Here we trace the evolution of AluYb8 repeats from a single origin at the roots of higher primates to a large increase in their number in humans.
In round numbers, 2200 AluYb8 elements came into existence within about five million years of the human lineage.
Counting only non-CpG mutations (CpG dinucleotides mutate abnormally fast33) gave a total of 2682 mutations/537,072 sites, or 4.99 £ 1023/site. Dividing this number by the rate of change in primate introns of 1.5 £ 1029/site per year,34 yields an estimated age of 3.3 million years for this Alu family. This is in fairly good agreement with the estimated five million years of separation of the human and chimpanzee lineages, but it also indicates that the AluYb8 family was dispersing throughout the entire period of the human lineage.
It's good to see the Creationists endorsing an article supporting the common lineage of humans and other primates and that supports the paleobiological time estimates.
Who is endorsing it, Doc? People can't post a science article here at FR anymore without FR members questioning their motives? And what does Special Creation have to do with the study? Sheesh.
...common lineage of humans and other primates...
You don't even have proof of a transitional! A study that throws a wrench into your common lineage fairy tale. If you don't have homo erectus, then your theory is in big trouble. You need that transitional! From the article:
The results challenge the assumption that human evolution followed a path from a chimplike ancestor to a transitionary Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens, suggesting instead that chimpanzees have more in common developmentally with Homo erectus and that modern humans are the "out-group."
For the lurkers, information on early man that the Doc won't tell you can be found here.
Since ID is considered Creationism why is this a novelty to you?
Now how about this?
This chemical analysis of DNA structures also showed something else. The spread of the Alu DNA repeats was written into the chemistry of human chromosomes. The process was not random, Dugaiczyk said, and it was not subject to an environmental "natural selection," separating winners and losers as theorized by Darwin.