Thread: genetic distance

i read the following passage in a recent article in New Scientist :

"The line that led to bonobos and chimps split from the one that led to Homo sapiens around 6 million years ago, and bonobos and chimps parted about 2.5 million years ago. However, genetic studies suggest we are slightly closer to bonobos than we are to chimps, ..."

now this puzzles me : if bonobos and common chimps split from one another 3.5 million years after humans did, shouldn't the genetic distance between them and us be the same for both types of chimp ? or am i missing something ?

A couple of thoughts:
-If one reproduces at a faster rate than the other, there are more opportunities for genetic variation to occur.

-Changeable environment for one species could promote fast adaptation and a shift in the gene pool, perhaps increasing the frequency of certain new mutations where as a more constant environment for the other may make it less likely for certain new variations to spread.

-I'm not sure what affects the likelihood of genetic mutation occurring, but it is possible that this could differ between the two.

not sure if i agree with your link between adaptation and genetic variability, the main reason being that most of our DNA is junk DNA and does not get translated into enzymes and building body parts

that's why imo molecular clocks can work : most of the DNA just records random mutation which swamps the small portion of DNA that gets expressed

but i can see where you're coming from : e.g. the common chimp could have accumulated more changes to its genetic code since the days of the common ancestor

is there anyone who can confirm that this is measured fact and not just wishful thinking just because we've started to perceive that bonobos seem to be more like humans in their social characteristics ?

Molecular clocks work on mitochondrial DNA don't they? I wouldn't mind knowing the methods of the studies and the amount of dna they tested, as this would no doubt affect the result.

as far as i'm aware molecular clocks don't need to be restricted to mitochondrial DNA, it's just that for fairly recent events it's the most convenient one, since it's one of the faster ones