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."
From the appearance of things, all you did was -- correctly -- assume that the creationist was doing what creationists always do. Fortunately, I have the vast archives of Darwin Central at my fingertips to flesh out your suspicions. No award for your "achievement."
Quote mine alert!
Cat got your tongue, warpcorebreach?
Maybe that's why you were so reluctant to actually cite sources for your statements - once you've done so, it's easy for one to check them?
Nay, nay, oh spokeperson-breath! I had the "Greg" quote nailed down, and communicated the sourcing info to another DarwinCentral™ Operative whose Identity must remain well hidden, before I posted my "quotemine alert."
You're just afraid to be upstaged in the eyes of the GrandMaster.....
And yet, in post 377, you cut and pasted Jerry Bergman's work without attribution. (nor mentioning ol' Jerry's letter to the newsletter of David Duke's National Association of the Advancement of White People.)
Moreover, the quote regarding the Irish and Scots you posted wasn't even Darwin's writing. If you had looked at The Descent of Man, instead of cutting and pasting from "Answers in Genesis" or whatever site you cribbed the text from, you would have clearly seen that Darwin clearly identified the portion you reproduced as a quote from a Mr. Greg. "Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring...'"
Even further, as Right Wing Professor pointed out, the quote does not state, as you originally claimed, that, "Darwin wrote that blacks were very closely related to their ape ancestors, but there was a group that was even closer- the Irish. And the group that was the most highly evolved-- the Scot." Nothing that you quoted, whether from "Dr." Bergman or Mr. Greg, makes the point you attribute to Darwin.
Maybe there is a reason.
Darwin cites Galton and quotes Greg, being particularly taken with Greg's 1868 Fraser's "On the Failure of 'Natural Selection' in the Case of Man" (Darwin, 1989, pp. 138-39). He was particularly struck by Greg's characterization of the Irish: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman, fed on potatoes, living in a pig-stye, doting on a superstition, multiply like rabbits or ephemera; and 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." Darwin (1989, p. 143) quoting Greg (1866, pp. 360-61). [emphasis added]
The more interesting point is that Darwin, after quoting Greg, goes on to refute the point that Greg was making (to which Greg's opinion of the relative status of Irish vs. Scot is not at all material): that the "least fit" people will tend to dominate the human population over time. Darwin refutes that argument in a straightforward manner. IOW, Darwin, rather than embracing the arguments put forth by Eugenics ninnies, rejected them, with evidence.
My point is that you were wrong. And, might I ask, are you inserting invective in your posts, when I've been nothing but civil to you to this point?
Yes, but this is woefully late, considering that I posted a link to the original text, which anyone could have followed to learn this for himself. I've discussed your performance with the Grand Master. He says that it's not enough to cry "Quote Mine!" You have to fully expose it. To drive the point home, he has decreed that you won't get any desert tonight.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
That may be so, but I bet you won't be getting any dessert tonight after making that frightful error.
Aaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhh!
Inanimate, as used in the context of my post, was meant as in souless NOT as in lifeless.
I've expressed my opinions and ideas and at times facts - or what I believed at the time to be facts - that I have read in this FR threads. I tend to believe more what some experts say in these threads than in the MSM. If I state something as fact and the experts in these evolution threads believe that it is not, then please do correct me. If there is a divergence of opinions as what constitutes a fact, then I tend to research the issue on my own, but may not conclusively say for sure whether what I have arrived at is indeed a fact or a supposition.
I'm not a scientist and hope this clear up any misunderstanding and me.
Well, warpcorebreach, you have been outed as one who will post stuff, try to attribute it to one person, when it actually should be attributed to someone else all together...this shows, that you did not read, at all, what you were reading...you thought you had some incriminating piece of evidence, failed to actually read and understand what you read, and then, quickly posted it, thinking you had those who believe in evolution in an "AHA" moment...you were wrong, you were caught...
PatrickHenry, and Longshadow...I had expected better of the crevo/ID folks...instead of getting more adept, they are getting worse and worse, and more desperate...only a number of days ago, we had the odd outing of another crevo/ID person, who tried to claim, that Pittsburgh Man was on the cover on Life magazine, showing yet again, he completely failed to actually read and understand what he was posting, and when caught, tried to make the claim it was a 'typo'...Huh?...a 'typo'...to totally misread something, or not really read it at all,but just post it, as some sort of another 'AHA' moment, and when caught in the mistake, say, "OOPS, I made a typo", has became one of the most hilarious moments I have ever had on FR...
And now along comes another hilarious moment....thanks to warpcorebreach, for your huge 'faux pas', and thanks to PatrickHenry and longshadow for pointing it out...
Again, I do have to wonder, are these threads always such fun?
"With all this said, I've never seen one of us [evolutionists] use name calling against you guys [creationists] like a lot of you do to us."
Can't we just stop the name calling and use our God-given minds to reason logically? I ask you all.
And what God use his penis for?
You expressed as fact at least a handful of times over the last few days the notion that Darwin disavowed his theory on his deathbed, and even suggested that you would post your source.
You've not done so.
Others have posted links to sources that demonstrate that the deathbed converstion never happened. From your continued harping on the deathbed conversion in the face of evidence to the contrary, what should a reasonable person conclude?
All "facts" and "quotes" by creationists are bogus, or they're so off point that they're worthless. It's just a matter of digging out the truth. It's really hilarious when they try to quote Darwin against Darwin, but they always try to do it.
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.