It's official: Chimps are more evolved than humans
Wed, 2007-04-18 06:24
#1
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
It's official: Chimps are more evolved than humans
Wed, 2007-04-18 06:24
#2
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11611]Zhang's team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
This contradicts what most evolutionary biologists had assumed. "We tend to see the differences between us and our common ancestor more easily than the differences between chimps and the common ancestor," observes Zhang.
[/url]
[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
Wed, 2007-04-18 06:38
#3
I wonder how many evolutionary biologists would have actually "assumed" that humans have more new genes.
Let alone new *active* genes.
But anyhow, their methodology seems strange upon reading the new scientist article. Humans have more in common with different types of cousins than they do with each other, for example gorrilas and bonobos and chimpanzees. Wouldn't surprise me if that was true for rhesus monkeys as well.
[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Wed, 2007-04-18 06:55
#4
Humans have stoped evolving since we learned to control our environment, as we are no longer exposed to changing environmental pressure. Although not that long ago evolutinary wise, that is your 'fitness' has little influence on your number of progeny.
Wed, 2007-04-18 08:16
#5
Phenotypic fitness definitely enhances fertility rate. I recall reading, for example, that in Canada fertility peaks for people with an annual salary of 70k. No, if high salary does not constitute phenotypic fitness, what does?
Just an example. I bet also that large scale studies would show good-looking people are more likely to have children than not good-looking people, for example.
Wed, 2007-04-18 09:33
#6
Le T
quote:
Humans have stoped evolving since we learned to control our environment, as we are no longer exposed to changing environmental pressure. Although not that long ago evolutinary wise, that is your 'fitness' has little influence on your number of progeny.
This end of history claim is not really something that can be made. Evolution occurs over huge amounts of time, as you allude to. If you are inferring that recent technological changes in some parts of the world have halted evolution you need to have more humility. Humans aren't as powerful as we let ourselves believe.
"Fitness" is the number progeny you produce that survive until they can reproduce. So you're right fitness does not influence number of progeny, it's the other way around, mathematically speaking.
quote:
Just an example. I bet also that large scale studies would show good-looking people are more likely to have children than not good-looking people, for example.
I'm not sure how you would operationalize "good-looking" and "not good-looking" for use in such a study. Those categories seem to be far too reliant on personal taste to actually mean something for more than just one person.
[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Le Tйlйspectateur ]
Wed, 2007-04-18 11:21
#7
Dr. Zaius: You are a menace. A walking pestilence
Wed, 2007-04-18 13:21
#8
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Phenotypic fitness definitely enhances fertility rate. I recall reading, for example, that in Canada fertility peaks for people with an annual salary of 70k. No, if high salary does not constitute phenotypic fitness, what does?[/b]
It would surprise me to find out that Canadians who earn 70k breed more prodigiously than their poorer neighbours. But I'm willing to be surprised. Do you have a link to some statistical info? (I fished around a bit online, to no avail.)
Wed, 2007-04-18 14:30
#9
Sorry martha, it was a few years ago, in McLeans.
Le Tйlйspectateur,
Physical appearance has many scientifically researched indices, such as facial symmetry, facial averageness, secondary sexual effects.
Thu, 2007-04-19 18:24
#10
quote:
I bet also that large scale studies would show good-looking people are more likely to have children than not good-looking people, for example.
I resemble that remark.
Thu, 2007-04-19 18:28
#11
I bet the rich males breed more and the rich females breed less.
Typically,I bet the rich male probably does a lot of secret breeding with poorer females due to the watchful eyes of the rich females.
Just my theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
[b]It would surprise me to find out that Canadians who earn 70k breed more prodigiously than their poorer neighbours. But I'm willing to be surprised. Do you have a link to some statistical info? (I fished around a bit online, to no avail.)[/b]
Thu, 2007-04-19 21:49
#12
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Actually, 70K rings true to me. None of the seriously rich people I've known came from large families. But most of the people I've known from or with large families came from slightly upper-middle class backgrounds, with parents who strived diligently to support their broods. They are often from religious backgrounds: baptist, catholic, jewish or mormon.
Sat, 2007-04-21 04:38
#13
It can't be true! They don't even wear labcoats or read [i]Free Inquiry[/i].
[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-04-21 11:21
#14
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Labcoats? They wear topcoats, as befitting their station in life:[img]http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3c10000/3c12000/3c12100/3c12118r.j...
[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]