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."
>So, what does God look like?
God is spirit. It's not tangible asa person is. To say we where made in His image is to say that we share in His spirit. That is the way I understand it.
( ;-D
I have to adsmit you are the first to posit an evolutionary theory about the Rings of Saturn.
Boy, I see the error of my ways. Who needs physics? God created the rings of Saturn {poof}.
We now have proof there is no science, only God's hand. I hope you make it a point to thank Him when you get in an airplane, since His Hand is all that holds the thing up!
But just in case He gets bored, you might want to double up on your insurance.
And thanks for another example of CRIDer "analysis."
His point being that God is an artist as well as a scientist. I agree. When a human creates something, we usually separate the art from the science. God combines them. He's much more multidimensional and interesting then are we.
Madman, I don't think conservatives who choose to believe the theory(?) of evolution are necessarily stupid or immoral....exactly. It may be more a case in which they allow themselves to be "taken in", as it were, by mouthy academics who are determined to make their "bandaided" theory work in order to "cut God off at the knees". When you do this, you are saying, in effect, that you trust this mouthy academic more than you trust God and the account of creation He presents in Book of Genesis. You are ascribing a higher level of confidence to the flim flam theory of evolution and its apostles and you are
accusing God of lying. I wouldn't want to place myself in that position based on the flimsy story the evolutionists have to offer.
No, not an insult- just that since earliest time, man has made up stories as to how he came into being. Evolution is, for the most part, just a very complex myth. At least the Indians were trying to tell a story.
I thought the debunking of the standard Evolitionists' Evolutionary Theory of The Rings Of Saturn was pretty good.
This is almost as good as DUmmie FUnnies. I have been LOL since I started reading.
I picked Koalas and pandas because in my mind at least- they're not terribly sturdy. They eat one thing, and so if their supply runs out- so does the entire population in that area. But you know that.
It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God…”. A later, widely believed, rumour of a “deathbed conversion” to Christianity was denied by his daughter, who was actually present at his death. A bronze memorial, with a life-sized relief bust, was erected by his family in the north choir aisle, near to the grave, in 1888. The sculptor was Sir J.E. Boehm. The inscription just says simply “DARWIN”.
No, the Indian myth and the Creation Myth are equivalent. No proof, no scientific method, no peer review, certainly no DNA studies. They say a Raven, you say God. No difference.
Because you want to scream in the face of a massive body of scientific evidence doesn't make it a "myth."
The "myth" is that Man (or anything else) was created by {poof}.
You have zero proof.
>In any case the evidence of transitional fossils, morphological similarity and molecular evidence trumps your - we aren't related because we are a little better than them.
We are much, much different than chimps. But who cares? We're humans and of God and they're just plain chimps and closer to the inanimate than the animate. Humans are of God, chimps are of the inanimate.
He's been told before by many people and with countless references, including creationist websites. He is either too arrogant or too much of a coward (or both) to admit that he was wrong, so he just continues to repeat the lie.
Hey, thanks for all the ink. Even poorly done ink is appreciated! But seriously, which way do you want it; either we can or can't be more related to kumquats than grapefruits?
And earlier you wrote:
I would expect that in liberal academia there is a Mapes/Rather team manipulating the numbers to get the desired result. That we should be more related to Bonobos than the Chimpanzee is like saying a peach is more closely related to a Red Delicious than a Macintosh. That we share evolution with the apes is obvious, to claim we share it with one subspecies of ape is ridiculous.
Some day, I'm sure, humans will come up with self replicating technology. That's not a stretch of the imagination- but they won't evolve because God anticipated the problems we would have on the earth, and built into teh genome line after line of extra programming- also called "junk" genes. Not all of it is junk. Much of it has saved us again and again I imagine. What you call evolution, I call redundancy.
And solar radiation as a means to add lines of code? Take a floppy disc with software and wave a magnet over it, and see how many new lines are written.
Thanks for letting me know. This way I won't have to waste any more electrons on the mook...
I believe that less is more sometimes and all I need to say about it right now, I've said.
My decision was pretty straight forward.
Just like if you believe in "physics" you are denying God because after all , Genesis says God made the light. If you believe in "astronomy" you are denying God because Genesis says God made the stars in the sky. If you believe in "Dinosours" you are denying God because Genesis says God made all the animals and had Adam go and name them.
This particular stawman is the easiest to identify. It is sad that people won't use the Brain God gave them and instead persist in choosing myth over the raw facts and huge montain of evidence and examination available to them.
And they do great damage in the process.
Excellent reposte.
Saved for later cut-and-paste as a response.
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.