Chimps 'more evolved' than humans

[popopot]

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Evolutionary geneticist Jianzhi Zhang and colleagues at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, US, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 genes shared by human, chimp and rhesus macaques.

For each DNA letter at which the human or chimp genes differ from our shared ancestral form – inferred from the corresponding gene in macaques – researchers noted whether the change led to an altered protein. Genes that have been transformed by natural selection show an unusually high proportion of mutations leading to altered proteins.

Zhang's team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

This contradicts what most evolutionary biologists had assumed. "We tend to see the differences between us and our common ancestor more easily than the differences between chimps and the common ancestor," observes Zhang.

The result makes sense, he says, because until relatively recently the human population has been smaller than that of chimps, leaving us more vulnerable to random fluctuations in gene frequencies. This prevents natural selection from having as strong an effect overall.

Now that the macaque genome has been sequenced, biologists will be able to learn more about the differences between the apes.

[Barbarossa]

The result makes sense, he says, because until relatively recently the human population has been smaller than that of chimps, leaving us more vulnerable to random fluctuations in gene frequencies. This prevents natural selection from having as strong an effect overall.

It doesn't make sense to me :dabs:

Surely genetic mutations in a smaller population will spread faster than they will in a larger population, so natural selection will have a stronger effect overall.

[popopot]

I guess natural selection cannot have a strong effect in a small population because there is no means of selecting the fittest individuals if there is a limited selection from which to propagate - you might have to breed with a munter if thats all that is available! Therefore, fluctuations will be greater because the 'munters' genes will cause a change in the 'fitness' landscape of the population. This all depends on how small the population is of course.

[Barbarossa]

But natural selection cannot have a strong effect in a huge population, because there are so many more munters to breed with :lol:

Not everyone gets to breed with Kelly Brook for example. Some of us have to make do with second best :dry:

Therefore, if Kelly Brook contained some awesome genetic advantage, it really doesn't matter because statistically it will only get passed on to a small percentage of descendents.

[bigboab]

Are we saying that countries that have a clan system are genetically further on than the rest of the World where they breed indiscriminately?:whistling

[vidcc]

Natural selection /survival of the fittest/ genetic advantages works in nature where the strongest get to breed the most. Larger populations by sheer numbers make it more likely that a genetic abnormality could occur.

Of course smaller populations have the whole inbreeding abnormalities to contend with, seldom are these abnormalities advantageous


Humans have to a large degree removed themselves from this because of things like emotions being part of the process. Physical attraction plays a role but not everyone is attracted to the fittest and strongest.

[JPaul]

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Baloney, man is the pinnacle of evolutionary success.

Chimps may be more highly evolved, so what that doesn't make them a bigger success.

[manker]

The result makes sense, he says, because until relatively recently the human population has been smaller than that of chimps, leaving us more vulnerable to random fluctuations in gene frequencies*. This prevents natural selection from having as strong an effect overall.

It doesn't make sense to me :dabs:

Surely genetic mutations in a smaller population will spread faster than they will in a larger population, so natural selection will have a stronger effect overall.*I think he'd have been better served by writing 'lower levels of' instead of 'random fluctuations in'.

What the author probably means there is that because of the smaller population of humans, there will be lower levels of the number of alleles to interact with a compatible allele, from the other parent, which can then result in a mutation. This will thus inhibit evolution by natural selection.

Put simply, less offspring = less chance of a mutation = less chance of an evolutionary leap.

[popopot]

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.Baloney, man is the pinnacle of evolutionary success.

Chimps may be more highly evolved, so what that doesn't make them a bigger success.

Us a success?

[JPaul]

Baloney, man is the pinnacle of evolutionary success.

Chimps may be more highly evolved, so what that doesn't make them a bigger success.

Us a success?

Yeah, we run the fucking place.

If you look at what evolution and natural selection are for, we are successful beyond belief.

Don't mix that up with a value judgement btw. I'm not saying we are good, or that what we do is laudable. However with our opposable thumbs and large surplus brain capacity we have evolved the fuck out of everything else.

Sorry if that got too sciency and technical.

[j2k4]

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Odd, then, isn't it, they'll never be aware of that tantalizing fact until we tell them...or, if they already know, they haven't figured out how to tell us.

[JPaul]

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Odd, then, isn't it, they'll never be aware of that tantalizing fact until we tell them...or, if they already know, they haven't figured out how to tell us.

Hoi, the genetic research being carried out by chimps is breathtaking.

[ilw]

Us a success?

Yeah, we run the fucking place.

If you look at what evolution and natural selection are for, we are successful beyond belief.

Don't mix that up with a value judgement btw. I'm not saying we are good, or that what we do is laudable. However with our opposable thumbs and large surplus brain capacity we have evolved the fuck out of everything else.

Sorry if that got too sciency and technical.
surely evo & nat selection are not for anything, they're just something that happens due to the nature of reality, so how do you measure success? if its by numbers we'd lose to a whole bunch of things, if its by adaptability to a breadth of environments i'm sure we'd lose to something lame like some bacteria and probably some bugs.
all the research seems to be saying is that chimps have changed more since separating from the common ancestor

[JPaul]

all the research seems to be saying is that chimps have changed more since separating from the common ancestor


It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success

Apparently not, it would appear they are more of an evolutionary success than we are.

