Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How our DNA differs from that of Denisovans, our extinct cousins
LA Times ^ | 9-1-12 | Rosie Mestel

Posted on 09/01/2012 5:42:46 AM PDT by Pharmboy


Scientists are beginning to analyze the DNA differences between modern humans and our extinct archaic relatives, the Denisovans. (National Human Genome Research Institute)

Genome of ancient Denisovans may help clarify human evolution

Scientists recently reported they had pieced together a high-quality sequence of an archaic human relative, the Denisovans.

Among other things, the researchers took a close look at the ways in which we differ from these people, who were named after the place where their traces were discovered: Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia....snip

It's "fascinating" to see the DNA changes that spread to most or all modern humans since our line split off from that of the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, said senior author Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. It's like taking a look at the last steps in human evolutionary history.

"The amazing thing to me is that [it is] not an astronomically long list," he said at a press conference on Wednesday. ...snip

Boring down even further, the researchers found 23 amino-acid changes that we have but Denisovans and monkeys and apes don't have. These might be especially likely to be important in making us who we are, Paabo said.

"It's quite interesting to me that eight have to do with brain function and brain development ... and some of them have to do with genes which, for example, can cause autism when the genes are mutated," he said.

And the autism-linked genes are interesting because a lot of what it takes to get by in human society, with all its politics and manipulation, has to do with being able to "read" the likely feelings of others, to get inside the head of another person.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: autism; denisovans; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; humanevolution; multiregionalism
Very interesting.
1 posted on 09/01/2012 5:42:53 AM PDT by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; SunkenCiv

Autism/evolution ping


2 posted on 09/01/2012 5:44:17 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

What I’m waiting for is a step by step description of the genetic mutations—that is, a scientific illustration of the process as our “cousins” evolved into us.

This should include a description of the changes in phenotype which correspond with each change in genotype.


3 posted on 09/01/2012 5:52:43 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
the lie of evolution will be extinct one day when truth becomes evident and those who push these lies are gone with the wind. The whole evolutionary theory is turned upside down by the 2nd law of thermodynamics which basically states that as things get older they become corrupt and archaic and and tend to anarchy. All the evidences of temporal matter support this as well as the fact that mutant evolutionary species have been found to be lies.
4 posted on 09/01/2012 5:57:10 AM PDT by kindred (Jesus Christ is the Lord God and Messiah of Israel, a present help in time of trouble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Great point...and we already have information related to that. For example, it is one amino acid change in the genotype in (mainly) Africans that gives rise to the phenotype of the sickle cell, which increases resistance to malaria yet can--in the homozygous state--lead to a painful and life-shortening disease.

Now you might say this is not evolution or speciation, but think about this: if drug-resistant malaria suddenly became a worldwide problem, those with the sickle cell trait might be the only survivors. The environment would have acted on this genotype and 'selected' it for survival. And, if enough time goes by, this remnant human population might become a distinct species.

The more subtle neuro-cognitive connections may not be teased out in our lifetimes.

5 posted on 09/01/2012 6:02:05 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
He is NOT extinct!

He is a world class dart thrower!

Paul Nicholson, Ted Hanky, Mark Hylton, Dennis Ovans, Tony West (BDO convert) James Wade and Mark Webster (i think) are all in action on the first night.

What's everyone's pick for this week? I'll take James Wade. On form, he beats anyone. The dark horse could be Dennis Ovans and Paul Nicholson


http://checkhookboxing.com/archive/index.php/t-226.html
6 posted on 09/01/2012 6:07:37 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I love to watch you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."-Del Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred
There is little agreement with different groups in evilution. They can write about one small area and make sense out of it but they can not present a whole picture they consensus on.
7 posted on 09/01/2012 6:21:41 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kindred

Another one who doesn’t understand the 2nd Law of Thermodyanics, I see...


8 posted on 09/01/2012 6:34:18 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Nice one...perhaps his dart-throwing ability comes directly from his Denosivan ancestors’ ability to throw spears.


9 posted on 09/01/2012 6:34:49 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Changes to genotype may not necessarily be expressed phenotyplically. Likewise, there the a high degree of phenotypic plasticity in some species. And what of convergence between unrelated species?


10 posted on 09/01/2012 6:38:32 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

What about basic morphological changes like skull size and skull shape?


11 posted on 09/01/2012 6:45:30 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Can anyone recommend a readable concise introduction to evolutionary genetics?


12 posted on 09/01/2012 6:47:07 AM PDT by JusPasenThru (HEY UNION MEMBER: INVEST IN YOUR OWN DAMN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A CHANGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Very interesting, thank you.


13 posted on 09/01/2012 6:50:05 AM PDT by squarebarb ( Fairy tales are basically true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Those types of changes are more likely to be seen in regulatory rather than structural genes. The secrets of regulatory genes remain largely unknown...and will likely continue to be for the immediate future. Patience is required, to be sure...but many things have indeed been discovered in the last 50 years.


