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."
Nor most asylums, I imagine.
Someone who declares that something is a historical fact when in fact it rests on a vague unsupported assertion by someone who had every interest in making such stories up. Someone who keeps changing his story. Someone who repeatedly misrepresents links that he posts, purporting that they say the opposite of what they conclude. Someone who claims to have presented numerous links to substantiations rather than the just one that he has actually linked to (and even that one was at best ambivalent about the story). Behaviour like that is considered lying in honest circles. Maybe not where you come from though.
Lady Hope could have visited Darwin and not have been remembered by his family for the time or times she was there. So TheBrotherhood raising this possibility does not make him a liar no matter how many some of the nutballs on your side scream it out, and no matter how many atheist evo web sites they link up too.
What about the numerous Christian websites, including the arch-creationist site AiG, which also say that the story is almost certainly false?
Also Darwin could well have made his recantation to Lady hope and only to Lady Hope.
Yeah, right. He knew that his wife, who he loved deeply, was desparate for him to recant, but he just told some evangelical stranger, and no-one else, 6 months before he died, when he wasn't even yet ill. If you believe that I've got a Swiss bank account that you can send all your money to. I'll *guarantee* in return that you get to heaven, and send you London Bridge by return of post.
From the article, "Elizabeth Cotton was born in 1842 in Tasmania, Australia."
BUT...
Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
[Forehead smack]
It's so OBVIOUS!
There is much room for alternate explanations of the evidence. What we are currently witnessing is a large segment of the scientific community feeling the freedom to lay their ideas on the table. Previously, the liberal element of Academia censored the free thought in the Hard Sciences because the information affected the information they wish to indoctrinate.
What we are seeing is a schism between Liberal Academia and the more conservative "Hard Sciences". As the momentum continues we will see much more extensive research being spent evaluating the evidence from a Design perspective. The Book stores are becoming full of Intelligent Design best sellers, which in a free market translates to money for future R&D and a more sophisticated presentation of the supporting science.
Exciting times we are living in.
Yeah, OK, so what's ERV?
You say yours is better because "She documented it." No, "she" said it, and there's even doubt as to who "she" is.
The Lady Hope Story first appears in an American Baptist newspaper the Watchman Examiner on August 15, 1915. The author was identified only as a "consecrated English woman", "Lady Hope", but research by L.G. Pine a former editor of Burke's Peerage found no other Lady Hope other than Elizabeth Hope who was adult in the 1880s and still alive in 1915."She" never owned up to being "Lady Hope." What kind of documentation is that? A story that doesn't fit the known history of no certain authorship? That's my "Roosevelt visited Hitler" example. The proof I'm right is you can't prove I'm wrong. That makes it a historical fact by TheBrotherhood's standards.
Nope. Her story has him really on his deathbed. He's not healthy and strolling through the parks in London or whatever. It really doesn't work.
I recant this placemark
He called it the Recant or Bury Tale.
Good one!
You mean outlawing Christianity, right?
Beware, comrades, he's on to us!
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.