These guys 
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."
You believe me now, but you didn't believe me earlier, though, when I made that truthful statement, didn't you? I speak the Gospels.
I don't believe anyone who repeatedly lies.
You know that the "Darwin recanted" lie is exactly that, not taken seriously even by creationists, but keep trying to spread it. Such actions make it very hard to trust other things that you say.
>So how can it be measured? If there's no means to measure it then there's no reason to consider it.
A spirit is of God. Only God can measure our spirits. We're not privy to God's ways nor are we of His dimension. I'm not very religious, but that's the way I understand it. I hope it makes sense to you and the others, because it does - makes sense, that is.
With God everything is possible!
Post Hoc Ergo Scripture Hoc?
These guys
My point being, no one has anything to fear from Christianity, because Christianity isn't forced upon people. Evolution certainly is. Look at the response you've given me. You have every right to think whatever you like. That's what you were taught in school.
One truth in a pack of lies doesn't turn the lies into truth nor the liar into an honest person.
Never heard of the Inquisition, eh?
No, for a Christian to move to the Bible is no different from moving to a textbook- it is the truth to us. It's the best science there is. I'll take it over any textbook. 100% truth, it is.
Those people were not Christians. They only said that they were. I can call myself a girl scout, and that makes me neither a girl, nor a scout. (I'm a Protestant by the way-) :)
Bunch fallacies here.
I propose to call such arguments: "The Fallacy Hermeneutic Perspicuity."
>Explain why his own daughter denied the story that he had recanted.
Why would she deny something that never took place in the first place? It don't make no sense. You deny something that was, not something that was not.
Anyway, I've never read that her daughter denied his recanting. I'll research this issue and see what I can find. But I doubt I'll find such a denial by his daughter. If I haven't found it, it ain't there; and, if it ain't there, it never happened - the daughter's denial, that is.
I'll research this very important issue and let you all know of my definite, authoritative, and final findings.
So you assert. There is little objective proof of the Bible being correct. It is just your word.
That is without going into the interpretation of the Bible. I could in a few minutes come up with an interpretation that says anything I want it to say. And since I am the source of the authenticity, you would, by your own rules, have to agree with me.
It is still the standard CRIDer "I can't argue so I will just say 'because I say so'" non-argument.
Oh, if an evolutionist had anything to argue, that would be a start. Humans are getting better with age? Where have you been? ha
If you haven't noticed, the Iranians will be helping us to "evolve" real soon.
Well, I had a couple of drinks earlier. Nothing to it, believe me. The wheels are still turning according to God's will.
(I hate making such admissions.)
Thanks
CRIDers use so many fallacies, it is hard to keep track.
I can guarantee than in any of these Creov threads, I can find logical fallacies in 100% of their posts (strawman is far and away their favorite).
It's just that these Fallacitic Hermeneutic Perspicuities are so transparent and easily defeated I have to use little words to show them how their personal belief doesn't hold up.
But I am keeping your term on hand!! (LOL)
If you haven't noticed, the Iranians will be helping us to "evolve" real soon.
You now have been reduced to inanities and irrelevancies.
"You now have been reduced to inanities and irrelevancies."
Ha- well, there we are.
You have a wonderful evening. I sleepy. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Another strawman. Dang, you so-called Christians lie like dogs.
She deines it because others assert it. If I say you are green and you deny it, it doesn't somehow suggest there was nothing to deny.
How do you get up in the morning? Do your morning prayers include "Dear God, let me be a good liar and not get caught again"?
If that's the case then, why the absolute rejection of the theory of evolution?
The God of The Bible is the creator, He is omnipotent. To claim that evolution cannot be true, amounts to placing limitations on Him, making Him no longer omnipotent.
If evolution happened, then it happened because He made it happen.
There is absolutely no conflict in believing Biblical Creation, Christ the Saviour, and evolution.
Proving that evolution happened will have no more of an impact on Christianity, than proving that Earth was round did.
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.