Posted on 01/29/2002 7:23:19 PM PST by Sabertooth
We Dodged Extinction
Pruned Family Tree Leaves Little Genetic Variety
Just one group of chimpanzees can have more genetic diversity than all 6 billion humans on the planet. (Corel)
Special to ABCNEWS.com
A worldwide research program has come up with astonishing evidence that humans have come so close to extinction in the past that its surprising were here at all.
Pascal Gagneux, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at San Diego, and other members of a research team studied genetic variability among humans and our closest living relatives, the great apes of Africa.
Humanoids are believed to have split off from chimpanzees about 5 million to 6 million years ago. With the passage of all that time, humans should have grown at least as genetically diverse as our cousins. That turns out to be not true.
We actually found that one single group of 55 chimpanzees in west Africa has twice the genetic variability of all humans, Gagneux says. In other words, chimps who live in the same little group on the Ivory Coast are genetically more different from each other than you are from any human anywhere on the planet.
The branch lengths illustrate the number of genetic differences, not only between species, but among species as well. The pruned bush for humans shows how little genetic diversity exists. (Marco Doelling/ABCNEWS.com)
The Family Bush
The family tree shows that the human branch has been pruned, Gagneux says. Our ancestors lost much of their original variability.
That makes perfectly good sense, says Bernard Wood, the Henry R. Luce Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University and an expert on human evolution.
The amount of genetic variation that has accumulated in humans is just nowhere near compatible with the age of the species, Wood says. That means youve got to come up with a hypothesis for an event that wiped out the vast majority of that variation.
The most plausible explanation, he adds, is that at least once in our past, something caused the human population to drop drastically. When or how often that may have happened is anybodys guess. Possible culprits include disease, environmental disaster and conflict.Almost Extinct
The evidence would suggest that we came within a cigarette papers thickness of becoming extinct, Wood says.
Gagneux, who has spent the last 10 years studying chimpanzees in Africa, says the implications are profound.
If you have a big bag full of marbles of different colors, and you lose most of them, then you will probably end up with a small bag that wont have all the colors that you had in the big bag, he says.
Similarly, if the size of the human population was severely reduced some time in the past, or several times, the colors that make up our genetic variability will also be reduced.
If that is indeed what happened, then we should be more like each other, genetically speaking, than the chimps and gorillas of Africa. And thats just what the research shows.
We all have this view in our minds that we [humans] started precariously as sort of an ape-like creature and our numbers grew continuously, adds Wood. Were so used to the population increasing inexorably over the past few hundred years that we think it has always been like that.
But if it had, Gagneux notes, our genetic variability should be at least as great as that of apes.A Stormy Past
Gagneux is the lead author of a report that appeared in the April 27 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, carried out with researchers in Germany, Switzerland and the United States, is the first to examine large numbers of all four ape species in Africa.
We can do that now because new technology allows us to non-invasively take some hair, or even some fruit that these apes chew, and then we get their DNA from a couple of cells that stick to a hair or a piece of fruit they chewed.
Then they compared the DNA variability of apes and chimps to that of 1,070 DNA sequences collected by other researchers from humans around the world. They also added the DNA from a bone of a Neanderthal in a German museum. The results, the researchers say, are very convincing.
We show that these taxa [or species] have very different amounts and patterns of genetic variation, with humans being the least variable, they state.
Yet humans have prevailed, even though low genetic variability leaves us more susceptible to disease.
Humans, with what little variation they have, seem to maximize their genetic diversity, Gagneux says.
Its ironic, he notes, that after all these years the biggest threat to chimpanzees is human intrusion into their habitats. When he returned to Africa to study a group of chimps he had researched earlier, Gagneux found them gone.
They were dead, he says, and I mean the whole population had disappeared in five years.
Yet as our closest living relatives, chimps still have much to teach us about ourselves.
Lee Dyes column appears Wednesdays on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.
You should be in marketing. You can sweep inbred mutants under the rug as if there were no underlying design flaw.
LOL! Yes, we humans are so shameful - we should be punished severely. . .(/sarcasm)
Maybe this is why we have to put up with the likes of Jesse JackA**, little tommy dashHole, et al? LOL!
I can't drive my Mustang across the ocean. Is that a design flaw?
Please see the scripture in post 19. Chimps are clean animals so they were taken by sevens, male and female. So there were 14 Chimps, not 2.
Likewise there were 3 breeding couples of humans. Noah and his wife had only three sons so his (and her) genes are represented in each of those couples. So you really only have the genetic makeup of one family and 3 other people. (who as noted in later posts were probably closely related anyway)
God Save America (Please)
BTW, you should know better than to toss the red herring concept of mutagenic inbreeding into this debate. No one claims mutation arises from inbreeding.
Good catch on the sevens, I missed it and that was my post.
But I don't think the "sevens" can mean "seven pairs" any more than the "twos" mean "two pairs." If the chimps are "clean animals," then there were seven of them in that story, not fourteen.
Let's cut to the chase. You aren't prepared to admit there are any "flaws" in nature. Everything is perfect -- everything MUST be perfect -- otherwise God screwed up.
I seem to recall a TV show some years back that laid out a scenario that had the Mediterranean basin, dry, well below sea level. Plate movements (possibly as a manifestation of Devine wrath) resulted in Gibraltar being opened up rather suddenly, cataclysmicaly flooding the area. If any men, or all men were living there at that time, the remnant would certainly have been scattered and isolated. The evidence showed was of damage to the sea floor inside the strait as from a tremendous waterfall type event.
Its probably reasonable to assume that an event does not have to be global to nearly exterminate a population that is not global. 70,000 years is nowhere near long enough to get to where we are today in terms of the differences between the races of men.
Those of us old enough, and dweeby enough, to have read the Conan series in print back in the 60s may recall the maps that showed just this geography.
Alternately, Buckminster Fuller wrote in his book Critical Path, published sometime in the late 70s, that his fave theory in fact DID involve global flooding, caused naturally enough by the Ice Ages. It this scenario, the cradle of humanity was the archipelagos of southeast asia. Successive waves of humanity were flooded out of the area by periods of rising and lowering sea levels.
Are you projecting? That ain't my chase.
If God created things that either aren't initially perfect, or are capable of imperfection, does that mean He "screwed up?"
How can we determine if something has a design flaw if we don't know the purpose of the design?
I don't have any trouble getting my mind around the notion that God created a Universe that may well be 12 to 16 billion years old, and that for reasons of His own, He has allowed imperfections exist in it.
Look at the phrasing in verse 2. " ... by sevens, the male and his female". Obviously taking about couples (mated pairs) here. If there were only seven individuals it would be impossible to have the male and his female because you'd always have an odd male or female.
Note also that the word used to define the quantity of clean beasts is plural (sevens) while the word used to define the quantity of unclean beast is singular (two)
GSA(P)
Sounds more like devolution than evolution, eh?
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.