Chimps 'more evolved' than humans

[j2k4]

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...an-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/...an-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.

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

Ahhh, gotcha

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

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

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.