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."
LOL!
Typical coward behavior. They got F this and F that before they run away with their tail between their legs.
You're dismissed too, pal.
So I gathered.
Data that doesn't point towards the target result is open to be revised, rejected, fudged or ignored
That's always a possibility, and it has occasionally happened in science.
But once you're caught, you're out. No more fun in the labs, no more grants, looking forward to work you aren't trained for...
That's a pretty stiff penalty, and there really don't appear to be that many willing to risk it. (It will be interesting to follow the career of the Korean cloner).
Keep in mind, I'm talking faked results, not honest error.
It's much more forgiving in a lot of other fields: preaching, lawyering, being Marion Barry (I'm in DC), anyplace really where you can get by on BS sometimes.
This most certainly went on with the EPA study of 2nd hand smoke. I'm sure Global Warming is another
EPA scientists don't typically have the penalty facing them like real scientists do. They have lifetime employment, like any other civil servant, and they don't have to publish or perish.
There is evidence of global warming, both here and on Mars. This seems to make the cause the Sun rather than fossil fuels. The computerized models aren't impressive to me.
Innate homosexuality another. It's a long list. How about Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some combination of recessive genes was associated with a higher percentage of homosexuality; but I agree that the "gay gene" is a bunch of hooey. ADD is over-diagnosed by public school teachers, but it does exist.
Academia has its share of liars, grandstanders, and phonies.
True everywhere. But my gut feel is that scientists, as a whole, value honesty more than most people do. It makes their work much easier to trust their colleagues, and they get mad wasting time trying to reproduce fraudulent results.
I think that's part of the reason the Evo side gets so enraged by the constant stream of lies, (including quote mining) from the creos.
Evidently that sort of behavior is common and accepted in the circles that a lot of creationists/IDers inhabit.
Diagnosed the public school teachers with no further comment than that. Shouldn't doctors be the ones to diagnose medical conditions? Maybe that's the implied point you were making. Anyway, thanks again for the reply. Yes I remain skeptical. I'm skeptical of everything that smacks of political correctness. I read on another thread that "Homophobia" is being pushed as a "Mental Disorder" My point is that there doesn't seem to be any end to it. And, as they say, "You can't make this stuff up!"
So saying that his deathbed recantation is a "historical fact" is wrong, right? And we shouldn't have had this endless Dummy Dance of not admitting same, right?
Also no one on your side has really addressed adequately that a person may not reveal in his heart even to close members of his family.
Enough. You go lost because you want to go lost.
Exactly
Not at all. To call something a historical fact, you need more evidence than one person's saying that something happened.
You seem to have a very low opinion of the value of the lives of those who disagree with you on this issue.
So much for spirituality.
"Yes, suffering and death certainly bring people (hopefully) into line."
You sound like a Nazi or Communist. Not a Christian.
That's absurd on its face.
Your friend claimed something was a "historical fact." When pressed, he took a quote out of context, twisting it to appeat to support his baseless claim.
Interestingly, not one creationist has come forward to decry this lying. You have come forward to defend it. That tells us all we need to know.
The quote was taken from a long article and I quoted the pertinent part, not the entire article. But there are no modifications to the quote - it's verbatim as I found it. Did you expect me to quote the entire article? If I quote a paragraph or part therof from a book, by your logic it's an edited quote since I did not quote the entire book.
You took a quote out of context to twist its meaning.
The article was debunking Lady Hope's story. Your post made it appear that it was supporting the story.
I don't expect you to quote anything in its entirety. But I also don't expect you to think you can get away with changing the meaning by what you choose to leave out.
It's dishonest. And it is editing, for that reason.
That was on 24 Jan, 2006. Funny.
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.