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."
I will try to find the cites for both. Until that time, please ignore that portion of my original post.
Bingo!
Standard creationist tactic - make bold, specific yet false statements, then back them up with feelings and assumptions.
False witness, of a particularly passive/agressive strain.
I asked myself the question, "Why do the liberals want to claim Bonobos as our closest reletive on the tree of evolution?" and that's what I come up with. I know they are not our closest relative, see the analogies I've posted, so I know the DNA studies are most likely fudged in order to fit a preconceived hypothesis.
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. And for breast milk checmistry, humans are closer to donkeys than primates. And I understand the center of the human brain is actually more reptilian than mammalian- I know lots of people who are lizard-like in fact. Bought a car from one recently.That's the first post I ever noticed from warpcorebreach, a bizarrely ill-informed specimen of the creationist genre. It is so off-base as to appear simply uneducated.
And Gorillas, and Orangutans and Gibbons and their extinct ancestors. But you liberals want to claim just Chimpanzees. Makes no sense until you consider what liberals are all about.
Uh huh, and in industry there is no such thing as two identical parts. What's your stupid point?
No, that's incorrect.
But you liberals want to claim just Chimpanzees
I am not a liberal. You, however, are clearly a moron.
From the Descent of Man-- I quote--
"The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman
multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting,
ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith,
sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years
in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind
him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a
thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the
population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the
power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons
that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be
the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and
prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
(You have to give an old man time to look things up- friend. I read quite a bit, and have a million quotes in my head) ha Takes time to footnote
Hey, dumbass, read it again. No, we aren't.
We are more closely related to Bonobos because the molecular evidence says we are.No, I didn't. Please get it together.
That doesn't say the Irish are closer to apes. What it says is the Irish are less careful and therefore more fecund and therefore have more descendants. Darwin, not being an imbecile, would know that the Scots and Irish share the same lineage - the word Scot, as a matter of fact, actually means Irish - and therefore one could not be closer to apes than the other.
You mean, "The (fudged) molecular evidence..."
I take it you couldn't find the Generic & specific for bonobos?
I propose a test. With your consent up front, I'll email Dolphin and if you're who you claim you can email me back and say, "Yes, I'm 'warpcorebreach' on FreeRepublic."
How does that sound?
out-of-context "Quotemining" alert @ #389
Source: The descent of man, Chapter V (the bogus out-of-context "quote" is in blue):
A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,19 namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,20 they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
beat you by three minutes!
I assume the GrandMaster at DarwinCentral™ will be providing me with an appropriate commendation to signify my acheivement....
If I said what I truly thought about the character of these creationists, I'd get banned in a wink. So I just post the facts, and let the record speak for itself.
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.