Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Humans and chimps far apart: new study
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Media
chronic
QUOTE
17:31 2004-05-27
A study by an international research consortium contrary to widespread belief, the gap between chimpanzees and humans is extremely big, according to.

The International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium, comprising scientists from five nations including South Korea and Japan, on Thursday announced its findings based on a comparison of human and chimpanzee genes.

"By comparing the whole sequence of the chimpanzee chromosome 22 with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found 83 percent of chimpanzee coding sequences differ from that of man," said Park Hong-seog, who headed Korean researchers in the consortium.

This runs counter to the consortium's previous announcement in January 2002 that genome sequencing of humans and chimpanzees correspond 98.77 percent.

"Back in 2002, we concluded a high homology exists between humans and chimpanzees through an analysis of genome sequencing. But studies of specific genes tell us a different story," Park said.

A genome is the entire hereditary instruction for building, running and maintaining an organism and passing life on to the next generation, reports hankooki.com

According to reuters.com while there may be no more than about 30,000 to 40,000 human genes, there are more than 250,000 different proteins.

The researchers tried to calculate what the genetic code of the original ancestor of both looked like, 6 million to 7 million years ago.

It looked to them as if the original ancestor of human chimps had a larger genome, and each species pared it down differently as they evolved.

Some of the genetic differences they found may have direct implications for disease. They found differences between chimp and human immune system genes, for instance, and molecules involved in early brain development.

40 scientists from five countries; South Korea, Japan, China, Germany and Taiwan took part in the research.

Researchers say that they were able to learn that mutations and biological consequences between chimpanzees and humans are a lot more complicated than previously thought.

For example, new findings indicate that humans are more vulnerable to illnesses such as HIV-AIDS, cancer and malaria compared to chimpanzees.

"The chimpanzee chromosome 22 has genes related to some 20 kinds of diseases such as leukemia and Alzheimer's."

The human chromosome 21 is also believed to be the origin of several illnesses such as Alzheimer's and Down's syndrome. Though the multinational scientists are in the initial stages of research they hope these new findings will offer them clues to treating incurable diseases, informs chosun.com.

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/05/27/54156.html
Desertyeti
Very cool stuff.
Homology and homoplasy (convergence) are interesting things. Could be even at the molecular level such things obscure true relationships. Birds have similar problems since the various lineages evolved so rapidly that the molecular data are hopelessly garbled. Hominid evolution was probably similar with sudden bursts obscuring critical lineages (hence the gorilla/chimp/human dilema). Science! new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
Mangani
Fascinating. And this article was published all the way back in May? Surprising that this study hasn't received more press. Or did I (we) just miss it?
bigstinkyfoot
I am probably going to make some enemies here. I hope not. When I started college, I believed evolution was a proven science. In each class that I was in where it was talked about, it seemed a student or two would play devil's advocate, and challenge the professor. The instructors would always shoot back with some example as "proof". These were always challenged as well, and I started doing my own research on what was said in class. In each case that I researched, the professor's example was either disproved entirely, or labeled inconclusive after examination by the scientific community at large. Somehow the discovery is big news, but the fact that it was disproved is not. I came to the conclusion that there is a LOT of disinformation out there in this area.
Considered statistically, evolution is the belief that infinite groups of impossible events occurred simultaneously, and that an infinite series of these infinite groups of events occurred.
Since there was no forthcoming fossil evidence of inter-species evolution, as Darwin predicted, the burst theory was developed. This theory pretty much states that a whale gave birth to a cow, or a chimp to a human baby. Not just one, but thousands at once, to produce a breeding population.
To me, intelligent design is much less a stretch of the imagination.
chronic
QUOTE(bigstinkyfoot @ Aug 20 2004, 04:37 PM)
Since there was no forthcoming fossil evidence of inter-species evolution, as Darwin predicted, the burst theory was developed.

If you take into account Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, it's not an entire population that changes, but a small, geographically isolated group that becomes specialized in a short period of time and moves outward to replace the older species......this would necessarily limit the number of such transitional fossils, since the isolated group would be limited in both their space and time frame. If 1% of all the species that have gone extinct get fossilized, one wouldn't expect many 'transitional' fossils to ever be found.

Besides, there are more than a couple fossils that some call Homo Erectus, others call Archaic Homo Sapiens, others Heidelbergensis, Ergaster, and others call them hybrids......I'd simply call them transitional humans.
Chewy
QUOTE
Since there was no forthcoming fossil evidence of inter-species evolution, as Darwin predicted, the burst theory was developed. This theory pretty much states that a whale gave birth to a cow, or a chimp to a human baby. Not just one, but thousands at once, to produce a breeding population.
To me, intelligent design is much less a stretch of the imagination.


