ec were both found to be absent from gorilla red cells.

    I think that ‘comparable to the human Rh null’ means ‘Rh -‘ in Orangutans, but that the data are pretty darned poor.

    Looks to me like there’s plenty of room for my “Orang / Chimp” cross theory instead of a “space aliens made us” or a “Royal Reptiles” thesis…

    Personally, it looks a whole lot easier to me to think that the “Rh null” humans in Africa tended to die out from toxoplasmosis from cats while the “Rh null” Neanderthals didn’t have that problem (and maybe had a bit more ‘ginger’ Orang ancestry ;-) so explains pretty much everything. Only requires that we don’t know what Orangutan blood groups were 6 million years ago. Given that we don’t know that much about them even today, that seems pretty easy to accept…

  36. Pingback: Aliens, Monotheism, Genetic Engineering, Consciousness, Animal Cruelty, and the Threshold for Humanity | Koanic Soul

  37. p.g.sharrow says:

    A Fox article on “bigfoot” DNA:
    Grammy was a busy old girl! I rate this as a weak maybe. pg

  38. Pingback: Edenism 101, Part Two: Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, Melonheads and Starchildren

  39. Pingback: Edenism 101, Part Three: The End of Eden

Comments are closed.