Evolutions Smoking Gun

[rocketman]

For the purposes of discussion I think it is only right to point out that not all scientists see this as a smoking gun [yet].

"Harvard anthropologist David Pilbeam calls the new study "terrifically exciting and important work." He lauds Reich's method for estimating the human-chimp genetic divergence... Pilbeam suspects that the timing of the final hominid-chimp split will be moved back far enough to disprove the hybridization hypothesis. He doubts that ancient interbreeding would have generated any fertile offspring."

"Anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh sees no merit in the new findings. Reich's team looked for data to support an assumption of close genetic ties between humans and chimps but skimmed over evidence of human similarities to other primates, Schwartz asserts. The hybridization hypothesis "pushes the limits of credulity," Schwartz says."


- http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060520/fob4.asp

I think it's a bit premature to call an hyptohesis a "SMOKING GUN", however I do understand the excitement genreated by a finding that would seem to support a point of view.

" "This is a hypothesis; we haven't proved it but it would explain multiple features of our data," said David Reich, assistant professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School and an author on the Nature paper. "

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4991470.stm

I must say I am growing weary of the way that new discoveries are presented with great gusto only to be deflated later by more in-depth analysis. I think science needs to practice a little modesty with new findings until the broader peer community has a chance to review them. With the sizeable and constant adjustments to the 'facts' is it any wonder that some creationist-types remain skeptical? I realise science must announce new findings but must it continue to embarrass itself by doing it in a way that is 'absolute' one minute then 'oops, we had to change that' the next? A classic case of this over eagerness showed up recently with the human-ancestor candidate "Hobbit Man" from Indonesia; seems the scientists responsible might have made some basic mistakes here too. This only detracts from mainstream science in the eyes of those other struggling scientists: the creationists.

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4994054.stm

 

[Opethian]

I must say I am growing weary of the way that new discoveries are presented with great gusto only to be deflated later by more in-depth analysis. I think science needs to practice a little modesty with new findings until the broader peer community has a chance to review them. With the sizeable and constant adjustments to the 'facts' is it any wonder that some creationist-types remain skeptical? I realise science must announce new findings but must it continue to embarrass itself by doing it in a way that is 'absolute' one minute then 'oops, we had to change that' the next? A classic case of this over eagerness showed up recently with the human-ancestor candidate "Hobbit Man" from Indonesia; seems the scientists responsible might have made some basic mistakes here too. This only detracts from mainstream science in the eyes of those other struggling scientists: the creationists.

I must say I completely agree with this.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with Rocketman and Opethian that it's often dismaying to see new science hyped up one minute and reduced to flawed folly the next. But I console myself with the observation that it's something of a miracle we have in science a system that's self-correcting over time.

Maybe someday, we'll come up with methods that prevent us from making mistakes in the first place, but until then, science is about as good as it gets, given human nature and our slight, but somewhat noticeable tendency to be buffoons in all we humans do.

 

[painted wolf]

actually the problem rests with the way science is represented by the media. The idea was presented as a theory based on a recent study... not as an absolute truth.
Media loves hype, that is why I try not to get my real science information from the news but from origional sources.

as for the "hobbit" the evidence of it being a seperate species is from what I've read in the science jurnals very solid. I don't know of any mistakes with the reserch done by the discoverers. Theories of Microencephalism have been widly disproven by not only the origional find but by the fact that there are multiple specimins of the same species over a range of time.

Again take science stories written by the main-stream media for what they are, ratings getters, written by non-scientists.

now for the actual study. I think the theory is sound. Two proto-species would likely have been able to interbreed. Look at wolves and dogs, wolves and coyotes can also successfully interbreed. At the time of the inital branching between what would become hominids and what would become chimps they would still have been nearly identical. Certenly more like each other than either was to modern chimps or humans.

wa:do

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

D'oh!

You beat me to the points I wanted to make, so I'll just say I agree with your views.

Frubals

 

[Opethian]

actually the problem rests with the way science is represented by the media. The idea was presented as a theory based on a recent study... not as an absolute truth.
Media loves hype, that is why I try not to get my real science information from the news but from origional sources.

Again take science stories written by the main-stream media for what they are, ratings getters, written by non-scientists.

I agree with this as well. The problem is that the majority of people get their science news from the media.

