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."
Remember the old saying: a picture is worth more than a thousand words, especially if those words come from the Marxist/Leninist/Darwinist leftists' mouthpieces.
From your post timestamp doesn't look like you read the entire convincing piece.
Please take the time to read the whole piece and then get back to us, hopefully convinced and converted to the CREV-ID camp.
CREV-ID = Cre-ID
Overwhelming evidence, eh? What about this paragraph?
Her conversation with Darwin
Qhat is impressive in her account is the restraint of what they discussed - as Moore acknowledges (p55),. Had she wanted to cause a sensation, she would have claimed that Darwin was truly "converted" and written a vivid account of his testimony. In fact, she merely records his views on Hebrews an delicately raises the subject of Darwin's evolution contradicting Genesis There is no claim of any conversion, but simply a record of Darwin's renewed interest in the Christian faith.
But, but, it's OVERWHELMING!
:)
Overwhelmingly inane, if you ask me...
Me: "From your post timestamp doesn't look like you read the entire convincing piece."
You: "Why should I? It's the same old crap."
It's your choice to want to read it or not. But don't expect others to want to read your "same old crap."
" Looks like I was right: you are a shameless, brazen liar."
And he's not very good at it either. Not they ever seem to be here.
>So the best evidence that you can offer for your claim that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed is an article that concludes that it cannot be known.
As I understood it, the article leans more towards a recant by Darwin than an unknown.
Have you all read my other links that proves that there was, in fact, a recant?
I think one has to be fair and not post slanted articles which agree with his/her view, so I decided to post an additional link which at first, and especially if not read in its entirety, may seem neutral, but in reality leans slightly towards a recant by Darwin.
Again, read it with an open mind and you'll agree that Lady Hope was real and so were her assertions regarding Darwins disavowal of his pet theory.
They say a mind is like a parachute: it works best when open.
>Why would Darwin tell this women he converted and NOT tell his wife?
Because he was fearful of the repercussions amongst his close communist/atheist friends.
His recant was between him and Him with Lady Hope being the conduit to Him. Hence the no need to disseminate.
Galileo really did recant. BFD.
And he subsequently recanted his recantation: "Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!
;-)
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.