Scientists sort the chimps from the men

Science ^ | 11 April 2002 | Helen Phillips

[Ahban]

Before I call it a night I wanted to get a link to this old but relevant thread up...

Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm

Whatever "evolutionary changes" occured in the brains of the human line, humans themselves have a remarkable lack of genetic diversity. IMHO the best interpretation of the evidence presented in the above thread (articles and posts) is that the earliest man appeared 50K ago or less.

[jennyp]

Whatever could they mean by 'special evolutionary process'? Didn't they have a hard time explaning how known mutation rates for both species could have produced the differences already observed between the two? How much bigger is this problem now?

No, comparing the DNA trees is based on silent mutations. These reveal the mutation rates, because they're not getting filtered out by selection.

[Ahban]

Ummm. Let's see. I thought the silent mutation rate was a good measure of how fast something could evolve in a given amount of time. Such mutations may not have natural selection helping to establish them in the population, but they still help establish a baseline for how often a given species has mutations (and thus a chance at developing the super-rare 'helpful mutation').

Let's say one species mutates 10 times faster than the other. Doesn't that mean that it has 10 times the chance to get a NON-SILENT gene change? In other words, measuring silent mutations doesn't measure the etheral "helpful mutation" rate per se, but a species with a higher silent rate will, as I understand the theory, also have a better chance of more "helpful mutations".

Chimps and especially people have a very low mutation rate. So low that even the minor gene differences we see appear to be a lot of change in a little time. I understand a helpful mutation, if it happens, would be selected for, but if genes don't mutate much then a helpful mutation is indeed a rare unicorn. It does not matter that it will be selected for once it arrives, if it rarely arrives then I don't see how you get from A to B in the time allowed.

[Nebullis]

It does not matter that it will be selected for once it arrives, if it rarely arrives then I don't see how you get from A to B in the time allowed.

Thanks for pointing me to this post. I see you've missed a major point of the present study: small mutations lead to a cascade of extragenetic effects. As mutation rates slow down, notice that the correspondence between genotype and phenotype becomes more complex.

[gore3000]

The comparative data suggest that during the evolutionary process, humans somehow altered the process of gene expression in their brains, -antoher article on this subject -

Just kinda shows how desperate the evolutionists are with this finding. How does one alter one's gene expression? They refuse to change their atheistic views regardless of the evidence or how silly explaining it away makes them look.

[Ahban]

This is a good example of the difference between what the facts actaully say and what a biased interpretation of those facts leads one to understand. The study pinpointed no such "small mutations (which) lead to a cascade of extragenetic effects." The article specifically states "But changes in gene expression must in the end originate from DNA changes and the researchers do not yet know which groups of genes are responsible."

That clearly means they 1) Don't know what changes in genes are reponsible and 2) Have not established that such mutational changes have a reasonable probability of occuring in the time allowed.

Those things are ASSUMPTIONS by those who take it on Faith that evolution must be true.

Indeed, it has not been demonstrated that there is a 'pathway' of gene changes between the two that is breechable by a series of functional intermediates at all. It may be that Man and Chimps represent two genetic "islands" with no series of genetic steps between them that can produce an unbroken series of functional organisms. Or maybe there is a potential functional pathway, but it the changes are unlikely to have occured by any obserserable evolutionary process in the time allowed since the alledged 'common ancestor'. In any case, even demonstrating such a pathway had a fair chance of producing man is not proof that it DID produce man. That would still be an assumption based on faith. A 'special evolutionary process' as the article says. They cannot describe for us this process, and cannot find where or how it occurs, but the just "know" it was an evolutionary process!

As mutation rates slow down, notice that the correspondence between genotype and phenotype becomes more complex.

I would be interested to know why you think this is. I am guessing that all critters that have a low reproduction rate need a more stable DNA set. Humans and Chimps cannot afford the same mutation rate as mice! I would guess our mutation rate in HOX or whatever controls gene expression would also be lower than that of mice. After all, gene expression errors should be able to produce unfit organsims just as well as regular gene errors.