 

[rocketman]

The idea was presented as a theory based on a recent study... not as an absolute truth.

They called it a 'Smoking Gun'. The title of this thread is similar. That's the excitement kicking in. Remember, I've shown that several scientists are skeptical/dismissive of this hypothesis. The expression 'smoking gun' means 'absolute proof' to the average person. I'm glad we are discussing it but I won't be calling it a smoking gun anytime soon.

as for the "hobbit" the evidence of it being a seperate species is from what I've read in the science jurnals very solid. I don't know of any mistakes with the reserch done by the discoverers.

" "There has been too much media hype and too little critical scientific evaluation surrounding this discovery, and it is simply unacceptable that papers should be published without providing proper details of the specimens examined," Dr. Martin says. "The principle of replicability is fundamental to good science, and it has not been respected in this case."
"This leaves the theory that LB1 was a microcephalic modern human as the only plausible explanation for the Flores fossils, according to Drs. Martin and Phillips and their colleagues. "

- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060519100438.htm
[it seems this debate has just started..]

I don't know if the latest chimp-man link hypothesis will have to be corrected at a later stage like Hobbit-Man is, but if it does then the average person who follows these things will yet again have even less confidence in the explanatory power of science; the argument being "If they got that wrong, what else are they wrong about?"

now for the actual study. I think the theory is sound. Two proto-species would likely have been able to interbreed.

If the new idea is right then we have to take into account the fact that when two different animals breed they produce an offspring with a very high percentage of the original paternal genes [eg: wolves and dogs], so the much larger difference in genes between humans and chimps would not have begun to have shown up until the 'big' split, now guestimated at only 5.4~6.3M yrs ago, according to this new hypothesis. This puts even more pressure on the assumption that there has been enough time for chimps and humans to have seperately mutated into what they are today. Therefore this new idea may actually add some weight to that specific creationist argument. I find it is not a bad argument from a scientific point of view, because no matter whose numbers you look at, there seems to have been an extravagantly large number of mutations per generation. I think this is a serious and valid problem that science needs to address.

 

[Fade]

The term smoking gun is used to refer to strong evidence not absolute proof. As someone who follows science you should understand that there is no such thing as absolute proof.
The young age of chromosome x is strong evidence for human evolution. True, new information could come to light that casts doubt on this, just as the man holding a smoking gun could have been handed the gun by the killer.

What do the skeptical scienctists you mention say the chromosome x situation indicates?

 

[painted wolf]

when theories of microencephaly can account for the fact that all the specimins of H.floriensis are morphologicaly the same and no 'normal' specimins have yet to be found, then I will take the microencephalism theory more seriously. LB1 isn't the only "hobbit woman". (I do dislike this "hobbit man" thing)

Now to the topic...
Paleoanthropology is the most argumentitive and "camp driven" of the paleo-sciences I know of. (even the battles between the dino/bird camps) Every new find is argued vehimently by mulitple groups. Throw in the addition of Genetics and the fossil hunting Paleoanthropologists are certen to get into a row.
No scientific find concerning human elvolution is without controversy and argument, just look at how long it took to accept Australopithecus into the main stream.

If they didn't have some argument going on about this then I would be concerned.

The report published suggests that the solid split between humans and chimps that happined around 5 million years ago was preceded by a time of "iffyness" where the two ancestor populations were still more alike to one another than to either chimps or humans.
five million years is the accepted date for the split, this new study has little or no impact on that date, just on what happined working up to that date and imideiatly afterwards.
I'm really not figuring out what all the fuss is about. It doesn't do anything major IMHO to the theory of Hominid evolution except fill in a bit of the grey area in the earliest bits. But then I havent had a chance to read the actual paper and I may be missing something.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

The term smoking gun is used to refer to strong evidence not absolute proof.

The 'definitive' strength of the expression in the modern vernacular is unmistakable. For example, commentators were demanding a WMD 'smoking gun' regarding the invasion of Iraq. The general public just doesn't know any better. I don't have a problem with the term, just what I see as it's premature use, especially given the rapid disagreement amongst scientists over this new find. What image does this yes/no/yes/no/yes/no drama send to the public?

As someone who follows science you should understand that there is no such thing as absolute proof.

