babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » It's official: Chimps are more evolved than humans

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: It's official: Chimps are more evolved than humans
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 April 2007 06:24 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 18 April 2007 06:38 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Southlander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10465

posted 18 April 2007 06:55 AM      Profile for Southlander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With 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.
From: New Zealand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 18 April 2007 08:16 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 18 April 2007 09:33 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 Téléspectateur ]


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 April 2007 11:21 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dr. Zaius: You are a menace. A walking pestilence
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 April 2007 01:21 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
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?

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.)


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 18 April 2007 02:30 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry martha, it was a few years ago, in McLeans.

Le Téléspectateur,

Physical appearance has many scientifically researched indices, such as facial symmetry, facial averageness, secondary sexual effects.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 19 April 2007 06:24 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 19 April 2007 06:28 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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):

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.)



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 19 April 2007 09:49 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 April 2007 04:38 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It can't be true! They don't even wear labcoats or read Free Inquiry.

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 April 2007 11:21 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Labcoats? They wear topcoats, as befitting their station in life:

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca