Humans march to a faster genetic 'drummer' than primates, UC Riverside research says

eurekalert.org ^ | 08/30/04 | Kris Lovekin

[monday]

""We are not contending that natural selection does not exist, but that in this instance it is a chemical process within human chromosomes that explains why humans have an explosive expansion of DNA repeats, and primates do not," Dugaiczyk said"

In other words, human genetics evolves more quickly than other primates naturally. Perhaps even by design?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

It's good to see the Creationists endorsing an article..."

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.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

In other words, human genetics evolves more quickly than other primates naturally. Perhaps even by design?

Perhaps

[Modernman]

Question: If Man evolved from Apes, Then why haven't the Apes evolved?

Who says the other apes haven't evolved? Today's gorillas are different from their ancestors of several millions years ago. Other apes just haven't evolved into humans.

In answer to your question, I pose a different question: Since the USA "evolved" from Great Britain, why does Great Britain still exist?

[Buggman]

The liberals were the primates in this study . . . didn't you know?

[Ichneumon]

[Uh, humans ARE primates. Maybe someone missed the word "other."]

"Primates" is a two syllable series of sounds used to refer to a number of animals that share some characteristics according to criteria assigned to that designation.

Mostly correct, but you make it sound more arbitrary than it is. The criteria/characteristics are determined by noting that certain groups of animals share a constellation of unique traits, for which there is no overlap with animals of other types. These nested groupings of traits are objective and striking.

Because of a belief that human beings are an advanced form of that classification of animals, the term is applied to human beings. By the human beings who believe they are descended from "primates".

Incorrect. Try to learn some science before you attempt to pontificate about it.

The animal group "primates" was recognized long before anyone had an inkling that any animals descended from any other. Here's a page from Linnaeus's classic book on taxonomy, published about 100 years before Darwin's seminal work. It even pre-dates the Declaration of Independence.

Even though his classifications were based in no way on any notion of evolution, Linnaeus still placed mankind ("Homo diurnus" in his terminology) within the Primate group, as well as the Orangutan (which you can see mentioned on the same page above), and the other apes (on following pages).

In fact, not only was man first put into the Primate group NOT by an evolutionist (there would be no evolutionists for another 100 years), but by a creationist -- as Linnaeus himself wrote in the preface to his book, "Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum" ("The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone.")

Linnaeus recognized the reality of an animal group he named primates because of the clear shared characteristics among the apes and humans, including:

Five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes.

Toes are prehensile and hands can grasp with dexterity.

Only two lactal nipples, located on the chest as opposed to your abdomen -- which males also have.

Pendulous penis.

Well-developed ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals.

Fangs and some other varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively.

Fur thin and relatively sparse over most of the body.

Claws reduced to flat chitinous fingernails.

Fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns.

Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears.

One upper limb bone, two lower limb bones -- many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones.

Expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex.

Binocular color vision, used as primary sense. Skull contains post-orbital bars for protection of eyes.

Great facial mobility and vocal repertoire.

Ability to walk on hind limbs and grasp with front limbs.

Reduced litter size -- usually just one.

And so on. Biochemically (not known to Linnaeus), primates are uniquely susceptible to AIDS, and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates), and unlike almost all other mammals, primates cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must obtain it from their diet.

Primates -- including humans -- share *all* these traits. And most are unique to primates and are found in no other type of animal. This is why humans are clearly, and objectively, primates. Just as we are clearly and objectively members of the larger broader classification groups of eutherians (placental mammals), mammals, synapsids, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, animals, and eukaryotes.

Just as no one would sensibly object to noting that humans are vertebrates (animals with backbones and spinal cords), or mammals (warm-blooded furred animals which produce milk to feed their young), no one should sensibly object to the observation that humans are clearly primates.

[AndrewC]

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.

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.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

"Who says the other apes haven't evolved? Today's gorillas are different from their ancestors of several millions years ago. Other apes just haven't evolved into humans".

I have heard that said. however based on the evidence (missing links and such) one has to place a lot of faith in theory.

"In answer to your question, I pose a different question: Since the USA "evolved" from Great Britain, why does Great Britain still exist"?

#1 The USA didn't "evolve" from Great Britain, we had a revolutionary war and separated. #2 Apes are still in zoos in both countries.