I couldn't agree more. The flip side of this, however, is that ANYTHING could be proven wrong at a later date, including large-scale evolution...

The young age of chromosome x is strong evidence for human evolution.

...if you take it in isolation.

What do the skeptical scienctists you mention say the chromosome x situation indicates?

Frankly, it wouldn't matter if they agreed to call this specific trait 'smoking gun' themselves, for it wouldn't change the fact that regarding the implications they use language like "..pushes the limits of credulity..". You see, Fade, it's not the trait in isolation that matters, but rather how it fits into the bigger picture. Those who are close to a problem don't always see this, and those who are not close can help to balance out the answer. Based on what we already know about animals the skeptics are right to wonder if such interbreeding can produce fertile offspring. And based on what we know about statistical sampling the skeptics are right to wonder what will show up once the other primates are tested. It's early days yet. The very fact that there is sharp disagreement [but plenty of respect thankfully] between such high-level scientists tells me all I need to know about whether this new hypothesis should be emphasised as a "smoking gun", regardless of where the final semantics and results may fall.

Cheers.

 

[rocketman]

LB1 isn't the only "hobbit woman".

Agreed. My point was that there is REAL disagreemnet amongst some scientists over significant areas of this work, a work that at one point recieved the 'smoking gun' treatment, [expressed differently of-course]. I wouldn't go publishing either version of this theory in a textbook just yet, IMHO.

( I do dislike this "hobbit man" thing)

:sorry1: You're right. Is "Hobbit Person" OK?

Now to the topic...
No scientific find concerning human elvolution is without controversy and argument, just look at how long it took to accept Australopithecus into the main stream.

Yes, and there are a great many scientists who quietly maintain their dissenting views long after something has been accepted as the general consensus. Much of science that deals with the distant past is very murky indeed. The 'proofs' are often selected almost democratically [hardly a scientific method]. I think it's only fair to admit that we 'just don't know' certain things, and by that I mean admit it in textbooks, not just internet forums. People need to know about the disagreements. [sorry, I tend to ramble! ]

five million years is the accepted date for the split, this new study has little or no impact on that date .... I'm really not figuring out what all the fuss is about.

The new hypothesis gives a minimum of "probably less than 5.4M years ago" , which is significantly lower than the regular "6.5 to 7.4M years".

"This finding implies that human-chimp speciation itself is far more recent than previously thought."

- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060518075823.htm

The pressure thus builds on the idea that there was enough time for the very large number of unique [post-split] base-pairs to have mutated into existence. The more I look at this the more trouble I see with it. You also need to subtract the time that the modern human species has been here, which some say was a long time. Surely I can't be expected to believe that a single genetic line picked up every single mutation? Therefore I also have to subtract the time it takes to 'distill' pre-homosapiens into the original Johns and Janes [Adams and Eves if you prefer] because interbreeding removes mutations from the bloodline as well as adding them. Or alternatively, I would need to subtract the time needed for a large number of changes to work through a largish population [not as easy as some think!]. Somewhere, somehow, the current [enormous] set of different genes had to stabilse, then you've got to multiply the population to where we are today.

I couldn't see enough time with the old idea so this new one really has me wondering. And now that they've actually observed the imperfect but powerful mutation-correcting mechanism at work, I am even less convinced that mutation/selection accounts for the chimp-human split.

- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060519235555.htm

 

[painted wolf]

In the December issues of Science in 1966 and 1967 Vincent Sarich and Sherwood Washburn published three papers that by use of Molecular evidence put the evolutionary split between Hominids and Apes at around 5 million years ago.

The five million year date is not new nor is it all that controversial. Much of the controversy about the date was handled back in the 60's and 70's. Almost all major scientific articles and publications use the 5 million year date.

The only people who would be surprized and annoyed with the five million year date would be those who want to put Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) in with the Hominids.
Orrorin tungnensis dates to between 5.8 and 6.1 million years ago and seems to straddle the split.
Ardipithecus (kadabba & ramidus) between 5.8 and 5.2 million years ago.

So really the only problem is with Toumai.

Intrestingly this is a shadow of the "old Homo" arguments that used to be a major part of the Paleoanthropology world. The last big fight allong these lines was between the Leakey's and thier group and Donald Johanson, Tim White and thier group. This was the big controversy over Australopithcus afarensis and its place in the human family tree.

the mutation correction mechanism at work is for dangerous mutations like cancer, not for adaptave mutations like hair color. Nor is it shown to be very effective.

humans have only been around for about 160,000 years (H. sapiens idaltu) "modern" humans less long about 35,000 years ago (H. sapiens sapiens).
This leaves us with nearly a full 5 million years to get from Ororrin to Homo sapiens.

As for 'stabilizing' the genes... I have no idea what you mean by this. Genetically speaking we are not enoumously different from chimps at all, we are quite the opposite, nearly identical. 4% change in DNA is certenly a reasonable amount of change in 5 million years.

The population of sapiens around 70,000 years ago, was likely to have been quite small (only a few thousands) which is backed up by our genetic homogeny. That bottleneck was likely the cause for our quick deveolpment from H.s.idaltu to H.s.sapiens.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

Thank you for your informative response, painted wolf. Your knowledge, as always, is very impressive.

the mutation correction mechanism at work is for dangerous mutations like cancer, not for adaptave mutations like hair color. Nor is it shown to be very effective.

It wasn't the kind of cells that mattered to me, but the fact that for the first time ever that ANY kind of self-
checker/fixer has been directly observed. Because I'm a fan of the idea that DNA is reasonably resiliant and not as subject
to change over time as people say it is, I naturally found this news interesting.

The five million year date is not new nor is it all that controversial. Much of the controversy about the date was handled back in the 60's and 70's. Almost all major scientific articles and publications use the 5 million year date.

The linked article in my post was pretty clear about the fact that this new idea moves the age of the final split forward in
time, according to those working on it. I even put the editorial quote in italics. Isn't Toumai in the line of descent after
the early split? The journal Nature has no problem defining it thus in the family tree 6.5M to 7.4M years ago. Note that with
the new hypothesis the idea is that early types like Toumai interbred with chimp-ancestors. All the articles I've read on
this clearly define the final break as having now been pushed forward in time. There are now two splits: the early split and
the final split. I know it's meant to cover the grey area, but the grey area now becomes a kind of holding pattern, delaying
the final split. The researchers and article writers obviously counted the initial split as pre-Toumai, do you? I find
6M+ years is common in the literature I read. I admit I don't know when the final split took place, all I'm saying is that
any declared shortening of the timeframe by scientists adds extra weight to a certain creationist argument. At the extreme,
7.4M less 5.4M gives 2M years.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2552/25525001.jpg

As for 'stabilizing' the genes... I have no idea what you mean by this. Genetically speaking we are not enoumously different from chimps at all, we are quite the opposite, nearly identical. 4% change in DNA is certenly a reasonable amount of change in 5 million years.

The timing of the final split between Humans and Chimps is important because it is the point of no return [no more
interbreeding]. Thus it can only be from this point that we can ask if there was enough time for all of the SPECIFIC
differences between humans and chimps to have occured. The new hypothesis gives us only "probably less than 5.4M" years at
the lower end. You say 4% difference in the genome: if we assume approx 3 billion nucleotides for chimps or for us, that's
about 120 million in difference, say 60 million base pairs each. The problems are many but let me cut to the chase. The
distinct pair [or group] of common ancestors that split off had to start a new [ultimately human] line which eventually had
to pick up ALL 60 million unique base pairs. Keep that initial couple/group in mind while I ask a few questions:
Did you inherit all of your Father's genes? Did you inherit all of your Mother's genes? Are genes guaranteed to be passed on?
Does a new mutation suddenly propogate through a population? Can a new mutation spread rapidly through a population in only a
few generations? The answer to all of my rhetorical questions is of-course, NO. These factors are of concern for our
fledgling proto-humans. From them must come an evolving population that never gets too small [death by inbreeding] or big
[mutations never accumulate] and somehow there has to be a narrowing down into a bottleneck a group/couple that has 60
million non-lethal nucleotide changes that the original breakaways didn't have. Basic bioligy tells me this can't be done in
5.4 million years. 5.4 into 60 gives an annual average figure of mutations that would be comprehensively impossible to keep
re-absorbing into each generation and/or have all 60 million 'catch up with each other' at the end. I haven't even started on
the ridiculous problem of incredible amounts of mutations per generation. I'll let the reader choose their own generation
span amount and have fun with the math. I think the new hypothesis adds weight to this argument, but obviously either age is
replete with problems.

