From Chimpan A to Chimpan Z
Yes they've finally made a monkey
(chorus)Yes we've finally made a monkey
Yes they've finally made a monkey outta me~~~~~~
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."
Only that they are more "changed" from the ancient common ancestor of all these species. One of the great mistakes in many people's understanding of evolution is that it is designed to create "higher" life. It is not. Evolution's primary goal is to produce creatures that survive, by whatever means necessary.
Which means that future human culture will look middle eastern and worship Allah. Western Culture is on a downward spiral and Islamic on an upswing, merely because of who has babies and who does not.
This will make the Mullahs happy.
It is possible that Humans are evolvion more slowly because we can change our environments to suit ourselves, thus lessening the need for our species to change.
I see; Thank you. :-)
Yes, to the degree "evolved" means "genetic change" and "adaptation" ~ humans are least evolved ~ makes us the original critter and the others are mutants.
You know, it's funny. If you were walking in the dessert, and you saw a $12,000 Rolex ticking away on the ground, you wouldn't say- "gee, I guess the sun heated the sand of trillions of years, and through light refraction and molecular blah-blah this watch must have risen up out of the quartz"- or some such. you'd say- "Hey look- somebody dropped a watch."
Or if you went to the beach, and you had a LOT of time on your hands- how long would you have to wait for a perfectly functional PC with a perfectly functional copy of Windows XP to rise up out of the sea? A billion years? A gazillion? How about never.
And the "simplest" cell (there are no simple single cells), is about a quintillion times more advanced technologically than a silly personal computer.
My point being that when you look into the mirror, you are looking at some wildly, ungodly advanced hardware/software, and you can either make up a story liek the American Indians-- "First, Raven dropped the seed of life onto the back of Turtle in the River of Life, and blah-blah ( insert nonsensical scientific data), or you can say-- "wow- who made this?"
In the article, what does the term "generation time" refer to?
I would guess that it would either be the average time between generations or the length of the gestation period, but neither of those seem to fit with the context of the article.
Yes they've finally made a monkey
(chorus)Yes we've finally made a monkey
Yes they've finally made a monkey outta me~~~~~~
I see what you mean; Thanks.
Hilarious! And true.
Note that "Raven" is as valid an answer to "who made this" as anything else.
Rate of molecular evolution.. ha- nice try.
DOn't we share most of our genome with a form of slime mold? I'm serious. Even closer to this mold than a chimp.
The answer is you're wrong. Sorry.
And for breast milk checmistry, humans are closer to donkeys than primates
Again, you're wrong, not that it would matter, because milk composition varies wildly depending on an organism's niche. You want to see really weird -- check out variations in lemur and tarsir milk composition.
s. And I understand the center of the human brain is actually more reptilian than mammalian-
Again, I'm not sure what to say. You're just wrong.
I don't think these Darwin clowns know the differance between a hypothesis and a hypopotamus. They talk about genomes and genusi to give themselve credibility and request grants for federal money. This is a hobbyshop they've been milking for a hundred or so years. If there were anything at all to this evolution BS, they would've found numerous LIVING transitional species by now. Instead, not a damn one. And yet the suckers keep them propped up. Luckily for the evolutionists, there's a sucker born every minute...didn't Bob Hope even say so? These guys are as phoney as that "human cloning" clown in Korea.
Don't tell me the magnificent rings around Saturn was not created by an intelligent creator.
How can such ring "evolve"? If the nature evolved the rings, why didn't the same nature evolve a ring around my finger? Why did I have to use a ring created by a jeweler?
Yes! A savage living in the jungle that attaches life to a creator is actually in better shape and closer to the truth than most scientists.
Hey don't get me wrong- things adapt. I personally have to adapt every 5 minutes. The long eons of change are the things that tickle me.
If you're a panda, and your bamboo dries up, or you're a koala bear and you eucalyptus trees die from a beetle-- how long do you have to adapt? A billion years? No, probably about 2 days I imagine.
How many millions of years did that whale have to adapt when he found himself in the Thames? He didn't adapt at all, and so evolved himself right into the grave.
In real life, if an asteroid is coming, if the temp changes 100 degrees in one evening, the sun flashes, the ozone gets sparse- how long do you have? About 5 seconds.
>Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection
Hey, bot, that article is a lot of nonsense. There is no connection between humans and chimps.
Bad news for humans, good news for chimps.
Yes, fine point. An evolutionist sometimes acts like a baby distracted by a set of car keys-- they fail to see that yes, there is life in the universe, but also simpler things that are just as advanced. Take the most basic- the building blocks of the universe- time space matter and energy. That these simple things obey laws- to me, that is simply amazing. God actually designed tiny little particles that somehow behave the same way every time. They obey laws- they have no choice. Amazing. Put a gas into a fixed volume- increase the temp or pressure, and the gas will respond predictably every time.
And the day someone can explain what light is, or what a dimension is, or these "simple" things that no scientist can give you a straight answer on, then they can move up to more advanced designs.
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.