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."
>Lady Hope may have reawakend Darwin's long dormant faith when no one else had.
So true, RunningWolf. So true.
Darwin didn't become an atheist until he was in his forties. So, as it so often happens, man will go back to truth and repent of his sins. I believe he DID repent and disavowed his so-called theory of evolution. The witness, Lady Hope, makes it more believable considering that he did so (recant) in his last hours of his death. It's a theory of mine that Darwin recanted because in his mind he knew he had nothing to lose and much to gain. Whether the recant and conversion was sincere, we may never know. But one thing is for certain - he did recant, repent and come back to Jesus.
You can't recant a recantation.
"The witness, Lady Hope, makes it more believable considering that he did so (recant) in his last hours of his death."
By all accounts, if the encounter happened at all, it was in October 1881. He didn't die for another 6 months. His children and wife were all present, as was his doctor. No Lady Hope. HER OWN account never says it was at his deathbed.
Your story is getting more and more illogical. And dishonest.
>You have provided no other links.
My other links are dispersed between this thread and other crevo threads and most of the authoritative articles they lead to lean toward a recant.
Your story is getting more and more illogical. And dishonest.
Please Don't Feed the Trolls.
Thank you.
....and, ergo, a troll.
So you can't find a shred of positive evidence anywhere for what you called a "historical fact." By now, you have to realize everyone reading this thread can see this.
Why can't you just say, "I was wrong about Darwin's deathbed recantation being a historical fact?" The only question left is that of what is the matter with you that you can't admit to what everyone but everyone can see.
>"Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!
The utterance "Eppur si muove la terra!" was uttered upon leaving his audience with the then Pope, as I recall reading.
I used to ask, "Why can't a creationist be a man?" but it turned out too many of them really weren't men.
>>" And he subsequently recanted his recantation: "Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!"
>Lady Hope says she was there too, so it must be true. :)
I know you're joking, but that sounds foolish.
What it doesn't do is explain the origin of life on this planet, or the minute biochemical process of mutation and natural selection that according to you and your zealot ilk prove that the Theory of evolution is actually the Law of evolution.
As to why you have based your entire pathetic, souless, anti-religious, anti-American life on biological and social Darwinism is beyond me. You need to take a long quiet sabbatical in the country and contemplate your navel!
TROLL-FEST IN PROGRESS!
>You can't recant a recantation.
Yes, you can negate what you previously negated.
An anology is an offer by an offeror to an offeree and the offeree making a counter offer to the offeror. The offeror can then accept or make a counter-counter offer.
>Your story is getting more and more illogical. And dishonest.
You evolutionists are convoluted. You first ask for links that elucidate and further elaborate on my points, and when I do you resort to personal attacks. Can't we just stay on topic?
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.