Sorry for labouring my points so much. I don't honestly know what the answer is to this problem, but I do seriously believe
it is a problem, though I understand if you do not.

Peace.

 

[painted wolf]

ok, first off the self checking device is for copy errors... a cell devides and produces two new cells. (somatic mutations)
Not the sort of mutations that cover evolution ie. a sperm and an egg join and make a new single cell. (germ line mutations)
That single cell will be different from both the sperm and the egg, that process produces something different, something that will have at least one mutation somewhere. Most such mutations are harmless.
Again the self checking meccanism observed is for copy errors of already living cells. Errors like cancer...
And DNA is very flexable, it changes every generation, mutates every generation. This is very firmly documented and has been observed since DNA was discovered. Many recent studies show that changes can happen quite quickly especally in isolated populations.

Toumai is very controversial... many think it may be a Gorilla ancestor rather than a direct hominid ancestor. Part of the reason is the genetic evidence for the 5 million year split. Frankly more material needs to be found before it will be definitively placed on the 'offical' hominid family tree. Same goes for Ororrin.

Most of the sources I have and frequent use the 5 million year date. Toumai is not established enough yet to oust the genetic studies of previous decades.
Smithsonian uses the 5 million year date for example.

sixty years is honestly way to high for a generation... people haven't had that long a common lifespan untill the last couple of centuries. For most of human history you were lucky to make it to 40. Many girls in Medievil and earlier times started having children in their teens. A generation therefore would be from the time one child is born untill it starts to produce children of its own.
A woman can have one child a year for twenty years or so. Add into that the genetic varation of having multiple men as fathers for the children and voila.

Mutations do not "reabsorb".
Yes mutations can spread quickly though a population, even a large one. 70% of humans today have a mutation that started with one person who lived around 37,000 years ago. Another mutation in one person now held by 30% of the human population origionated about 5,800 years ago. One mutation... six billion humans.

Add into that that mutations often have a "cascade effect" in that one mutation can effect a whole chain of genes. Genes are tied to one another, they arn't one use only things. There is no 'bald gene' for instance but a number of genes that influence hair a mutation with any of them can cause baldness.
Dogs are a perfect example of cascading effect of single mutations on physical form.

This link may be of help to you: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_05

wa:do

 

[linwood]

For the purposes of discussion I think it is only right to point out that not all scientists see this as a smoking gun [yet].

I`d like to point out that these scientists aren`t genetisists but anthropologists.
The implications of this chimp/human hybrid hypothesis are bound to drastically change the course and findings of any research they have done or are doing.
It can`t be an easy thing to re-write your lifes work nor accept the fact that it must be re-written.
My point is that they have their own agenda and are not really qualified to be passing any scientific judgement on this work in microbiology.

I myself have no opinion of this potential new discovery as it hasn`t been passed around the scientific community enough for me as of yet.

I must say I am growing weary of the way that new discoveries are presented with great gusto only to be deflated later by more in-depth analysis. I think science needs to practice a little modesty with new findings until the broader peer community has a chance to review them.

Agreed, this is not all the medias doing although they do play a large part.

 

[rocketman]

Again the self checking meccanism observed is for copy errors of already living cells. Errors like cancer...

I never disagreed with you on what this was. I'm simply interested to know the natural 'technology' has been directly
observed and is real. [Seeing is believing..] And yes, I know the division of a living cell is not the same as procreation.

Toumai is very controversial... Frankly more material needs to be found before it will be definitively placed on the 'offical' hominid family tree.

I was just quoting the source. I can't help it if the researchers of the study and Nature place Toumai in the homonid line
and factor it into the early hybridization process. Obviously you are in disagrement with this part of the new hypothesis then. Yes?

sixty years is honestly way to high for a generation...

I never actually gave a figure for generation-span , but if my writing is lacking clarity in any way I sincerely apologize.
If you re-check my post you'll see I was using the number '60' as shorthand for '60 million' [as in base-pairs]. I completely
agree that 60 years is way too long for one generation; I'd go for 20 years or less. Maybe even 15 or 12.

