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."
>but edited the quotes to make it appear as though they were supporting his contention.
Could you please show us all the quote in question before and after the revision/modification? I've never edited a quote, that I can remember.
Thank you.
In other words, if someone points out that you're a liar, you simply ignore them rather than coming up with a response.
No, they're not worthy of a response.
To all evolutionists and IDers interested in a rational, scientific debate, I suggest we leave this troll to his own devices.
IOW, NO that is not what he said either Demented junior.
Wolf
Could you please show us all the quote in question before and after the revision/modification? I've never edited a quote, that I can remember.
Then your memory is short indeed.
You made the bold assertion several times that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. You called it "historical fact." When asked for evidence to support this claim, you posted:
Lady Hope "did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present."
This was in post #451.
The problem with this "evidence" to support your claim is that the sentence is incomplete. The sentence actually reads "Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present." (emphasis mine) You eliminated the beginning of the sentence, making Moore's opinion appear to be a statement of fact.
It gets worse. You also conveniently ignore the sentences following the one you quoted, which read:
(Moore) points out that (Lady Hope's) published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies—Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity.
That's called quote-mining. You pick one piece of a quote, edit out others, and remove it from its context to make it appear to say something other than what it actually says.
It gets worse. You also ignore the final paragraph of the essay:
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
So much for your "historical fact." This is from a creationist website, no less, and you still couldn't find anything whatsoever to back up your false claim.
That was a transparently dishonest reponse to being challenged in a lie. It only compounds your original error.
I was willing to cut you the benefit of the doubt at first. I thought you were maybe simply mistaken. But when you lied defending your lie, it became clear that you were simply being dishonest.
I've never edited a quote, that I can remember.
So as we have seen, your memory is short. Or you could just be lying again.
The truth is no one will know on this issue.
That is the most charitable reading one can give of Lady Hope's story, which is (as Answers in Genesis admits) contains "factual inaccuracies."
It's also not what TheBrotherhood posted. If he had said that "no one will know," that could have been defensible.
But TheBrotherhood said that Darwin's deathbed recantation was "historical fact." He repeated that phrase several times.
Which, even by the most charitable reading of Lady Hope's story, is a lie.
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.
But won't that culture be more likely to self-destruct given its inclinations coupled with the technology at hand? You do agree with Wilson as far as Darwinian sociobiology goes?
All the best symphonies are written by chimps. :)
Since no one knows for sure except Darwin and maybe Lady Hope, it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not, it all depends who's word you want to take.
Wow.
Just... wow. I need to look at that again.
it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not
You believe that "historical facts" are in some way a matter of interpretation?
It shouldn't surprise me that you have a rather fluid definition of the word "fact", I guess. What surprises me is that you'd actually admit that.
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.