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."
He called it the Recant or Bury Tale.
Much of this thread was about the end for various people, now it has devolved into puns.
Armageddon tired of it!
:)
Canterbury placemarker.
"Momentum" building on what? How can you have "much more extensive" research starting not with "less extensive" research but with literally NONE???
The evidence is overwhelming that the only support lies in the inconsistent testimony of the Widow Denny, who is revealed as an unreliable narratior, who was less than scrupulous in honesty and probity.
I own The Number!
Hey! Resent that! ("Lady Hope", John Alexander Dowie, Ken Ham.) Australians are good with the comvincing (even of the impossible).
No amount of research will help when there is no evidence to start with.
The only way you can evaluate "the evidence from a Design perspective" is with a theistic version of science; that means throwing out the normal rules of science and replacing them with religion as the dominating criterion; if your results and studies don't agree with our religious dogma, you're outta here!
And its not just any religion, but the fundamentalist Christian version. If you do not agree with this statement, just ask yourself: do you think the current US intelligent design movement is promoting Buddhist, Islamic, Catholic, Native American or any other versions of creation?
The Wedge Strategy actually outlined the method for establishing this "theistic science" a decade ago. Are we to believe it is not being pushed by a lot of ID supporters now?
(Paging Nehemiah Scudder!)
So now you are saying it is foolish to begin scientific research with a hypothesis. I thought an exhibition of mind control like this only came from elitists within Liberal Academia. Don't be so afraid.
An open minded comment from your side of the discussion looks more like this:
Have at it. Use all of the resources at your disposal. We know from history that persuasion that is founded on truth, ultimately wins the day. Lies and misconceptions always end up with the light of truth finding them out.The more the truth can be exposed, the more scientifically enlightened mankind becomes. Often the truth only gets exposed when a person who is determined to prove themselves right, ends up proving an opposing theory. No fear!
The oppression you folks are pandering is something to behold. It goes beyond defensive. Just like the politicians who were convinced that a non-Galilean reality must be enforced on the minds of the population to keep people from being distracted by something so obviously wrong; your side is attempting to censure any opposing theory that doesn't line up with conventional wisdom.
That's a new one! I'll have to remember that!
But seriously, my post was about the lack of evidence. Your response has not provided any evidence, nor even hinted at there being any.
If you want to do science, forget the "mind control," "elitists within Liberal Academia," "oppression you folks are pandering," and "attempting to censure any opposing theory" paranoia and bring on the evidence.
Its that simple. Either you have some evidence, or you do not. Either what you are doing is science, or it is belief.
But talking about mind control, elitists, oppression, censorship and other gibberish is not conducive to a good scientific discussion. Try the psych department.
That was the exact point of my original post that you commented on. We are seeing more and more credentialed scientists weigh in in favor of Intelligent Design, which means more scientific eyes taking the topic seriously.
I'm not Australian. Why should I?
Well, here you go....
"It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
and....
"Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
Examples of honesty and integrity among the scientific community.
I think someone needs to start a pinglist of science fraud. There's been tons of articles lately - the fake oral cancer "study" from, IIRC, Norway and the fake Korean guy come to mind.
Scientists wear no haloes of pure motivation as a group. In my mind they're around the same notch as used car salesmen and the lawyers that have those huge sticking out ads in phone books.
Yeah, those damn scientists! What have those crooks ever done for us? Society would be a lot better off without scientists!!
You can't really complain, you are a MAdMan after all. IT's your lot in life....
Right. Back to the caves.
[I think the real problem is that science is coming up with answers some folks don't want to hear. That's why the Wedge Strategy advocated "theistic science." (Paging Nehemiah Scudder!)]
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.