A good chunk of human ideology found in a story posted by Science News Daily:
The study found ILS with orangutan and chimp in approximately 1% of the human genome. “[I]n about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees,” Mailund said, “and in about 0.5%, chimpanzees are closer related to orangutans than us.”
Schierup explained that because humans and orangutans split millions of years prior to the human/chimp split, the presence of ILS suggests that the ancestral species of human and chimps maintained high genetic diversity, in contrast to the genetic bottleneck humans are believed to have experienced following divergence from chimps.
We did not diverge from chimps; we share an ancestor with chimps. We and them separated from this other animal seven or so million years ago, and the chimp went this way and we went that way. A chimp is as evolved from this point in hominid history as the human.
With this in mind, let’s listen to the narrator in this curious video:
It is dangerous to think of those chimps as proto-humans; this jumping about and screaming at the mechanical big cat may not be us somewhere in deep time. For all we know, this behavior might be very new, related to recent environmental changes or some innovation that has stuck. Chimps are not static but dynamic animals.
Charles, as I am often deeply critical of your posts for the orotundity and inanity, let me for once complement you on a thoughtful, clear article that makes an important and useful point.
@1
What does “may not at be us somewhere deep in time,” mean?
diverge – to move or extend in different directions from a common point [or ancestor] : draw apart
Charles,
After reading so many posts where your discussions involving evolutions seemed to have been randomly pulled out of your butt, you have proved with this post that 1) you have been yanking our chains all along or 2) that you have gone out of your way to try to grasp basic concepts in evolution. Either way, I applaud you. I’m not quite ready to start intentionally reading your posts again but I’m closer. Peace.
@2, my reading could wrong, but diverge from a chimp, makes the chimp the common point of divergence. the wording is the problem here. i think the scientists are well aware of my point, which is common enough in the scientific literature. but wording for a general audience is very important.
@4, I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with saying that we diverged from chimps, because if you were discussing chimp evolution you could say that chimps diverged from us. It’s just a shorthand for “our lineage and their lineage diverged from each other”. But you’re right that it probably isn’t clear enough for general audiences. I’m just not sure if there’s a better way to say it.
@4
Point taken…fucking semantics.
So what’s with the, “may not be at us,” phrase?
@5
…from a common ancestor, human evolution diverged from chimp evolution…(?)
This day, a group of chimps reconsidered they’re rightful fear of big cats. Another day, they we reminded of why that don’t pick leopards with sticks.
Did anyone else watch the “lion attacks monkey” after that? Why were the filmers so aghast? That shit was adorable.
at 6, fixed.
hahahaha – those monkeys fight like toddlers!
Stupid monkeys.
Yes, we did. Both species seperated (genetically) from a now exinct common ancestor over a period of time around 4.7 MYA, and have continued to diverge since that time.
Which is what divergence means… BTW, the 7 million year figure is for the divergence of gorillas and the human / chimp common ancestor (according to wikipedia, anyway)
It is.
There’s no problem for a general audience who know the meaning of ‘diverge’ (or can use a dictionary).
What is your suggestion for making it easier to understand? “Seperate”? That covers the fact of their parting, but doesn’t cover the continued genetic divergence of the species’.
They say may, you say may not. But forget ‘deep time’, humans still react violently against perceived threats (although the perceived threat most often tends to be other humans now).
You’ve never taken an intro to biology class in college have you Charles?
@11, actually several. in the british and american system.
@12 All of the 640 people in my intro to biology class at UW could have told you that divergence and shared ancestry are the same thing. You’re welcome to sit in on my class and even the section I TA if you can find an empty seat.
Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity
2 Nov,2005 Dov, in biologicalEvolution forum.
Biological Evolution’s Seeds of Diversity, Human and Chimpanzee/Bonobo Genomes
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/2011/07/10…
Chapter One, In which some wonder what made us human.
Three recent quotations from Science, representative of many other recent similar statements in various scientific publications:
A) “Understanding the genetic basis of how genotype generates phenotype will require increasing the accuracy and completeness of the currently available chimpanzee genome sequence, as well as sequencing other primate genomes.”
B)”Can we now provide a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, “What makes us human?” Not at all! Comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes has not yet offered any major insights into the genetic elements that underlie bipedal locomotion, big brain, linguistic abilities, elaborated abstract thought, or any other unique aspect of the human phenome.”
C)”What makes us human? This question may be answered by comparison of human and chimpanzee genomes and phenomes, and ultimately those of other primates. To this end, we need to understand how genotype generates phenotype, and how this process is influenced by the physical, biological, and cultural environment.”
Chapter Two, In which is explained plainly and succinctly the obvious route by which we evolved,
i.e. that genotype has not generated phenotype, that we evolved from our genotype via a group of feedback loops. From Science, Vol 308, Issue 5728, 1563-1565 , 10 June 2005, Immunology: Opposites Attract in Differentiating T Cells, Mark Bix, Sunhwa Kim,Anjana Rao:
“During differentiation, precursor cells with progressively narrowed potential give rise to progeny cells that adopt one of two (or more) divergent cell fates. This choice is influenced by intricate regulatory networks acting at multiple levels. Early in differentiation, precursor cells show low-level activation of all progeny genetic programs. Bias toward a given lineage comes from environmental inputs that activate powerful positive- and negative- feedback loops, which work in concert to impose selective gene expression patterns”.
Chapter Three, In which we explain the revolutionary evolved uniqueness of the human ape’s phenotype:
The 6My-old revolutionary life evolution was initiated by our forefathers who adapted from life in semi- or tropical forest circumstances to life on plains. Changes in living posture and circumstances led to modified perceptive/adaptive experiences and capabilities. Developing employment of tools effected enhanced differentiation of hands from legs and enhanced upstanding posturing. As evolving community culture led to language communication humans have gradually replaced adaptation to changed circumstances with self-evolving cultures/civilizations for control and modification of much of their circumstances. This is essentially similar to early life’s celling evolution, but with culture functioning for humans for change/control of circumstances in lieu of genetic and protein toolings that function for the in-cell genomes for adapting their cell’s physiology to changing circumstances.
Chapter Four, In which appears, may be, genetic evidence/demonstration of the workings of human cultural evolution.
(a) From Science, 2 Sept 2005: “Page’s team compared human and chimp Ys to see whether either lineage has lost functional genes since they split.
The researchers found that the chimp had indeed suffered the slings and arrows of evolutionary fortune. Of the 16 functional genes in this part of the human Y, chimps had lost the function of five due to mutations. In contrast, humans had all 11 functional genes also seen on the chimp Y. “The human Y chromosome hasn’t lost a gene in 6 million years,” says Page. “It seems like the demise of the hypothesis of the demise of the Y,” says geneticist Andrew Clark of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.”
(b) But look at this: From Science, Vol 309, 16 Sept 2005, Evolving Sequence and Expression:”An analysis of the evolution of both gene sequences and expression patterns in humans and chimpanzees…shows that…surprisingly, genes expressed in the brain have changed more on the human lineage than on the chimpanzee lineage, not only in terms of gene expression but also in terms of amino acid sequences”.
Surprisingly…???
Chapter Five and conclusion,
In which I suggest that detailed study of other creatures that, like humans, underwent radical change of living circumstances, for example ocean-dwelling mammals, might bring to light unique evolutionary processes and features of evolutionary implications similar to those of humans.
end.
Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)