How is that working out for them. If evolutionary success is about survival of the species then I would venture we are a wee bit ahead. Unless of course you have recently sponsored a chimp in his attempt to save the human.

[j2k4]

Odd, then, isn't it, they'll never be aware of that tantalizing fact until we tell them...or, if they already know, they haven't figured out how to tell us.

Hoi, the genetic research being carried out by chimps is breathtaking.

And without aid of a proper laboratory.

Fan-tastic.

I'm sure you agree.

[vidcc]

Originally Posted by ilw
all the research seems to be saying is that chimps have changed more since separating from the common ancestor




It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success

Apparently not, it would appear they are more of an evolutionary success than we are.
I think those are the words of the author of the article, not the study, and as such do not refute ilw's point


How is that working out for them. If evolutionary success is about survival of the species then I would venture we are a wee bit ahead. Unless of course you have recently sponsored a chimp in his attempt to save the human.

I wonder if the human race could survive the sort of mass extermination, (over and above that through natural predators), that insects seem to be able to overcome.

[lynx]

What the author says is "more evolved".
What the research seems to say "have evolved more".

The first implies that Chimps have been more good changes, the second simply that there have been more changes.

If evolution had a goal, a small number of changes all in the direction of that goal would be preferable to a larger number of changes in other directions, since once you are "off track" the risk of going even further off track is increased.

Even though we assume that there is no actual predetermined goal, we ourselves define what is "good" and in doing so impose a de facto goal.

I suspect the author knew the difference between what he was saying and what the research was saying, but sticking to the research definition wouldn't have given him an attention-grabbing headline.

[thewizeard]

It was obvious that they are further evolved than their lower classed Human Cousins. After millions of years of nagging, speech eventually devolved and landed on a side track... which we seem to have have joined just after Waterloo junction at Clapham Junction, and that's clever.

[Barbarossa]

What the author probably means there is that because of the smaller population of humans, there will be lower levels of the number of alleles to interact with a compatible allele, from the other parent, which can then result in a mutation. This will thus inhibit evolution by natural selection.


:blink:



Put simply, less offspring = less chance of a mutation = less chance of an evolutionary leap.

Ahhh, gotcha :smilie4:

Yes, that sort of makes sense.

So basically, with very low populations/endangered species, natural selection basically comes down to a "double or quits" gamble:- Roll the dice and hope for an advantageous but increasingly unlikely mutation, or totally die out.

[popopot]

But natural selection cannot have a strong effect in a huge population, because there are so many more munters to breed with :lol:

Not everyone gets to breed with Kelly Brook for example. Some of us have to make do with second best :dry:

Therefore, if Kelly Brook contained some awesome genetic advantage, it really doesn't matter because statistically it will only get passed on to a small percentage of descendents.

Well then perhaps muntersville is the norm and the Kelly Brook breeders are what cause the fluctuations since they are not as common.

[popopot]

It doesn't make sense to me :dabs:

Surely genetic mutations in a smaller population will spread faster than they will in a larger population, so natural selection will have a stronger effect overall.*I think he'd have been better served by writing 'lower levels of' instead of 'random fluctuations in'.

What the author probably means there is that because of the smaller population of humans, there will be lower levels of the number of alleles to interact with a compatible allele, from the other parent, which can then result in a mutation. This will thus inhibit evolution by natural selection.

Put simply, less offspring = less chance of a mutation = less chance of an evolutionary leap.

I thought alleles don't interact or 'look' for compatibility because their expression depends on dominance, where the dominant allele will infer its trait on the individuals phenotype. Only when its double recessive can the alleles be considered to be interacting, which in most causes results in disease - except being blond....is that a disease?!

[manker]

*I think he'd have been better served by writing 'lower levels of' instead of 'random fluctuations in'.

What the author probably means there is that because of the smaller population of humans, there will be lower levels of the number of alleles to interact with a compatible allele, from the other parent, which can then result in a mutation. This will thus inhibit evolution by natural selection.

Put simply, less offspring = less chance of a mutation = less chance of an evolutionary leap.

I thought alleles don't interact or 'look' for compatibility because their expression depends on dominance, where the dominant allele will infer its trait on the individuals phenotype. Only when its double recessive can the alleles be considered to be interacting, which in most causes results in disease - except being blond....is that a disease?!
Well, if pairing to a certain locus on the chromosomes and establishing dominance can be considered 'interacting' then I guess the alleles interact initially - which is what I was getting at. Not subsequently tho', I grant you.



I love the irony of the blonde/blue eyes double recessive gene, which as you say would indicate weakness in most cases, being the genetic trait of choice of the Nazis.

