Posted on 01/23/2006 4:31:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have found genetic evidence that seems to support a controversial hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees may be more closely related to each other than chimps are to the other two species of great apes – gorillas and orangutans. They also found that humans evolved at a slower rate than apes.
Appearing in the January 23, 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, biologist Soojin Yi reports that the rate of human and chimp molecular evolution – changes that occur over time at the genetic level – is much slower than that of gorillas and orangutans, with the evolution of humans being the slowest of all.
As species branch off along evolutionary lines, important genetic traits, like the rate of molecular evolution also begin to diverge. They found that the speed of this molecular clock in humans and chimps is so similar, it suggests that certain human-specific traits, like generation time, began to evolve one million years ago - very recently in terms of evolution. The amount of time between parents and offspring is longer in humans than apes. Since a long generation time is closely correlated with the evolution of a big brain, it also suggests that developmental changes specific to humans may also have evolved very recently.
In a large-scale genetic analysis of approximately 63 million base pairs of DNA, the scientists studied the rate at which the base pairs that define the differences between species were incorrectly paired due to errors in the genetic encoding process, an occurrence known as substitution.
"For the first time, we've shown that the difference in the rate of molecular evolution between humans and chimpanzees is very small, but significant, suggesting that the evolution of human-specific life history traits is very recent," said Yi.
Most biologists believe that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor before the evolutionary lines diverged about 5-7 million years ago. According to the analysis, one million years ago the molecular clock in the line that became modern humans began to slow down. Today, the human molecular clock is only 3 percent slower than the molecular clock of the chimp, while it has slowed down 11 percent from the gorilla's molecular clock.
This slow down in the molecular clock correlates with a longer generation time because substitutions need to be passed to the next generation in order to have any lasting effect on the species,
"A long generation time is an important trait that separates humans from their evolutionary relatives," said Navin Elango, graduate student in the School of Biology and first author of the research paper. "We used to think that apes shared one generation time, but that's not true. There's a lot more variation. In our study, we found that the chimpanzee's generation time is a lot closer to that of humans than it is to other apes."
The results also confirm that there is very little difference in the alignable regions of the human and chimp genomes. Taken together, the study's findings suggest that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than the chimps are to the other great apes.
"I think we can say that this study provides further support for the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees should be in one genus, rather than two different genus' because we not only share extremely similar genomes, we share similar generation time," said Yi.
Even though the 63 million base pairs they studied is a large sample, it's still a small part of the genome, Yi said. "If we look at the whole genome, maybe it's a different story, but there is evidence in the fossil record that this change in generation time occurred very recently, so the genetic evidence and the fossil data seem to fit together quite well so far."
Not to worry; a few months reading these threads will dispel such naive expectations....
There is a nearly inexhaustible supply of people who are willing to resort to all manner of mendacity in their zeal to impugn the theory of Evolution, or its proponents, no matter how stupid or sleazy it makes them look.
Hey, you evolutionits do a lot of cut-and-paste yourselves w/o crediting the author, unless you are the author of the text, of course. Cut-and-paste is just as bad as not giving credit to the author of a quote, me thinks.
Um... I hate to tell you this, but Pittsburgh Man WAS on the cover of Life magazine.
It was the December 13, 1968 issue, to be exact. He is depicted in competition with Indianapolis Man.
I dont mind cut and paste being used in posts, so long as they are accurate, they are what they are purported to be, and they are attributed to the correct person....those cut and paste jobs, are fine for me, as they provide valuable information...but when someone fails completely to even read or comprehend the cut and paste that they are using, and in their haste, make terrible and often hilarious errors, that is a completely different matter...the thing is, they try to cover it up, call it something less than what it really is, and then they run away, and fail to poste again, because, of course, they have been outed and are looking silly, and have absolutely no credibility after the incidence...
So I think you are totally think wrong...
Excellent...
I've expressed my opinions and ideas and at times facts - or what I believed at the time to be facts - that I have read in this FR threads.
And when those "facts" were instantly debunked - by creationist sites no less - you didn't back down, you insisted that those lies were true.
