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."
Intelligent Design is on the borderline between theory and law.
Your response demonstrates that you do not understand science, and that you are arguing from a largely religious orientation.
That's fine, but don't confuse what you are doing with science. And don't try to tell scientists how to do science unless you have gone to the trouble to learn some real science.
Hint: You will not learn science from creationist pamphlets and websites.
As for PH, you may not be hearing from him at all. Did you notice his tagline? It reads: (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
very good point
Everything alive right now is a transitional species; but that might be over your head. No ill humour intended either. I think Creationist types need to realize that there are many of us conservatives who believe that evolution (or its basic idea) is fact. We are not stupid people, we are not immoral people. Just the fact that we are conservative should be enough about our character that anyone needs to know. I think most of us believe in God just like you do too. With all this said, I've never seen one of us use name calling against you guys like a lot of you do to us. We're all on the same side here.
>Global warming, second hand smoke, chimp/human evolution, bad politically motivated science is the hallmark of liberalism.
Excellent!
Man, I wish I could write like you do.
The entire post was perfect, but don't expect the bot to respond. LOL!
So true.
There's not really much controversy about this in science anymore.
God created those things we cannot understand. For example, we used to think God creates rain, but, now the godless meteorologists on TV say the rain somehow is natural and they can predict rain! Blasphemy!
Re: your odd idea that evolutionists would expect watches to spring from deserts and operating systems to emerge from beaches..
Where do you ever get that idea? See, the cells and organisms you compare to watches and computers are self replicating. They "spawn," for lack of a better term. You need this to capability to evolve. As far as I know, watches and computers do not self replicate.
And furthermore, the "silly" Raven story you pass off so easily predates your particular creation myth. not that it matters one iota, but thought you'd enjoy that.
Ask yourself why we would recognize it, then apply those 'rules' to organics.
"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.
This is a rather poor and overused analogy. Since when do PC's or any other human created technology self replicate. Which human creations inherit features and functions from their precursors and pass through a selection process? If you can think of any, do they look the same as the original? Why? Can you think of any human artifact that had a different function than some of its descendants? Can the selection process cause changes in the function and features of an artifact?
"And the "simplest" cell (there are no simple single cells), is about a quintillion times more advanced technologically than a silly personal computer.
Technological? Jump to conclusions much?
" 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?"
I'll admit I'm not a scientist. Most of my education comes from sites like FR and others.
>As for PH, you may not be hearing from him at all. Did you notice his tagline? It reads: (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
So, is it really a bot like they have on Internet Relay Chat (IRC), or is he a live person? I've never seen him/her respond to a post addressed to him/her and wondered why. OK, if he/she doesn't want to respond he/she doesn't have to.
Thanks for responding. I like this thread, you know. There was another one last night in which I made some intelligent posts but was partly ignored.
You sure are NO bot.
Nice try, but very condescending.
Here is one of the many stories featuring Raven.
No one knows just how the story of Raven really begins, so each starts from the point where he does know it. Here it was always begun in this way. Raven was first called Kit-ka'ositiyi-qa-yit ("Son of Kit-ka'ositiyi-qa"). When his son was born, Kit-ka'ositiyi-qa tried to instruct him and train him in every way and, after he grew up, told him he would give him strength to make a world. After trying in all sorts of ways, Raven finally succeeded. Then there was no light in this world, but it was told him that far up the Nass was a large house in which some one kept light just for himself.This story is very long. The rest can be accessed at: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/creatlingit.htmRaven thought over all kinds of plans for getting this light into the world and finally he hit on a good one. The rich man living there had a daughter, and he thought, "I will make myself very small and drop into the water in the form of a small piece of dirt." The girl swallowed this dirt and became pregnant. When her time was completed, they made a hole for her, as was customary, in which she was to bring forth, and lined it with rich furs of all sorts. But the child did not wish to be born on those fine things. Then its grandfather felt sad and said, "What do you think it would be best to put into that hole? Shall we put in moss?" So they put moss inside and the baby was born on it. Its eyes were very bright and moved around rapidly.
Round bundles of varying shapes and sizes hung about on the walls of the house. When the child became a little larger it crawled around back of the people weeping continually, and as it cried it pointed to the bundles. This lasted many days. Then its grandfather said, "Give my grandchild what he is crying for. Give him that one hanging on the end. That is the bag of stars." So the child played with this, rolling it about on the floor back of the people, until suddenly he let it go up through the smoke hole. It went straight up into the sky and the stars scattered out of it, arranging themselves as you now see them. That was what he went there for.
Some time after this he began crying again, and he cried so much that it was thought he would die . Then his grandfather said, " Untie the next one and give it to him." He played and played with it around behind his mother. After a while he let that go up through the smoke hole also, and there was the big moon.
Got a photo?
Alas, genetic tests finally proved that he was indeed all-Chimp, but apparently from some isolated sub-group in the depths of Africa.
There is also an amazing story about how Stalin allegedly set his scientists up to try to create an "ape-man" hybrid in the 1920s (the stronger to be able to work)...needless to say, they failed to successfully impregnate female apes with human sperm....something only a lunatic like Stalin could believe was possible....
Do you want bananas with that?
Someone, I don't recall who, posted some information on that recently. Maybe he'll post a link.
First off, I think I'm going to save this post of yours on my desktop and ping you when one you evolutionists attacks and demeans one of us or when they admit that they don't believe in God.
Secondly, to disagree means we're diametrically opposed on this issue and on separate camps.
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.