Topic: Chimps have evolved further from the common ancestor than man

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

More chimpanzee genes than human genes have gone through positive Darwinian selection, according to a study published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors propose that natural selection has been more effective in chimpanzees because they have had larger effective population sizes.

"The results are really important if they're true, because I think they reverse our bias that natural selection has operated more aggressively on humans," said David Reich of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in the study.

Previous studies have looked for positively selected genes in chimpanzees and humans, "but they never compared the numbers between the two species," said senior author Jianzhi Zhang of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

[Commander Maxillius]

This could prove that intelligence and technology really is a fluke and not an evolutionary destination.

[E_Look]

... if you believe all or any of this... 

[GE-Raven]

Gee... so a Chimp evolved to a slightly better Chimp in just a the few million years it has been on the planet!  Awesome!  So how long does it take to go from enzyme rich ooze to single cell to human?  Not including all the mass extinctions...

That has always been my problem with Macro Evolution (as opposed to what this study is looking at what I call evolution with a small "e") There just isn't enough time.  Evolution as we know it takes a VERY long time, for even small changes... of course there are some lucky "leaps" now and again, but mostly it is onion peeling speed.

GE-Raven

[Nemesis]

Guys please keep the Evolution vs Religion debate in Hot and Spicey.  Let this discussion stick to science.

[Sirgod]

Guys please keep the Evolution vs Religion debate in Hot and Spicey.  Let this discussion stick to science.

Gotta back up Nem here. Guys I know we have our passions, but let's keep it cool here in the science fora.

Stephen

[Nemesis]

They can always post a duplicate in Hot and Spicey or the Equine Graveyard and debate it there to their hearts content.

[KBF MalaK]

How much of THAT evolution was because of chimps being exposed to us humans (who have evolved a bit more I'd think if you compare the times it took), BUT Humans my not have evolved the same way chimps are/have. I tend to think humans may have had a little 'help' be it divine intervention, extra-terrestrials, or perhaps some very bad genetic adaptions that have brought us to this point on our ladder. Our evolution may or may not be on the same path as the chimp evolution.

Who knows, but it's human arrogance that makes him believe that he's the smartest/most evolved species on this planet IMHO.

[Sirgod]

How much of THAT evolution was because of chimps being exposed to us humans (who have evolved a bit more I'd think if you compare the times it took), BUT Humans my not have evolved the same way chimps are/have. I tend to think humans may have had a little 'help' be it divine intervention, extra-terrestrials, or perhaps some very bad genetic adaptions that have brought us to this point on our ladder. Our evolution may or may not be on the same path as the chimp evolution.

Who knows, but it's human arrogance that makes him believe that he's the smartest/most evolved species on this planet IMHO.

Stephen Sniffs armpit, OK Malak.

Stephen

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Gene sequencing revealed a mutation specific to humans that triggers a change in the splicing pattern of the neuropsin gene, creating a new splicing site and a longer protein. Introducing this mutation into chimpanzee DNA resulted in the creation of type II neuropsin. "Hence, the human-specific mutation is not only necessary but also sufficient in creating the novel splice form," the authors state.

They note that further studies should probe the biological function of type II neuropsin in humans, as the extra 45 amino acids in this form may cause protein structural and functional changes. They note that in order to understand the genetic basis that underlies the traits that set humans apart from nonhuman primates, recent studies have focused on identifying genes that have been positively selected during human evolution. They conclude, "The present results underscore the potential importance of the creation of novel splicing forms in the central nervous system in the emergence of human cognition."

[Electric Eye]

Doesn't surprise me, I mean, chimps could probably do a better job at running our corporations and government than the current choices of humans! 

[Grand Master of Shadows NCC37385]

I would tend to believe in micro evolution before macro evolution. For instance, some scientists now believe that domesticated dogs evolved from wolves within a single human lifespan. They point to something that happened in a Russian fox breeding facility as proof.

In the 50's Russian breeders decided to breed foxes based on their disposition. They reasoned that the less agressive the foxes were, the easier they would be to handle. The easier they were to handle, the more foxes could be tended and the fewer injuries workers got.

There was an expected side effect. The "calmer" foxes, after only a few generations, began to be born with "dog-like" traits. Their pelts were no longer fairly uniform. They began to see color changes. Patched, mottled fur. They even began to bark, with only domesticated dogs do. While all canines can bark, only dogs use barking as their main vocalization. The foxes even began to play with their handlers and began to respond to names given to them.

[S'Raek]

The problem is that any debate about this is almost automatically a religion vs evolution debate.  As if it's crap isn't not science. 

Doesn't surprise me, I mean, chimps could probably do a better job at running our corporations and government than the current choices of humans! 

You have obviously not seen those TV commercials with the chimps in business suits!   

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

The opossum genome, sequenced by an international consortium, is the first complete genome for a marsupial, which split from the placental mammal lineage about 180 million years ago. This makes it an ideal tool for understanding the changes that placentals have undergone in their evolution.

Just 1.1% of the conserved sequences within genes were unique to placentals, they found. In contrast, a massive 20.5% of the noncoding sequences were unique to placental mammals. "Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than with the genes themselves," says Eric Lander of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was one of the leaders of the consortium.

The idea that much evolution takes place more in the form of the control of genes rather than in the genes themselves is very interesting.  In theory a new species could arise by very minor changes to the controls.

[Death_Merchant]

Everyone seems to have missed the point of the study.

More evolved than humans does not mean better

it just means more evolutionary changes

"More evolved" has come to mean "better" or "more advanced" in common language, but that is not the scientific meaning here.

[Nemesis]

Actually I don't think that anyone actually said that.  I for one carefully phrased the topic "evolved further from" rather than "more evolved" to avoid that implication.