If I state something as fact and the experts in these evolution threads believe that it is not, then please do correct me.
We have. You kept repeating the lies.
If there is a divergence of opinions as what constitutes a fact, then I tend to research the issue on my own, but may not conclusively say for sure whether what I have arrived at is indeed a fact or a supposition.
All of which is a fancy way of trying to distance yourself from the lies you continued to spread even after they were shown to be false, without actually admitting that they were false.
Cute.
I'm not a scientist and hope this clear up any misunderstanding and me. (sic)
We're still waiting for you to acknowledge that you took a quote out of context and attributed it to Darwin to back up a false statement. All you need to do is admit that you were wrong, that Darwin did not say that in 377 that "Darwin wrote that blacks were very closely related to their ape ancestors, but there was a group that was even closer- the Irish."
Are you ever going to admit that you were wrong, or will you persist with your course that you "believed (these lies) at the time to be facts"?
To clarify, Indianapolis Man was originally classified as Baltimore Man. This error was corrected in 1984.
I heard that Pittsburgh Man wrote 500 doctoral theses for the scopes monkey trial
Do let us know if he is who he claims to be. We've caught him in so many lies already today, one more would be the icing.
Yeah, but he retracted them on his deathbed.
Actually one of his retractions was found a full mile from his deathbed
Nice.
Have you completed your research yet, on the story about Charles Darwin recanting his Theory of Evolution on his deathbed?...just plug into Google, and a myriad of websites will come up, explaining this whole thing in great detail...I will even post you a link, which goes into more detail than most other websites, including research provided by an man who has been a Darwin biographer for more than 20yrs, and has really looked into this matter...if you are truly interested in finding out the truth of this, do follow this link, and read what is written...
If however, you are like others I have met, and chose not to dig out the truth, but chose to remain uninformed on the subject, than that is to your detriment...preferring to believe lies, because it somehow supports your beliefs, is never, in my mind, a good thing...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
I agree with your first para.
I did not make post #377.
I think you meant to respond to the poster of 377.
highball,
I did not make post 377 that you attribute to me. You should have post 426 retracted by the Moderator. That's an insult to me.
Fffft, you evos just make this up as you go along. First it's Indianapolis Man evolved from Baltimore Man, now it's the other way around. Can't you silly evos make up your mind.
Oh, and if your theories are true where are all the transitionals like half Indianapolis Man and half Baltimore Man?
I mean has anyone ever witnessed a Baltimore Man turn into an Indianapolis Man?
Or better yet, has a Baltimore Man ever given birth to an Indianapolis Man?
No? Well, I thought as much.
I did not make post 377 that you attribute to me. You should have post 426 retracted by the Moderator. That's an insult to me.
You are correct. I confused you with another poster - you did not claim that Darwin said blacks were more closely related to monkeys. That was warpcorebreach, and I am sorry for confusing the two of you. I apologize.
Kindly allow me to revise my post #426, only dealing with your own words, TheBrotherhood. Taking out the final inaccurate sentence, it should have read:
Wow. What an amazing collection of weaseling.
I've expressed my opinions and ideas and at times facts - or what I believed at the time to be facts - that I have read in this FR threads.And when those "facts" were instantly debunked - by creationist sites no less - you didn't back down, you insisted that those lies were true.
If I state something as fact and the experts in these evolution threads believe that it is not, then please do correct me.We have. You kept repeating the lies.
If there is a divergence of opinions as what constitutes a fact, then I tend to research the issue on my own, but may not conclusively say for sure whether what I have arrived at is indeed a fact or a supposition. All of which is a fancy way of trying to distance yourself from the lies you continued to spread even after they were shown to be false, without actually admitting that they were false.Cute.
There. I have corrected my error.
Would you now correct yours, and admit that the lies you posted again and again about Darwin somehow "recanting" were just that?
Will you admit that the "facts" you repeatedly made up supporting your initial assertion were also lies?
"There. I have corrected my error."
Thanks. Much appreciated here.
I think I'm going to research a few things now...
Well, that should be interesting. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.