Hey, BigStinkyFeet, check out this link. Not a week goes by that I miss it.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0804.htm

If nothing else, click in the yellow bar and follow the "amazing" links. They are....amazing. thumbup.gif new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
bigstinkyfoot
Thanks, Chewy. I bookmarked the page, and will be checking it out a lot. Cool site.
RayG
QUOTE(Mangani @ Aug 20 2004, 02:17 PM)
Fascinating. And this article was published all the way back in May? Surprising that this study hasn't received more press. Or did I (we) just miss it?

Yup, originally posted to this board on May 27th.

Thread located here:

RayG
RayG
QUOTE(bigstinkyfoot @ Aug 20 2004, 05:37 PM)
Considered statistically, evolution is the belief that infinite groups of impossible events occurred simultaneously, and that an infinite series of these infinite groups of events occurred.

http://www.dictionary.com describes 'evolution' as:
  • 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
  • 2.
    • 1. The process of developing.
    • 2. Gradual development.
  • 3. Biology.
    • 1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
    • 2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
  • 4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
  • 5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
I guess it could be best summed up by the two words "Gradual development." Not sure what's impossible about it or why these events had to happen simultaneously.

Ok...ok...I'll put away my :poke: now.

Jeeze, it's getting so a guy can't have any fun anymore. biggrin.gif

RayG
robo
QUOTE
Considered statistically, evolution is the belief that infinite groups of impossible events occurred simultaneously, and that an infinite series of these infinite groups of events occurred.
Since there was no forthcoming fossil evidence of inter-species evolution, as Darwin predicted, the burst theory was developed. This theory pretty much states that a whale gave birth to a cow, or a chimp to a human baby. Not just one, but thousands at once, to produce a breeding population.


Huh? Sorry, but that's a total mischaracterization, bigstinkyfoot, and i think you know it (or if not, you weren't paying too much attention to those professors you were trying to cut down).
bigstinkyfoot
QUOTE(robo @ Aug 20 2004, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE
Considered statistically, evolution is the belief that infinite groups of impossible events occurred simultaneously, and that an infinite series of these infinite groups of events occurred.
Since there was no forthcoming fossil evidence of inter-species evolution, as Darwin predicted, the burst theory was developed. This theory pretty much states that a whale gave birth to a cow, or a chimp to a human baby. Not just one, but thousands at once, to produce a breeding population.


Huh? Sorry, but that's a total mischaracterization, bigstinkyfoot, and i think you know it (or if not, you weren't paying too much attention to those professors you were trying to cut down).

Robo:
I was paying attention while those other students were cutting down the instructors, and while they (the professors) unsuccesfully tried to defend their statements. Find a reputable statistician that will give you better odds than evolution being a statistical impossibility billions of times over. A single mutant will either not be bred, or will be swallowed up by the gene pool. Darwins theory of slow, gradual evolution has pretty much been discredited, hence the new theories of punctuated equilibrium, etc... Therefore, I state, in a geological, or evolutionary time-frame, simultaneous! Are you aware of the chemistry involved in forming DNA? Can't happen by chance. We are talking extreme specificity here. I am trying to convert no-one to my stand on this issue, only stating my personal findings. You must come to your own conclusion, and I will not try to change that. You quoted me, and addressed me, so I responded. Thank you for your opinion.
RayG
QUOTE(bigstinkyfoot @ Aug 21 2004, 01:24 AM)
Darwins theory of slow, gradual evolution has pretty much been discredited, hence the new theories of punctuated equilibrium, etc...

But isn't that similar to what happened with continental drift? Scientists started out with one theory, but changed theories when new evidence or alternate explanations became available/proven.

QUOTE
Therefore, I state, in a geological, or evolutionary time-frame, simultaneous!


Do you have some examples?

QUOTE
Since there was no forthcoming fossil evidence of inter-species evolution, as Darwin predicted, the burst theory was developed.


Any links to discussion of this burst theory?

QUOTE
This theory pretty much states that a whale gave birth to a cow, or a chimp to a human baby. Not just one, but thousands at once, to produce a breeding population.


I'm not very well informed on this subject, but I haven't heard of ANY evolutionary theory that claims whales gave birth to cows, or chimps to humans. Care to elaborate?