The model "a" ford and a modern nascar both have all the same components. Wheels, axles, transmissions,etc..Doesn't mean that cars evolved. It means they have the same "creative design"

[null and void]

Space aliens...

[martin_fierro]

The drummer to whom my genetics march.

[presidio9]

BONZO

[Ichneumon]

[It's good to see the Creationists endorsing an article..."]
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.

Don't be disingenuous, you're not very good at it.

[...common lineage of humans and other primates...]
You don't even have proof of a transitional!

Sure we do (leaving aside a quibble about your sloppy use of the word "proof" in a scientific context).

A study that throws a wrench into your common lineage fairy tale.

If it's a "fairy tale", how do you explain, say, shared endogenous retroviruses, among dozens of other lines of clear evidence of common lineage? Oh, right, you can't. Perhaps you're the one spreading fairy tales.

If you don't have homo erectus, then your theory is in big trouble.

How do you figure that? That would still leave quite a few other transitionals along the chain.

You need that transitional!

No we don't, but your article doesn't raise any problems anyway.

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."

Note the word "developmentally". Keep reading it until its significance sinks in. The article is not challenging the transitional nature of Homo erectus, as you are misreading it as.

I've asked you before, and now I must ask you again -- if you don't know anything about science, please stop trying to talk about it. I have better things to do than waste more of my time correcting your many misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Please leave analysis of articles like this to people who have a sufficient background to understand them and not make elementary errors like you so often do, causing you to go leaping off making wild and incorrect conclusions.

For the lurkers, information on early man that the Doc won't tell you can be found here.

"Doc" won't tell you those things, because "Doc" doesn't like spreading misrepresentations and falsehoods like the ones found at that site -- although you apparently have no such qualms.

[Ichneumon]

["Who says the other apes haven't evolved? Today's gorillas are different from their ancestors of several millions years ago. Other apes just haven't evolved into humans".]
I have heard that said. however based on the evidence (missing links and such) one has to place a lot of faith in theory.

What are you babbling about here? The evidence for what he says is massive and overwhelming. What is "the evidence" you mistakenly feel argues for the contrary?

["In answer to your question, I pose a different question: Since the USA "evolved" from Great Britain, why does Great Britain still exist"?]
#1 The USA didn't "evolve" from Great Britain, we had a revolutionary war and separated.

Yes. Exactly. Ponder that until you realize the significance of that to the current discussion.

#2 Apes are still in zoos in both countries.

Not clear on the use of analogy, I see.

The model "a" ford and a modern nascar both have all the same components. Wheels, axles, transmissions,etc..Doesn't mean that cars evolved. It means they have the same "creative design"

Just as soon as you can show that humans and apes are produced on assembly lines, and redesigned every few years, you'll have some sort of relevant point here. Until then...

But in any case, yes, car designs do evolve. They are modifications upon prior designs. That's evolution, in the more general sense of the word (as opposed to strictly biological evolution). It's not as if the 2004 Cadillacs share no subcomponents or engineering lineage or functional conception with last year's models.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I have better things to do than waste more of my time correcting your many misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

I'm beginning to wonder.

I posted a science article along with some facts relating to the study. It was the Doc that came along and derailed my thread. Those facts again in case you missed them:

Until now, Alu DNA repeats have been considered "junk dna." The study shows key differences between humans and other primates. The finding is counter to natural selection.

Have a nice day.

[Modernman]

The model "a" ford and a modern nascar both have all the same components. Wheels, axles, transmissions,etc..Doesn't mean that cars evolved. It means they have the same "creative design"

My point is that a species can diverge from another species without the original species going extinct.

For example, a population of a particular species might get isolated due to the dissapearance of a land bridge. That isolated species could evolve into a new species while the original species continues on unchanged.

[Ichneumon]

I posted a science article along with some facts relating to the study. It was the Doc that came along and derailed my thread.

He "derailed" your thread by pointing out the findings and implications of the science article that *you* posted? Ooookay....

Those facts again in case you missed them: Until now, Alu DNA repeats have been considered "junk dna."

They still are.

The study shows differences between humans and other primates.