The chimp has evolved to handle one specific environment better.  Mankind has evolved more flexibility to handle multiple environments.  The flexibility apparently required fewer changes than the specific.

It would be interesting to see a chimp genetically reengineered back to being a copy of the common ancestor.

[Electric Eye]

Let all the people that live in the South and Southwest U.S.A. lose their A/C in their homes and cars and trucks and buildings where they work and we shall see how "evolved" they are. 

[Nemesis]

A potential answer to the question of why  chimps have evolved further.


Link to full article

Chromosomes hold thousands of genes, with some situated in the middle of their linear structure and others at either end. In their analysis, the NYU and Princeton researchers found that genes located in the middle of a chromosome were less likely to contribute to genetic variation of traits than were genes found at the ends. In other words, a gene's location on a chromosome influenced the range of physical differences among different traits.

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs chimps have 24.  In humans two of the pairs have fused into one.  That doubled pair being longer should by this theory have evolved less than the 2 pairs it replaces in the chimp.  The "central" area of that chromosome is wider than in the two chimp chromosomes and the end areas less in comparison.

My guess is that early cells would not have evolved the interlinking between genes and that therefore the frequency of mutation overall would be higher and evolution therefore faster.  It would of course take time for the interlinks themselves to evolve.  If they also had more but on average shorter chromosomes it would have the same effect of faster evolution.  Early cells might in fact have had more "free floating" genes (my speculation) and the chromosome may not yet have evolved, accelerating evolution even more.

If I am correct then evolution may by its very nature slow over time and the current rates of evolution are substantially lower than in earlier more primordial times and the objection of "there hasn't been enough time" is over come as it is based on the slower more evolved evolution of today not that of hundreds of millions to billions of years ago. 

[Bonk]

It is not surprising to me. At a certain point "intelligence" becomes a hindrance to evolution. It could be a speed bump or a cul-de-sac, which is determined by how we handle it.

For some time now, large segments of our populations have not been subject to natural selection, only sexual selection. The result is predictable.


Buuuuutt.... let's get me off that train... I wonder how they did this work. I have a had a look into modern proteomic and genetic analytical techniques. I have a world of criticism I am holding back. (barely)

Perhaps I shall read the link now that I have commented.

Damn you Nemesis. (That's a good damn you...) Picking this stuff apart is what makes me want to continue.

Statistically determining Darwinian selection (oh the semantics) based on analytical genetics data. sh*t man. Can we really do that? (maybe) Should we do that? (Maybe) What will we do with the results? (holy crap... it is a race now)

[Nemesis]

It is not surprising to me. At a certain point "intelligence" becomes a hindrance to evolution. It could be a speed bump or a cul-de-sac, which is determined by how we handle it.

It is possible that there are multiple phases in how evolution is affected by intelligence. 

1/ Intelligence selected for as an advantage.

2/ Knowledge at a plateau where it (intelligence) is advantageous but higher IQ not enough to be selected for

3/ Medicine & Society advanced enough to keep alive those who would have been selected against (now)

4/ Biological science advances to the point of directed evolution (whether by a plan or just "fashion") (approaching)

For some time now, large segments of our populations have not been subject to natural selection, only sexual selection. The result is predictable.

Just wait until we all evolve peacocks tails.  Then you'll have something to complain about.

Actually with plastic surgery and so on even this is being neutralized.

Damn you Nemesis. (That's a good damn you...) Picking this stuff apart is what makes me want to continue.

 

On the topic of intelligence I suspect that intelligence is partly nurture, that most people have the potential if they had been nurtured differently to have higher IQs.  This could explain for example the various sudden surges in knowledge in prehistory as society changed and the way of nurturing children raised the IQ of future generations.  These "primordial" jumps could easily be partly improved nourishment rather than how the young were cared for. 

Now apply this nurture idea to earlier hominids.  One genius comes along and invents the stone axe.  Merely by inventing it and passing the knowledge on he changes the way the young are raised.  They spend part of their youth learning the best and easiest means of making stone tools, actively developing their ability to think in at least one way.  Physically they are unchanged but their brains are jumped up to a higher level of mentation by training.  Later mutations for better hearing or vocalization result in bigger vocabularies and with more words more ability to think and communicate complex thoughts, without changing the brain up jumps the IQ again.  Of course a larger brain makes the higher IQ easier for an individual to develop so it would still be selected for.  Longer lives would also be selected for as those who lived longer learned more and passed more on to the next generation. 

Those with the greater use of their brain had a reproductive advantage.  Those who nurtured their children in IQ enhancing ways gave their tribe an advantage.  Those whose tribes suppressed the use of thought lost out. 

Now apply this to homo floriensis.  They had tiny brains but had tool use equal to the larger brained (and possibly their ancestor) homo erectus.  That mere tool use might have caused those small brains to be used more thoroughly to the point where though their IQ potential had dropped it still maintained the IQ level to keep their cultural level though perhaps not enough to advance it. 

Apply it to Neandertal.  They preceded Sapiens but didn't advance as far in culture or technology.  It could have been as simple as their rough environment kept them from having time to develop thinking in their kids or had a culture that suppressed "smart asses".  It could also be that they didn't have the mutations for vocalization or hearing to allow a large vocabulary or had ones that were not as broad in function.  It is a lot harder to think of something you have no words for and they might have need the larger brain to function at an equal or near equal IQ level. 

If we were to take a chimp, mutate it with the changes to vocalization and hearing then raise it with humans how smart would it become compared to a wild chimp or a normal chimp raised by humans?  Extend its childhood as well to give it more time to learn and again how smart would it be?  Of course letting it choose to name itself Caesar might be a bad idea (Trivia question who knows the name given to Caesar in the 3rd Planet of the Apes movie by his mother Zera?)