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."
If given the chance, I never run out of arguments. I can debate anyone at any level.
It's not an absolute rejection- certainly not- We are all evolving in one way or another as we speak. Our bodies are being damaged by radiation, we are eating this or that, we are making choices every half second, etc. But did we have a common ancestor with apes? No, I don't agree.
And most imprtantly- I repeat-- I sleepy. night night.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If you make it up as you go along, use deception, fraud, lies and libel, sure anyone can "never run out of arguments."
I can debate anyone at any level
No you can't Debate means an exchange of arguments supported by evidence. "Because I said So" isn't a debate. Being caught in multiple lies automatically disqualifies you in a Debate.
Yes, Darwin did recant his evolution theory and came back to God.
This is history.
As soon as I find the links, I'll post them here.
You can, in the meantime, research it on your own so that we can concurrently confirm his contrition.
Thanks.
Are they salmons?
>I don't believe anyone who repeatedly lies.
Neither do I.
>One truth in a pack of lies doesn't turn the lies into truth nor the liar into an honest person.
Excellent point. And I agree with it.
Yes, Darwin did recant his evolution theory and came back to God.
This is history.
No, that's a lie.
A lie so patently false and indefensible that even creationist organizations are ashamed to use it. And that's saying something.
As soon as I find the links, I'll post them here.
You keep insisting this, but somehow can't manage to find any evidence to support your falsehoods. Funny how that works.
Maybe you think that if you keep putting off defending your "mis-statements," people will forget to call you on them. You'll find that isn't the case - fabricators aren't frequently let off the hook.
IOW, you can't justify your dishonest change of subject.
You're both wrong. The sound of thunder is actually God bowling a strike.
TB: According to evolution we should, but we ain't never seen them.
Could you please document where in the Theory of Evolution this is postulated? (or cite a single biologist who said anything like this).
And while you're at it, what do you think of a half-bird, half-dinosaur like Archeopteryx?
Thanks for the ping!
"As soon as I find the links, I'll post them here."
You may want to begin by reviewing the research of Jack Chick.
LOL
Reminds me of a Jewish girl I knew in the '60s. I was reading the paper and said something about the Archbishop of Canterbuty, "Primate of England". She couldn't stop laughing - the only meaing of primate she knew was the zoological one.
No, not recently. I have to find one that doesn't have as much gratuitous cleavage as the last time...
Did Jack Chick repeat the Lady Hope lie?
I haven't done it yet, but the other day I was thinking we should say "The Sin Hermeneutic Perspicuity.", Sin of Equivocation, Sin of Begging the Question, etc.
Employing fallacies in order to deceive is a form of lying, IMO.
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.