Yes it does. But this is hardly shocking news. Did you have some sort of point here?

The finding is counter to natural selection.

No it isn't, regardless of what the clueless science reporter might decide to put as a subheadline in order to try to add some drama to what would otherwise be a dry article.

Have a nice day.

You too.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

What are you babbling about here? The evidence for what he says is massive and overwhelming. What is "the evidence" you mistakenly feel argues for the contrary?

Somewhere along the theoretical highway of evolution apes took a left turn and humans veered to the right. human knowledge has expanded at an incredible rate. this is not the case with apes, even though chimpanzees cohabit with humans.The bridge between humans and apes continues to lenghten. their inability to "evolve" is one of the missing pieces of the puzzle.

[Modernman]

human knowledge has expanded at an incredible rate. this is not the case with apes, even though chimpanzees cohabit with humans.The bridge between humans and apes continues to lenghten. their inability to "evolve" is one of the missing pieces of the puzzle.

Higher intelligence is not automatically an evolutionary advantage. Cockroaches are nearly mindless, but they fill their environmental niche quite nicely.

Chimps and other apes are succesful in their environmental niches. However, humanity's domination of the planet has had an impact on their population.

[Ichneumon]

[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.]
Since ID is considered Creationism why is this a novelty to you?

Because -- as you well know -- most of the creationists on these threads reject the notion of common descent. So why the red herring?

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.

Well, since you asked... It's sloppy thinking, and I don't see how the researcher could possibly claim to have determined such a thing.

Doctor Stochastic seems to have access to the original paper (I don't have a PNAS subscription, and don't consider it worth a $10 purchase just to look at this one article), perhaps he could describe what, if anything, the researchers actually did to support Dugaiczyk's assertions.

Let's take that paragraph a line at a time:

The spread of the Alu DNA repeats was written into the chemistry of human chromosomes.

Vague, to say the least. Presumably they mean that something in the protohuman DNA resulted in heightened Alu repetition mutations. That "something" would itself most likely be the result of some kind of mutation, which diverged the protohuman cellular environment from the protochimp cellular environment. Good enough, but then he gets weird in the next sentence:

The process was not random, Dugaiczyk said,

Which "process", exactly? The original change which resulted in heightened Alu production? The Alu production itself? The mutations resulting from the recombinations of the new Alu repeats? No matter which process(es) he meant, it's highly unlikely that he could have actually established that the process was "not random".

Or maybe he's just speaking poorly, and he means that once the cellular environment was altered (presumably randomly) in order to favor heightened Alu production, the outcome (i.e., increased Alu repeats) was a deterministic result of that modified environment, and was not itself due to additional random Alu introductions. If so, then his statement would be accurate, but hardly significant enough to mention as if it was some sort of discovery worth making a fuss about. It rates high on the "yeah, so?" meter.

and it was not subject to an environmental "natural selection," separating winners and losers as theorized by Darwin.

I hope this is just the science reporter presuming too much, instead of any assertion from Dugaiczyk himself, because Dugaiczyk should know better.

There are two opposing possibilities:

1. The result of the Alu repetitions were "silent" -- that is, although present in the human DNA, they make no difference whatsoever. In this case, it would be accurate to say that they were "not subject to natural selection" (in fact, it would be pretty much true by definition), but this would also be a trivial result. It would mean that the Alu repeats were *not* involved in whatever DNA differences made us human.

2. The result of the Alu repetitions were *not* "silent" -- that is, they made some contribution to whatever DNA differences make us human. In that case, they *would* actually be subject to natural selection, just like any other phenotypic difference, and only a fool of a scientist would try to claim that he had been able to show that they wouldn't be.

So something's very wonky with the paragraph. I'm going to point the finger at the science reporter unless the paper itself is actually foolish enough to make such claims, which I highly doubt.

This should also serve as yet anothe reminder to Michael_Michaelangelo as to why it's important to actually read the primary sources, and not go flying off half cocked as the result of a "pop science" blurb about it. If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time I've reminded him of that.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

If it's a "fairy tale", how do you explain, say, shared endogenous retroviruses, among dozens of other lines of clear evidence of common lineage?

Covered here (Prediction#21, pg.76):

Dozens of lines of clear evidence, you say? Do tell.