Chimps Ahead of Humans in Evolution.

I stumbled on this article in the U.K.'s Times newspaper.

Apparently, monkeys are more evolved than us and it's arrogant to think otherwise.

I give you the stupidity of the corporate laboratory whore:

Quote :

The study, from a team at the University of Michigan, suggests instead that chimps may actually have adapted more to their environment as a result of natural selection. It underlines that evolution is not a matter of progress towards a goal, and that it is incorrect to assume that more intelligent species are “more evolved”.

“These observations . . . refute the anthropocentric view that a grand enhancement in Darwinian selection underlies human origins.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1662524.ece

I don't know how it can be qualified "more than" humans. That doesn't really make any sense to me...

Strictly, does the phrase "more evolved" even make any sense in the first place?

The very process of evolution presupposes a common ancestor which has been augmented in time by various constraints (natural selection, mutations, whatever else). All things should as such be equally evolved in the simple sense that they have all changed within the same timespan; the difference being in how they evolved, rather than how much.

The only way I could see the phrase "more evolved" making sense is perhaps as a sort of flipside reference to more primitive organisms. This would mean that the organism which expresses more traits of its last common ancestor in comparison with another would be more primitive or less evolved - that is, hasn't evolved as far away from its previous form.

I didn't read the actual article though because I'm lazy and I don't like reading news articles.

If you guys read the article you will see that they mean by more evolved: having their genes effected by natural selection MORE than homo sapians. IOW chimpanzees have adapted more than we have since the split.

It does not mean that chimps are better than us. It just means our genes have been more stable.

It does however put into question this notion that our big brains or whatever are the results of more evolution - ie. more changes due to natural selection, etc.

creasy wrote:

IOW chimpanzees have adapted more than we have since the split.

It does not mean that chimps are better than us. It just means our genes have been more stable.

Does that mean our common ancestor looked more like us than a chimpanzee?

If 'looks' were the only kinds of traits that genes controlled. But there are others. The article actually explains some of this.

creasy wrote:

If 'looks' were the only kinds of traits that genes controlled. But there are others. The article actually explains some of this.

I re-read it but couldn't find any examples.

Do explain.

You're right. Sorry. And also: very strange. I thought the only place I read about this was via your link.

Anyway: they are not sure which traits the genes control. From their abstract....

Quote :

More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution

1. Margaret A. Bakewell,
2. Peng Shi, and
3. Jianzhi Zhang*

+Author Affiliations

1.
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

1.

Communicated by Morris Goodman, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, February 26, 2007 (received for review December 21, 2006)

Abstract

Observations of numerous dramatic and presumably adaptive phenotypic modifications during human evolution prompt the common belief that more genes have undergone positive Darwinian selection in the human lineage than in the chimpanzee lineage since their evolutionary divergence 6–7 million years ago. Here, we test this hypothesis by analyzing nearly 14,000 genes of humans and chimps. To ensure an accurate and unbiased comparison, we select a proper outgroup, avoid sequencing errors, and verify statistical methods. Our results show that the number of positively selected genes is substantially smaller in humans than in chimps, despite a generally higher nonsynonymous substitution rate in humans. These observations are explainable by the reduced efficacy of natural selection in humans because of their smaller long-term effective population size but refute the anthropocentric view that a grand enhancement in Darwinian selection underlies human origins. Although human and chimp positively selected genes have different molecular functions and participate in different biological processes, the differences do not ostensibly correspond to the widely assumed adaptations of these species, suggesting how little is currently known about which traits have been under positive selection. Our analysis of the identified positively selected genes lends support to the association between human Mendelian diseases and past adaptations but provides no evidence for either the chromosomal speciation hypothesis or the widespread brain-gene acceleration hypothesis of human origins.