RayG

ps. links, links, links please. biggrin.gif
Desertyeti
To no one in particular:
Actually, there's no such thing as a "burst theory" and the mistaken assumption (perpetuated sadly by a few on this forum) that "evolution" is "unproven" should really be put to sleep. Theories by definition must be testable and are never provable. Making a staement to the effect that something is "unproven" is absolute nonsense in science since nothing can ever be proven, only disproven. But enough of the science 101. Anyone can (and should) look up the foundations of science on their own time. smile.gif

The bases for evolution is genetic drift, genetic mutation, and shared genetic inheritence. This is no mystery and hasn't been since the 1950s.

Darwin never said that a whale could come from a cow or anything remotely like this. He said that over time, under key sets of conditions, animals change their outward appearance via inheritance from an ancestor who was successful in the new environment. This can be observed today even at the population level.

As for the idea that "intermediate species" have not been found in the fossil record. O.k. define species. Are you using phenotype? Perhaps genotype? Given that biologists cannot even today agree on what makes a living species (versus subspecies or genus), what makes you so certain that a fossil species can be differentiated from another similar specimen? I guess you were simply unaware that most vertebrate species are impossible to tell apart on the basis of skeletal anatomy. You need soft tissue, genetics, or even vocal prints.

From now on, it would really help if people knew a little bit more than 101-level biology before making great pronouncements about what their professors did and didn't know about the facts of life. Also, instead of revealing how very little one understands about a given scientific topic while putting it down, maybe a class or two (or at least some reading up on) a subject such as organic evolution should be in order. wink.gif

This is nothing personal to anyone, I just can't stand blatant distorions of the nature of science and data being thrown around by self-styled authorities with very little actual understanding of the topic. new_whistle.gif
Desertyeti
Incidentally Bigstinkyfoot, who was this professor of yours, and at what school did he teach?

If he's claiming such things as simultaneous radiation of a single species within a population, he shouldn't be teaching even home ec.

As an instructor myself, I like to keep tabs on what sorts of misinformation students are getting (or misinterpreting) from my peers out there. This way I can avoid confusing my classes about what is and is not a valid scientific theory, and how the scientific method really works (an it does quite well by the way) wink.gif .
bigstinkyfoot
Relax, Desert. You sound like you want to force me to believe what you do. You can't. So calm down. Your passion may be misconscrued (by those who do not know you) as a lack of confidence in what you say. By the way, theories become discredited all the time. You are wrong there. Darwin made several statements that confirm what I said:

"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains"
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me
Charles Darwin, Ibid, pp. 172, 280

His conclusion: Dig more, examine the fossil evidence more closely. They will be found. Didn't happen, they were not found.


If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302

Then came the fossil evidence of the Cambrian explosion. What a 50 megaton whopper that was to his theory.


I have no need or desire to argue in a circular fashion with you. Nothing to prove, don't care what you believe. No expert on Evolutionary theory, just a layman. But one with an opinion formed through research. Good day, Sir. biggrin.gif

Edited to correct a minor pasting error.
Desertyeti
Not trying to force you to do anything.
And actually, I'm pretty confident in what I said above, but thank you for your concern.
Again, not trying to get personal, just trying to stick to the facts. biggrin.gif
Darwin postulated transitional species in that he recognized the near-impossibility of defining a transitional species. After all, if it mixes traits from two very similar species...how is it in itself defined? This is an on-going dilema to all biologists. And remember, you brought up species. Not genera, not families. Species are the most difficult operating taxonomic unit to define.

By the way, there are innumerable "transitional forms" in the fossil record (each one its own species). Feathered dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs with beaks and tails, feathered dinosaurs with beaks and no tails, etc. etc. all the way to birds. Any researcher will tell you drawing a line at species, genus, family level and so forth is a judgement call. Darwin new this, and anticipated hostile reactions to his simple biological observations.

And I don't quite see how I'm wrong, having never said that theories cannot be discredited. I actually said the must be capable of being disproved otherwise they're not theories, but beliefs. Read carefully. wink.gif

As for arguing circularly, you're doing that quite well without me, and I too don't care what you believe, nor have I nothing to prove (just lots to disprove). As a researcher and instructor, it is both my duty and my responsibility to offer the factual bases for interpretation of data any time I get the chance. It is in this spirit I offer my observations, not trying to get you to understand the basics of organismal biology and the fossil record, I promise. wink.gif
jimf
Getting to close to that slippery slope of creation vs. evolution..Not gonna happen..sorry is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.