14 posted on 09/01/2012 6:56:44 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stormer; kindred

It’s all about arrows.

Order to disorder is one arrow.

Self organizing and replicating organisms arising from dust is another, and it points in exactly the opposite direction of the first arrow.

All statements about the Second Law of Thermodynamics in post # 4 appear to be true.


15 posted on 09/01/2012 7:01:31 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Speciation is phenotypic change.

If we don’t have one species changing into another, we don’t have evolution.


16 posted on 09/01/2012 7:05:33 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

If my responses seem to cover many different areas it’s because the theory of evolution contains uncertainties in many different ways.

For example, natural selection is logically flawed in that it conflates agency with environment and it contains a consistent ambiguity regarding the problem of survival. That is, for the mouse is the hawk the problem or is the mouse’s fur color the problem? If the fur color is the problem, the agent of solving the problem is the in the mouse’s genes, not in the environment.


17 posted on 09/01/2012 7:12:09 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kindred

God placed his creatures on a very dynamic planet. But he also built deep within the stuff of our being the ability to reprogram our stuff to be able to deal with the radical changes we endure on this planet.

Who else could have thought up such an elegant solution? What a creative and competent and loving God He is.


18 posted on 09/01/2012 7:18:21 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

That understanding of that law seems to be violated after every meal. The the churning mess in your stomach gets transmogrified into bone and blood and mitochondria and DNA. Endlessly complex structures by the billions. Seems like defying the 2nd Law (as you understand it) is the hallmark of life.


19 posted on 09/01/2012 7:37:38 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Genotype + environment = phenotype.

As to your mouse example, to the individual mouse the hawk represents a direct existential threat, i.e. he may get killed and eaten. To the mouse population, the presence of hawks serves as a benefit; hawks remove the slower, non-cryptically colored, or otherwise less capable mice from the gene pool, improving the overall survivability for the mouse population in the presence of hawks. Now imagine two different substrates, one sand and another duff - in the sandy environment a lighter colored mouse will be favored for survival, but in the other situation, a darker mouse. The mice are the same species, but their phenotype varies by environment. If the environment were to change, the mouse population will adapt to the change by favoring the individuals most likely not to be eaten.

20 posted on 09/01/2012 7:40:13 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kindred
The whole evolutionary theory is turned upside down by the 2nd law of thermodynamics which basically states that as things get older they become corrupt and archaic and and tend to anarchy.

You mistate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That's not what it says at all. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

It speaks only to energy, not to corruption, the state of being archaic (whatever THAT dedinition is), or a tendency towards anarchy.

It also speaks to a closed system, in which no energy is added. The sun prevents the Earth from being a closed system.

If you also include the sun in the system, over billions of years, yes, the sun will dissipate in energy and potential energy.

But the Second Law cannot be applied to evolution on Earth in any meaningful way. Nor should it.

21 posted on 09/01/2012 7:47:16 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Communist Party = Democrats. Socialist Party = Republicans. WE NEED A CAPITALIST FREEDOM PARTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Denis O’Van? Didn’t he pitch for Cincinnati in the 1950s? I am sorry to learn of his passing.


22 posted on 09/01/2012 8:20:48 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Covering a lot of areas—as you say—is not a problem; however, what I DO find a bit irksome is that after each time I respond to you with some data, you totally ignore it and throw something else out.


23 posted on 09/01/2012 8:44:55 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Well, Laz, I guess you paid excellent attention in physics class. Let me guess--your physics teacher did not look anything like this:


24 posted on 09/01/2012 8:54:25 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
No, actually, my physics teacher looked a lot like this:

Of course, if he'd have asked, I'd have hit it.

25 posted on 09/01/2012 9:15:15 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Communist Party = Democrats. Socialist Party = Republicans. WE NEED A CAPITALIST FREEDOM PARTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Pharmboy.

Apropos of nothing, trolls and fruitbats are self-identifying.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


26 posted on 09/01/2012 9:24:24 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

27 posted on 09/01/2012 9:25:45 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Old as hell, but not extinct.


28 posted on 09/01/2012 9:27:29 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith; Pharmboy; stormer; Lazamataz; kindred

If we don’t have one species changing into another, we still have evolution, because that’s merely change. The change is a consequence of small replication errors, i.e. mutations, during mitosis and other cellular activity.

I’m not my grandfather (or my grandmother), and that’s the consequence of dropping half of the chromosomes for just two generations. And since there are 23 chromosome pairs, I’m not getting an even number from each of my grandparents (iow, it’s not exactly one quarter from each grandparent). Each of us has 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents, which means that, unless there’s been a cousin marriage along one of the lines, at least 18 of those 64 ancestors passed down zero chromosomes to us. They are still the ancestors, because they had to have lived and had offspring, but their genetic information has vanished from at least some of their descendants.

At the 5th-great generation — 128 of them — 82 have left zero to the current generation’s individual. In the next generation back, 210 left nothing. In short, there are (for most of us) 46 lines going back. As genetic sequencing becomes cheaper and quicker, and many, many more are sampled, common ancestry will be easier to figure out (even if no name can be put on it) and each of the 23 chromosome pairs will be grouped by common origin, and the number of groups will probably be in the high teens, at least.


29 posted on 09/01/2012 9:49:20 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Oh My Gawd!


30 posted on 09/01/2012 9:49:50 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1321 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Well, Laz, I guess you paid excellent attention in physics class. Let me guess--your physics teacher did not look anything like this:

I'd have 'leapt on' it.

31 posted on 09/01/2012 9:57:31 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Give it up! You can’t reason with faith. Faith, by definition, is the suspension of reason.


32 posted on 09/01/2012 11:02:10 AM PDT by Hiddigeigei ("Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish," said Dionysus - Euripides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTqKcojrVY


33 posted on 09/01/2012 11:03:56 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hiddigeigei
Give it up! You can’t reason with faith. Faith, by definition, is the suspension of reason.

Perhaps. And I have faith in the presence and existance of God.

But just because I cannot reason with someone who abandons reason, I *still* can cause them to need to drop the citation of mathmatical and physical principles, when those principles simply do not apply.

34 posted on 09/01/2012 11:06:52 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Communist Party = Democrats. Socialist Party = Republicans. WE NEED A CAPITALIST FREEDOM PARTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Yeah...the ones I had looked like that too, more or less...


35 posted on 09/01/2012 11:13:39 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
SunkenCiv said: "... at least 18 of those 64 ancestors passed down zero chromosomes to us. "

That is exactly how I was taught human genetics about forty years ago.

Have there been developments since then that describe a process whereby some information gets exchanged between the members of a pair of chromosomes before meiosis takes place? I think the process is perhaps not as simple as some of us were taught and that the math you describe, although correct for the simpler model we were taught, is not, in fact, what actually happens.

Perhaps there is a recently trained geneticist reading this thread who can clarify this.

36 posted on 09/01/2012 11:27:45 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
He is NOT extinct! He is a world class dart thrower!

{Thank you}
37 posted on 09/01/2012 12:51:36 PM PDT by Condor51 (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

There’s a little bit, yeah. There’s nothing significant enough to alter the basic model to the extent as has been claimed somewhere around FR (another topic, perhaps a year ago), by some nimrod who claimed that the result was that *exactly* one quarter of our genes came from *each* grandparent. The basic math is good enough to get the basic understanding of what’s going on. Or course, given that the human genome data currently available indicates that everyone’s got almost exactly the same DNA (much of it “junk DNA”), none of this matters, eh? ;’)


38 posted on 09/01/2012 2:30:10 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hiddigeigei

Don’t overlook the fact that reason cannot justify itself on a metaphysical level.


39 posted on 09/01/2012 2:34:39 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

My posts #11 and 16 do in fact respond to your post # 14.

Without morphological change, evolution has no meaning.


40 posted on 09/01/2012 2:38:59 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Therefore evolution must provide an explanation which provides a description of specific genetic changes and the morphological changes which correspond with each of them.


41 posted on 09/01/2012 2:42:55 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Number of chromosome pairs is irrelevant to quantity of genetic material passed from one generation to the next. Meiosis and fertilization are important events to understand here.

You get exactly half (on average) of each parent’s genetic material. The same thing happened to them from their parents, which means you have exactly one fourth (on average) of genetic material from each grandparent.

As for speciation—if it doesn’t exist, there can be no such thing as descent with modification and evolution is therefore only a figment of our imaginations.


42 posted on 09/02/2012 10:00:05 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kindred

Science is not about truth. It is about proof.

Religion is about truth.

Never the twain shall meet.


43 posted on 09/03/2012 4:04:10 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I think this is a false categorization of religion and science.

For example, are your comments religious or scientific? Are they true?

Is it not true to say that force equals mass times acceleration?

And where does philosophy fit in? Logic, which deals with proof, is central to philosophy. But nobody would say philosophy isn’t about truth.


44 posted on 09/04/2012 6:03:00 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Pharmboy

Outstanding! Very creative way of injecting a babe into a science thread!


45 posted on 09/05/2012 12:57:41 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

She blinded me.

With science.


46 posted on 09/05/2012 4:05:27 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Communist Party = Democrats. Socialist Party = Republicans. WE NEED A CAPITALIST FREEDOM PARTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

No, evolution continues all the time, because it is change, period. Speciation is merely a subset of that change. The rest of your post is a figment of your imagination.


47 posted on 09/08/2012 7:01:05 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Darwinian evolution can happen even if speciation is impossible?


48 posted on 09/08/2012 7:44:56 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Since you brought it up, you can answer your own question. You’re just a slippery eel and a troll, and I’ll waste no further time with you.


49 posted on 09/08/2012 8:04:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Leaving the personal attacks to those who don’t really believe their own arguments, let’s you and I review just how evolution can occur if no single species can change into another, ever.


50 posted on 09/08/2012 8:11:37 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson