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."
My decision was pretty straight forward.
Guys, we have one in competition with 106.
I've always been fond of 'Cause I think so nyner nyner nyner' arguments.
The standard refuge of CRIDers everywhere.
Saved for later cut-and-paste as a response.
But debunked in post #168. Will you cut and paste that too?
>CM's creation myths. They are very interesting and entertaining.
CM = Coyoteman?
>Why are you being so reasonable all of a sudden? Not that there's anything wrong with it.
No, there is nothing wrong with it. Thanks.
That's a fine point, sir. The proof that I have is internal. It's hard to explain. I used to feel exactly as you. So I understand. I know it sounds silly, but just over time, reading about Jesus, and spending time with Him, it becomes easy to see Him.
But, honestly, He is the author of your life- your genome, just as He is mine. Even though you won't admit it. At least not now. maybe someday. Good luck to you.
As I have already said, I am a devout Christian.
There is no clash between Evolution and Christianity.
God certainly is the author of my Genome. But he did it from way, way, way back from where CRIDers posit.
>WHERE THEN ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS??
There are no transitional forms.
I think it was Darwin who said that if transitional forms are not to be found his theory of evolution would collapse. I think that is what I read the other day. No transitional forms have ever been found, so the theory of evolution is bogus.
He hasn't stopped repeating the lie that Darwin recanted on his deathbead despite multiple sources of debunking information, so why should he acknowledge this?
Well how about this- this will blow your mind-- most of what we are is software. Our spirits are just that- living software. An extremely complex thing, a spirit. It has no mass, and isn't affected by gravity, time, acceleration etc. And yes, for our minds, on a primitive level, DNA and software are in the same ballpark. We're just lousy progammers, and terribly unimaginative compared to God, who is mostly artist. Scientist second.
We ARE primates; who do you think thought up the name!?
I posted this to another thread yesterday:
Perhaps you can explain the pattern of ERVs in the primates without invoking common descent.
Dude, you're slipping into freaky-land. TheBrotherhood isn't even following this tangent.
It's a liberal thing. Don't try to understand it.
>Mucho thanks for the never ending postings...
What posts? The Master (I read another poster refer to him/her as such, so I think it's appropriate for me to refer to him/her as such too) hardly makes any posts. Unless you mean the article themselves?
"Slipping"? You make it sound like it isn't quite a done deal yet :)
Well then, we have to disagree on that. I believe that man was created separate from all other creation, as the pinnacle of creation. The Bible is pretty clear that Adam was created on the 6th day, and that his spirit- software- was loaded into his body (which was at that time a corpse, a perfect one, but still a corpse), and then he became a living soul. The action then, of the spirit within the body, expresses itself as a soul/mind.
Put the software into the computer, and you can read a spreadsheet or word processor. Put energy into a light bulb, and it expresses itself as light.
SO death, then, can be defined as the spirit leaving the body. The Bible says- "the body without the spirit is dead." See- I know something most scientists don't know- ha
I also know, that when the Earth was first unveiled in our space/time, the angels shouted for joy. (also in the Bible). This is more fun than a textbook, because God was actually there to record it.
We'll all know the truth soon enough.
Until then, I'm not wasting any time, not soon anyway, on junk science and the faithless, regarding Creation.
I will say that I believe that it's quite possible there was more than one creation, based on the Biblical record, but again, I don't care to cast it out there any time soon.
Whom God is, who I am, why I'm here and how I got here is settled for me.
You have a free will and will believe as you choose. Have a blessed night.
You're absolutely right. Tell your god I'll be in my office from 10 a.m. until noon tomorrow, and I'll be delighted to listen to and consider his account of creation of species, as an alternative to evolution.
"I believe that God created Man via"
"You don't agree with me."
"Therefore you don't believe in God."
I think it's a good argument.
I should use it myself next time.
I think it was Darwin who said that if transitional forms are not to be found his theory of evolution would collapse. I think that is what I read the other day. No transitional forms have ever been found, so the theory of evolution is bogus.
I posted two links loaded with transitional forms. Did you read either of them? It does not appear that you did. You still deny that there are any transitionals.
You come across as a devoted anti-evolutionist who is unwilling to even look at the data. Why should we listen to a thing you post?
Your belief has blinded you to the facts and well-supported theories that science has painstakingly achieved over several hundred years.
Way back up the thread you admitted you are not a scientist. You know, I believe you!
Picture of you in the profile?
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.