Although humans and their closest living relatives, chimpanzees, are highly similar at the genomic level (1–6), they differ in many morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits (7). Phenotypically, modern humans appear to have changed considerably more than modern chimps from their common ancestors (7–10). Many of these evolutionary modifications in humans, such as the origins of bipedalism, speech and language, and other high-order cognitive functions, are widely thought to be adaptive (11–13). These observations led to a common belief that more genes underwent positive Darwinian selection in the human lineage than in the chimpanzee lineage. Indeed, there are more reports of positively selected genes (PSGs) in humans than in chimps (12, 13). Nonetheless, this difference may be largely due to a lack of study in chimps. To avoid such a bias, one could identify and compare all PSGs from the human and chimp genomes. Positive selection acting on a protein-coding gene may be detected by various population genetic and molecular evolutionary methods that use intraspecific polymorphism data, interspecific divergence data, or a combination of the two (14–16). However, because of the paucity of polymorphism data from chimps, a fair comparison between the two species would have to be limited to the divergence data. Such data can be used to estimate the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitution rates (ω). An ω value significantly >1 indicates the action of positive selection, whereas an ω significantly <1 indicates negative (or purifying) selection. Using this approach, two earlier studies (17, 18) pioneered the identification of human and chimp PSGs at the genomic scale, although no comparison was made between the numbers of human and chimp PSGs. In fact, the studies' results would be unsuitable for the comparison, owing to a number of deficiencies. First, both studies used the mouse as an outgroup, to distinguish between human-specific and chimp-specific nucleotide substitutions, because of the unavailability of genome sequences from any closer outgroups at that time. Because mouse is distantly related to human and chimp, this practice introduces errors. Second, one of the studies (17) was based on less reliable statistical methods and assumptions (19), whereas the other (18) used the draft chimp genome sequence (1) known to contain many more errors than the finished human genome sequence (20, 21). Because the majority of genes in a genome have ω < 1, and sequencing errors have an expected ω of 1, the errors inflate ω and the false detection of positive selection. In this work, we first design a protocol to rectify these problems and then use the protocol to identify and compare human and chimp PSGs. Our results show substantively more PSGs in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.

creasy wrote:

You're right. Sorry. And also: very strange. I thought the only place I read about this was via your link.

Anyway: they are not sure which traits the genes control. From their abstract....

Quote :

More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution

1. Margaret A. Bakewell,
2. Peng Shi, and
3. Jianzhi Zhang*

+Author Affiliations

1.
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

1.

Communicated by Morris Goodman, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, February 26, 2007 (received for review December 21, 2006)

Abstract

Observations of numerous dramatic and presumably adaptive phenotypic modifications during human evolution prompt the common belief that more genes have undergone positive Darwinian selection in the human lineage than in the chimpanzee lineage since their evolutionary divergence 6–7 million years ago. Here, we test this hypothesis by analyzing nearly 14,000 genes of humans and chimps. To ensure an accurate and unbiased comparison, we select a proper outgroup, avoid sequencing errors, and verify statistical methods. Our results show that the number of positively selected genes is substantially smaller in humans than in chimps, despite a generally higher nonsynonymous substitution rate in humans. These observations are explainable by the reduced efficacy of natural selection in humans because of their smaller long-term effective population size but refute the anthropocentric view that a grand enhancement in Darwinian selection underlies human origins. Although human and chimp positively selected genes have different molecular functions and participate in different biological processes, the differences do not ostensibly correspond to the widely assumed adaptations of these species, suggesting how little is currently known about which traits have been under positive selection. Our analysis of the identified positively selected genes lends support to the association between human Mendelian diseases and past adaptations but provides no evidence for either the chromosomal speciation hypothesis or the widespread brain-gene acceleration hypothesis of human origins.


Although humans and their closest living relatives, chimpanzees, are highly similar at the genomic level (1–6), they differ in many morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits (7). Phenotypically, modern humans appear to have changed considerably more than modern chimps from their common ancestors (7–10). Many of these evolutionary modifications in humans, such as the origins of bipedalism, speech and language, and other high-order cognitive functions, are widely thought to be adaptive (11–13). These observations led to a common belief that more genes underwent positive Darwinian selection in the human lineage than in the chimpanzee lineage. Indeed, there are more reports of positively selected genes (PSGs) in humans than in chimps (12, 13). Nonetheless, this difference may be largely due to a lack of study in chimps. To avoid such a bias, one could identify and compare all PSGs from the human and chimp genomes. Positive selection acting on a protein-coding gene may be detected by various population genetic and molecular evolutionary methods that use intraspecific polymorphism data, interspecific divergence data, or a combination of the two (14–16). However, because of the paucity of polymorphism data from chimps, a fair comparison between the two species would have to be limited to the divergence data. Such data can be used to estimate the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitution rates (ω). An ω value significantly >1 indicates the action of positive selection, whereas an ω significantly <1 indicates negative (or purifying) selection. Using this approach, two earlier studies (17, 18) pioneered the identification of human and chimp PSGs at the genomic scale, although no comparison was made between the numbers of human and chimp PSGs. In fact, the studies' results would be unsuitable for the comparison, owing to a number of deficiencies. First, both studies used the mouse as an outgroup, to distinguish between human-specific and chimp-specific nucleotide substitutions, because of the unavailability of genome sequences from any closer outgroups at that time. Because mouse is distantly related to human and chimp, this practice introduces errors. Second, one of the studies (17) was based on less reliable statistical methods and assumptions (19), whereas the other (18) used the draft chimp genome sequence (1) known to contain many more errors than the finished human genome sequence (20, 21). Because the majority of genes in a genome have ω < 1, and sequencing errors have an expected ω of 1, the errors inflate ω and the false detection of positive selection. In this work, we first design a protocol to rectify these problems and then use the protocol to identify and compare human and chimp PSGs. Our results show substantively more PSGs in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.