Mutations do not "reabsorb".

My very sloppy way of saying that all 60 million new base-pairs have to eventually come together, one generation at a time,
any hereditary pathways you like, in only 5.4M years. Think about it.

One mutation... six billion humans.

With all due respect, aren't you confusing quantity with quality? A human population can easily double, say, every 200 years,
so a mutation established in an early smaller poplulation will naturally turn out a good percentage after thousands of years.
I see the problem not as the final amount but rather getting the mutation established in the first place and then constantly
doing it all over again with each new generation. Even with the example of the very busy and very promiscuous woman that you
gave, we still need many new mutations to be passed on to a survivable number of offspring EVERY GENERATION FOR 5.4 MILLION YEARS.
Of that I am extremely skeptical. After all, sexual reproduction ensures that the general characteristics of the species will
continue, so apart from keeping the gene pool diverse, our un-ladylike freind can only pass on mutations if she has them, and
then her kids have to get new ones and so on and on, and ultimately they must all 'form up' at the bottleneck of early human
history.

Again, the group cannot be too big or too small. 'Rapid' spread of a mutation through a large population is not speedy enough
for our scenario: any analysis of a heredity simulation shows how slow the initial stages are to get going. Factor in the
need to introduce lots of mutations every generation or two and not lose A SINGLE ONE, then things get ugly with the simulation. If my meaning is unclear let's look at it like this: I'll assume 5.4M years as the time, 60 Million base-pairs, and a generation span of 15 years. This demands an average of 166 mutations PER GENERATION, which have to make their way onto the following generation, who in turn need just as many mutations and not lose any of the old ones and so on and on - all passed on by regular sexual reproduction, with the mutations ALWAYS finding the favourable side of the 50/50 split for those who recieve them, ie: none lost in 5.4M years [lucky!]. I know there are many mutations going on all the time, but 166 per generation, non-lethal, transferable, selectable, can't be lost, 5.4M years unbroken line, eventually lead to humans...sorry, does not make sense. Not to my mind anyway. And the chimp line has to go through the exact same thing as well..

Add into that that mutations often have a "cascade effect" in that one mutation can effect a whole chain of genes.

I'm familiar with control genes. The thing is, I can't find an example of where one was mutated that didn't simply re-
regulate the expression of EXISTING genes. Perhaps you know of an example. I need 60 million base-pairs in 5.4M years. I'm
looking for lots of new base-pairs per generation, not relocations/duplications of old ones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fear I am dragging the topic of this thread away from Fade's original intent so I'm going to park on the sidelines for a
time.

Thanks.

 

[Fade]

I'm familiar with control genes. The thing is, I can't find an example of where one was mutated that didn't simply re-
regulate the expression of EXISTING genes. Perhaps you know of an example. I need 60 million base-pairs in 5.4M years. I'm
looking for lots of new base-pairs per generation, not relocations/duplications of old ones.

I'm not sure I get this. Why is this an issue?

I fear I am dragging the topic of this thread away from Fade's original intent so I'm going to park on the sidelines for a
time.

Thanks.

My original intent was to spark a discussion about human evolution. Seems to be working as far as I'm concerned so get back in gear and drive on

 

[painted wolf]

I have no problem with the mixing of proto-pans and proto-hominids genetically mixing for thier initial million years or so. I don't think it was likely to have been widespread, but it may well have left a mark on our genetics. I'd like to see more reserch into it before I make a solid commitment.

The same goes for Toumai, one horribly crushed skull is not quite enough to solidly put something so old and so contrary to established genetic studies into the family tree. I am more likely to belive that Toumai represents an early great ape perhaps one of the before split Hominoids... but not nessisarily a Hominid.
many early hominid traits seem to be very generalized and primitive. Our enamel thickness and other tooth characteristics for instance are rather "primitive". It may well be that the brow ridges that some clame link Toumai with hominidae are another of the primitive features that we kept as a hold over while other Apes lost. (like our teeth). We frankly don't have any good material of gorillas or chimps to make an adiquate compairison IMHO.

Nature doesn't have a set stance on the age of the human/chimp split. The articles are submitted by individuals and peer reviewed. They do not say "this is fact" they present the arguments of individual scientific papers and promote the discussion of them.

ps. mutations happin with every generation... they will be passed on.
I don't understand how you "loose" a mutation.

I looked up the hard numbers on the Chimp genome and there are about 35 million single letter differences between chimps and humans according to the Nature article about mapping the Chimp genome(published in Nature '05). The majority of these differences are actually related to disease resistance, no big surprize... we have traveled a lot more than they have and run into new viruses a lot.

Add in the viral resistance mutations and the fact that you only have 35 million single letter changes over 5-6 million years and it doesn't look so big a jump. You only need one major change and six bouts of the common cold per generation.
Or since we have recent mutations that change our resistance to heart disease, polio, small pox, measles, chicken pox, monkey pox, influenza, plague, AIDS, and so on and so forth...
Only 1% of the actual difference between us and chimps has to do with our being "human". Duplications and shuffling of information make up for another 3% of the difference.

We really arn't talking about a lot of mutations to make a human.
5 million years is plenty of time for 1% change.

wa:do

 

[roli]

I am afraid that I see the mainstream religions, such as Christianity and Islam. Flinging the Bibles or the Qur'an in our face. Trying to force issues in regarding to abortion, euthanasia, etc, which should be the decision of individuals with medical doctors, even if that person don't belong to any religion, seemed to infringe people's right to make the decision. Trying to push your preconception of heaven/hell, miracles upon others is not my idea of free will and free thinking. It is simply your version of "what make you feel good" that I don't entertain, and only reinforce my view that creationists are only here to force people to accept ignorance as gospel truth.

I find your post offensive when you call other people to think for themselves as "ignorant". People have the right to question everything, whether they be the scriptures, creation, evolution or the big bang.

Who said that the most recent evidences are ignored? To me, Creationists seemed to ignore all evidences whatsoever, so who is really ignorant?

You for one need to look further into your research then your bias sources,it's not so impressive when you voice from a one sided perspective realizing that the evidence for creationism is quite compelling and may even out way the theories of evolution.
There are enough scientists,that believe in creationism and even more and more of those who oppose it are scratching their heads about the absurd claims of evolution.
As a matter of fact I was recently reading some articles that claimed that many of those professionals who take the side of evolution do so for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence.On the contrary they were intimidated,pressured and forced to side with evolution to preserve their reputations,images,their fundings and more so to maintain thier prestige with their peers.
But of course you would not be reading those articles, neither would you the evidence that supports creation,the question remains then,what is it that you and those who refute creationism so afraid of.
I mean, what if you find out for yourselves creation was how we got here,what then,I guess you will be left to believe the whole thing, Heaven hell ,sin law righteousness,judgement, and God will judge the world and that there will be a standard that will be required of us when we stand before God.

We christians may be ignorant from your perspective, but if we are certain about anything in this life it is about Heaven as for me it has been that way for the the past 10 yrs,knowing that before Christ came into my life I had severe doubts about God,life's purpose's,where we came from,why we are here and where we will go after this life and that Jesus Christ is Savior of the world.
We are confident and have this hope that we will live forever,what a feeling of security and assurance.
We have considered where such remarks and opposition comes from and therefore are comforted in the fact that,this assurance is not based on mere intellect,physical proof or words but on the deposit of the Holy Spirit that was given to us when we recieved Christ.
10 out of 10 will die but we will live forever,you can take that to the bank .
We don't force people like you suggested,we just share the truth,what people do with it is their business

 

[rocketman]

My original intent was to spark a discussion about human evolution. Seems to be working as far as I'm concerned so get back in gear and drive on

Thanks. Not sure how much more fuel is left in my tank though

I'm not sure I get this. Why is this an issue?

Do you mean the control gene thing or the timeframe thing?

If control genes: Painted Wolf seemed to be indicating that cascade changes can account for high volumes of mutations between
humans and chimps in the hypothetical timeframe I am using. I counter that mutated control genes simply re-regulate existing
genes, not cook up a batch of never-seen-before genes. Unless someone knows of an example...

If the timeframe thing: Just trying to fit the changes into the timeframe, regardless of what they actually do they still
need to be accounted for using evolutionary mechanisms. I find myself edging toward the creationist view on this one Fade,
and with the majority of articles saying that the timing has been moved forward, doesn't that mean the new idea actually
adds weight to this argument?