We're Really Chimps???

I'm not a professional in this area but I do try to keep up with some of what is going on. With that warning let me give you my understanding of the current state of things.First, as I think you know (being more knowledable that our other "creo" chatter here) we are not evolved from chimps at all. We are not evolved from chimps any more than you are evolved from your cousin who shares a grandparent with you.'We are however, very closly related to them. Back a few million ( 5 to 7) years ago there was a population of primates in Africa who were all one species. That species was almost certainly more chimp like than human like but that isn't settled yet. (It did not have our brain capacity almost for absolutly sure and that is a defining feature of Homo). Some of the individuals of that species evolved to become the chimpanzees and some evolved to become us. The suggestion has been that the opening of the great rift valley supplied the isolation that allowed us to speciate originally. (Some problems with that with S. tchadensis being on the wrong side of the valley)Now for the question of how far from them are we?The closeness of our genomes is perfectly reasonable in the time frame involved. Remember you have a handfull of genetic changes different from your parent in only one generation. How many can pile up in a quater of a million generations? This will accelerate when we are separated by a species barrier.We are very similar to chimps. We also have very similar DNA. From this we may learn just what changes produce the phenotypical (body form) differences between us. There are, for example, genes in us that have a repeated sequence. The more repeats the longer the brain keeps growing before it stops. This just can't be the whole story but it is interesting. There is an amazing correlation between brain size and these repeats across a wide range of animals. It is the same sequence in mice and us.seeNature Via NurtureThere are a few very specific changes that make the differences between us. It is, to me, surprising that so few genetic differences make such a large, apparent difference in the result. Telling how thi s happens will be sorted out in the next decade or two. Regulation of genes is almost certainly going to have something to do with it.It is also clear, when you look at it in detail that we are not so very different from our cousins. We see the big differences from our biased point of veiw. Remember a chimp is about the same intelligence as a 3 or 4 year old child. They are, we would agree, human.Clearly the differences in our DNA and a chimps are NOT just a "few useless strands". That is a silly thing to say. I'd like to see the underlying source for such statements. It is the first I've heard of it and it sounds like someone only marginally knowledgable (like myself) makeing an exaggerated statement.See The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction? for some discussion of our relationship to them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-16-2005 01:25 AM

I suggest when you know jack squat regarding the subject at hand that you don't bother to prove your lack of knowledge with such posts.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-16-2005 01:18 AM

Can I clarify?You are saying that one of the punishments of Adam was removal of the ability to synthesize his own vitamin C right?That God did this not by removing the gene but by breaking the gene in just the way a mutation would. That he also for some reason broke the chimps gene in the same way. However he left other animals with the same gene intact so that it still works.Does that mean that the chimp is somehow special in God's eyes? Is he really how brother, also made in God's image? He is pretty similar isn't he come to think of it.Did God do this in just the way that one would expect when examining other genes that we share with these animals if we and they evolved together from ancestors in the more and more distant past? Why is that? Why does it keep looking like the evolutionary explanation?God could have removed the ability any way he wanted to. But for some reason he choose just the way that makes sense in an evolutionary context and fits with all the other things we know about us and chimps.

Oh, I see. I thought someone was going to actually suggest solid competitive interpretations that explained the evidence.I guess these aren't it then and we are left with only one viable interpretation of the observations. Until there is a viable alternative I suggest that the hints that scientists are misinterrpreting the evidence be dropped as a point of discussion.An additionl note on the second quoted item above. We are, unlike the so called creation "scientists", working on it.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-17-2005 10:27 AM

I think you are right on.We spread around the globe fairly quickly when we got enought technology to do so (about 60,000 years ago). Then it is probably that less mixing would take place. If that had kept up we might have speciated in the various locations.However, before we had a chance to get there we got even more technology and are mixing the gene pool up now. There won't be a chance for speciation again.(BTW, one suggestion for the split of the ancestral population that gave raise to us and chimps is the great rift valley. Some issues with that after finding fossils on the "wrong" side.)

Well, others have posted references to speciation occuring in plants (and maybe mice) in a single generation. Meanwhile it is clear that it can take many, many thousands in other cases.So it would appear it depends totally on just what mutations happen to occur. Or what the split is.As an odd example there is some disease that (mmmm I think it was) an insect can get. Those with it can not breed with those without and vice versa. I think this is an "instant" rift. The two populations are identical but are split anyway.

I think it wast The Literalist in post 24 who suggested retina design as a form of protection.I don't think you (Juhrahnimo) have discussed it.

Source for this? method of measureing? I'm pretty sure comparing this to the human-chimp comparison is wrong but we'll see when you show how you calculated this. Slime molds have haemoblobin? In any case, so? This doesn't have much to do with the overall similarity of chimps and humans either.Again source for this "information" please. And this one is just plain silly. If you think this is an argument you need to learn a bit.