[popopot]

I thought alleles don't interact or 'look' for compatibility because their expression depends on dominance, where the dominant allele will infer its trait on the individuals phenotype. Only when its double recessive can the alleles be considered to be interacting, which in most causes results in disease - except being blond....is that a disease?!
Well, if pairing to a certain locus on the chromosomes and establishing dominance can be considered 'interacting' then I guess the alleles interact initially - which is what I was getting at. Not subsequently tho', I grant you.

Okay, I see now.


I love the irony of the blonde/blue eyes double recessive gene, which as you say would indicate weakness in most cases, being the genetic trait of choice of the Nazis.Indeed, and of which Hitler was neither.

[Biggles]

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Odd, then, isn't it, they'll never be aware of that tantalizing fact until we tell them...or, if they already know, they haven't figured out how to tell us.

Perhaps they feel there is no point as we wouldn't understand akin to "So long and thanks for all the fish" :)

More evolved doesn't necessarily mean more intelligent of course. It simply highlights that they are well equipped for the niche they occupy and have perhaps evolved more fully to exploit this niche since our two lines diverged than we have ours.

[Chip Monk]

Or perhaps we didn't have to because we were already the shiznitz.

[thewizeard]

See..my post totally ignored..well the real reason was their tongues all fell of due to constant nagging..and their inferior cousin, Lucy started picking them all up and saved them for her female children offspring, only...

Which is why we don 't have long to go until we meet the great silence..when all those nagging tongues, devolve and fall off.

[j2k4]

Odd, then, isn't it, they'll never be aware of that tantalizing fact until we tell them...or, if they already know, they haven't figured out how to tell us.

Perhaps they feel there is no point as we wouldn't understand akin to "So long and thanks for all the fish" :)

More evolved doesn't necessarily mean more intelligent of course. It simply highlights that they are well equipped for the niche they occupy and have perhaps evolved more fully to exploit this niche since our two lines diverged than we have ours.

Well. of course, and I could have ruined the thread early on by pointing that out.

Now look what you've gone and done, Les. :(

[thewizeard]

..sigh..dont be silly Biggles they are telepathetic..far ahead of us, true they are only dabbling with time travel right now, but then only the barrier of traveling at worp speed will stand between them becoming the Masters of the Universe.

[Snee]

Hoi, the genetic research being carried out by chimps is breathtaking.

And without aid of a proper laboratory.

You just can't fling poo far enough indoors.

[j2k4]

Hoi, the genetic research being carried out by chimps is breathtaking.

And without aid of a proper laboratory.




You just can't fling poo far enough indoors.

Ah, yes; Green research.

So visionary, these monkeys...and to have come so far, without the aid of Al Gore.

Simply amazing.

The really neat thing about al fresco research is cleanup's a breeze. :)

[thewizeard]

Al Gore .. bah..he was a result of a polygamous relationship, between a self-indulged Bonobo, and a pleasant good natured,silver Green -back Gorrila, roughly... 300,000 years ago, just after she had mated with the Neanderthals resulting in the present day, untrustworthy, and lazy species, Homo (Erectus) Sapians. !


here She is, Al Gore's mother-in-law

http://www.mensap2p.com//Rafi/FreeLans/algore'smum.jpg

Look at her, blatantly, showing everything..only good thing about her is that.she can't nag...

Then I read this snippet...



The result makes sense, he says, because until relatively recently the human population has been smaller than that of chimps, leaving us more vulnerable to temporal random paradoxes in gene frequencies. This prevents natural selection from having as strong an effect overall. This only empahsises the diffrences between chimps and the common ancestor,"

observes Zhang.



In 1994 Xodyx, a Silicon Valley start-up company, developed an e-mail server that could deliver messages up to 36 hours before they were sent. The temporal random parodoxes the device created, however, caused the founding of the company to unhappen in 1993, thus precluding the invention of the device itself a year later. The disappearance of the Xodyx device from space-time briefly caused the NASDAQ stock index to sink to a negative number.


I suppose this means. apes are about to "unhappen." any time now. :unsure:

[thewizeard]

I suppose you are all wondering then... out of what relationship the Bush family developed? That's also very interesting. You all think Bonobo/ Neaderthal, right? Wrong. The Bush family actually is much older, you can add an extra 100,000 years. The Bonobo is indeed the common ancestor, but that's where the similarities end.

"" I have just received an email from Mrs. Bush; demanding me to stop with this revelation, otherwise, she says and I quote " You will receive a cruise missile right up your Neanderthal ass"

In that case all things being equal, I will first phone my Lawyer regarding the Ramifications..

He just phoned back, Mrs. Bush and Al Gore are discussing my revelations. This is a possible new development, and that telling every one that they are the product of an unusual relationship during the Ramadan, is now insignificant; which also proves that Islam is much older than we thought!

Bonobo /Goat

[lynx]

On that note, I suggest we let the kids play.

[Mr JP Fugley]

On that note, I suggest we let the kids play.

:lol:

EDIT - @ not with.

[thewizeard]

hehe thank you yummy ..breakfast :)

[thewizeard]

I mentioned this thread in a bittorrent post, and to make it easy to find, I thought I would bump it and post them the link in that thread, to make it easy to find, like... http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-lounge-10/t-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans-174696#post1935045