This is confusing... what creatures DNA did they use as a baseline from which to measure divergence?

I will always doubt the authority of evolutionary science. There are common characteristics between us and every other part of matter; there is a connection and no more than theories to map the direction.


Evolution has long been the target of illogical arguments that use presumption.

deepthought wrote:

I stumbled on this article in the U.K.'s Times newspaper.

Apparently, monkeys are more evolved than us and it's arrogant to think otherwise.

I give you the stupidity of the corporate laboratory whore:

Quote :

The study, from a team at the University of Michigan, suggests instead that chimps may actually have adapted more to their environment as a result of natural selection. It underlines that evolution is not a matter of progress towards a goal, and that it is incorrect to assume that more intelligent species are “more evolved”.

“These observations . . . refute the anthropocentric view that a grand enhancement in Darwinian selection underlies human origins.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1662524.ece

If climbing trees is how we measure evolution then they have us beat.

Last I heard evolution is merely adapting to an environment.
Let's see them adapt to man's interventions without human help.

We've come to a point where anything with a university or science label on it, is considered interesting.

Satyr wrote:

deepthought wrote:

I stumbled on this article in the U.K.'s Times newspaper.

Apparently, monkeys are more evolved than us and it's arrogant to think otherwise.

I give you the stupidity of the corporate laboratory whore:

Quote :

The study, from a team at the University of Michigan, suggests instead that chimps may actually have adapted more to their environment as a result of natural selection. It underlines that evolution is not a matter of progress towards a goal, and that it is incorrect to assume that more intelligent species are “more evolved”.

“These observations . . . refute the anthropocentric view that a grand enhancement in Darwinian selection underlies human origins.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1662524.ece

If climbing trees is how we measure evolution then they have us beat.

Last I heard evolution is merely adapting to an environment.
Let's see them adapt to man's interventions without human help.

We've come to a point where anything with a university or science label on it, is considered interesting.

Or 'stumbled upon' being an operative humanly evolutionary.....phrase....?
One adapts to one's environment or one doesn't.
I don't see what a university has to do with it, really. Apart from a 'stumbling across' observational kinda thing.......
Makes one kinda onea hang out in trees don't it? If one is so inclined....evolutionarily speaking.

Yah like those beasts climb trees, fuck anything and they are like yah are so stupid yah....?
Like I gots fur and I'm so warm like not like those like dummies who use heating yah?
Or walk bipedally, like yah...ha ha ha.....I mean theyall never invent the atomic bomb or anything like yah?

But wot I say is considered interesting like, yah? 'Cos I speak and can type into a computer like, yah? Insead of like existing in my environment like, yah?

Opinionated like, yah?

Chimps, like yah?

maryshelley wrote:

Yah like those beasts climb trees, fuck anything and they are like yah are so stupid yah....?
Like I gots fur and I'm so warm like not like those like dummies who use heating yah?
Or walk bipedally, like yah...ha ha ha.....I mean theyall never invent the atomic bomb or anything like yah?

But wot I say is considered interesting like, yah? 'Cos I speak and can type into a computer like, yah? Insead of like existing in my environment like, yah?

The really illogical and retarded thing about this whole business is that humans were originally meant to have lived in trees and yet chimps still do,

Oh dear god.....

Humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. In evolutionary terms they split several million years ago from this ancestor and therefore each have subsequently followed different evolutionary paths. Nothing illogical or retarded about that.

But witness the human. Believes it can understand everything; yet actually understands very little. Breeds like billyo, systematically destroys its habitat, in a matter of 300 years or so of its advancing self awareness; consumes almost all there is to consume, eradicates its nearest predatory competitors and many 'lower' organisms.

So next time you feel like writing the words 'illogical' and 'retarded' in the same sentence imagine a world populated by 'highly evolved' intelligent humans, rats, cockroaches and numerous parasitic viruses chomping at the bit for some host cells to invade.

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Strictly, does the phrase "more evolved" even make any sense in the first place?

No point in me posting, this again, its already been said

de Charin is of course in profound disagreement with the bright lights in Michigan.
Up to just a few days ago I was in basic agreement with de Chardin

Now I see it as purely a matter of relativity within the cycle of conscious evolution.

All of us are expressions of the same cell.
Whatever flavored that first organic atomic association
is equally in all of us
and magnified by all of us.