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."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Should I remember you? You could have been double-parked without getting a ticket in all the time you've been on crevo threads. If you had those other links, you'd have produced them by now. Anybody can Google.
More lies! Do you have the wit to know or care you're an embarrassment to everything you claim to stand for here?
>So Darwin's recanting has gone from "historical fact" to "theory of yours"
I was just explaining as to the reasons, or what made him recant.
"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?"
I am on topic. NOWHERE does it say that Lady Hope was at Darwin's deathbed. Not in Lady Hope's account. Not in any of the links that have been provided. Where do you get that she ever said she was at his deathbed?
Excellent!!!
Bravo!!!
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It was a post 56 in another thread a couple of days ago, not #56 from this thread.
In it I posted the family tree of the primates, with some of the ERV evidence for it.
Lady Hope met with Darwin during several days during which Darwin made the recant. He could have recanted at any day or hour of those days.
LOL!
"Lady Hope met with Darwin during several days during which Darwin made the recant. He could have recanted at any day or hour of those days."
You just said it was at his deathbed. Now you are weaseling out. Typical.
God Almighty Himself could come to Earth and publically state that Darwin did not recant his theory and TheBrotherhood would not only continue to make the claim, but also claim that God's testimony proved it.
"Why do you favour teaching non-science alongside science? What rationale is there for such a thing?"
Well, I thought I wrote down my rational for it in my post...
"What do you mean "Christian thought"? The major proponents of ID claim that it is not religious in nature. Or are you referring to "creationism"? If so, why do you think that Christian creationism would necessarily be taught, rather than the creationist story of some other religion? And what has a lack of moral teachings to do with evolution in the first place? I hardly see an alleged lack of moral teaching -- if such a thing is happening -- to be justification for lying to students about the fundamental nature of science."
Well, since this is an English, Christian, Western based society, I just assumed if a Creationist story ought to be taught, it should be the Judeo-Christian one. For the same reason only English should be spoken in schools. A lack of moral teaching doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with evolution, if you knew how to read well you would have seen my validation for teaching ID or Creationism and how it might help with values. I also said that evolution AND ID/Creationism should be taught. That means ID etc. could be taught as philosophy or something else other than science too. I really don't want to be a jerk, but I'm tired of people replying to my posts and saying things where if they actually READ what I wrote, they would get what I was trying to say and it would negate the questions they ask in their reply. For somebody who knows what a "complete and total non-sequitur" you really don't have good comprehension skills.
I'm not going to retort to your ad hominem attacks with further ad hominem attacks.
Can't you just stay on topic w/o making personal attacks?
No problem, I just noticed that the post was only in reply to me that's all. It just happens a lot on various threads. Oh well. :)
Let me know when you're ready to stop lying.
>You just said it was at his deathbed.
Darwin illness was a protracted one. During this time he lay in the bed that eventually was his deathbed. The recant took place while Darwin lay in his deathbed. And by that it does not mean that he recanted in his last hours, only that he recanted on a given day during Lady Hope visits while he lay in his deathbed.
I hope this straightens this out.
Yet another demonstration that no creationist is so stupid a shameless and brazen liar that the quivering puppy won't cheerlead for them.
Nothing needs straightening out but your chocolate eclair of a spine. A historical fact is the kind of thing easily shown to be true. What you claimed as historical fact is barely possible and by all credible accounts fiction.
Why is it better to be a brazen liar for absolutely all to see than wrong on an obscure and irrelevant point?
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.