Slashdot Mirror
Chimps Evolved More Than Humans
jas_public writes "Since the human and chimp families split about 6 million years ago, chimpanzee genes seem to have evolved more than human genes. The results, detailed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, go against the conventional wisdom that humans are the result of a high degree of genetic selection, evidenced by our relatively large brains, cognitive abilities, and bipedalism. The researchers found that 'substantially more genes in chimps evolved in ways that were beneficial than was the case with human genes.'"
It's only conventional if you don't understand evolution.
The selective pressures on both species were/are different so different amounts of evolution will occur.
GPL Deconstructed
Our relatively large brains, cognitive abilities, and bipedalism has allowed us to avoid selection pressure to a greater degree than the chimps.
"On the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But, conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams
What exactly is wrong with the iconic "ape to man progression"?
Many people view chimps and other apes as our less evolved cousins, when, speaking from an evolutionary point of view, they are every bit as evolved as us, they just happen to have evolved in different directions.
..past the point where they need to shoot each other with guns.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Quantity doesn't necessarily beat quality. Ask yourself what's more efficient: making hundreds of minor adaptations to an environment, or making a few really good ones? Most animals grow what they need to gather food and defend themselves. We make what we need. Ideas change faster than genes.
Once man learned to manipulate his environment rather than evolve to fit it, the rate of human evolution slowed down. Not only that but it started going in strange directions.
Think about it. Gazels have been getting faster because the slowest gazel ends up in a Lions stomach before mating season. Humans have devised ways to protect even our paraplegics.
A chimp with the physical limitations of Stephen Hawkins would be lunch. As a human he not only survives but has managed to reproduce and even maintains high ranking in our social order.
Think about it. If you can be an Alpha Male without even being able to stand then genetic features become less relevant in determining who reproduces. Dramatically slowing the process of human evolution.
As for direction. Our professional athletes, scientists and Engineers produce far fewer children than those at the bottom of our social order. For the sake of our species, I would advise you all (Creationists and Evolutionist) to pray (To Jesus or Darwin) that human intelligence is not seriously impacted by our genetic makeup. If it is our society will collapse when we are no longer able to maintain what our parents built.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
This should be obvious, people. The whole point of evolution is that a species changes over time to deal with pressure from its environment. Humankind has been "coddling the weak" for thousands upon thousands of years now. We protect and nurture those who would not, could not, make it on their own. This means that evolution, as it functions for say, apes, isn't working the same way for us. Our "large brains" and the technology and advantages that come from the abilities we get from it, mean that our genes do not need to change as much as most other species - because instead of changing ourselves, we develop technology, etc. to deal with our environment. Again, I'm guessing that most scientists are looking at this data and saying, "Well, no shit. I would certainly be surprised if the data showed something else, but this? It's confirmation - nothing exciting."
- Maybe chimps have shorter lifespans. Thus there have been more generations of chimps to mix and mingle the chimp gene pool.
- Perhaps chimps have a bigger gene pool. More chimps=more genetic variety=more chance for beneficial genes to surface.
- Maybe human DNA doesn't have the same genetic variety as chimp DNA. Thus the variability in chimps could be greater than in humans.
- Perhaps the population density has kept chimp DNA in greater flux. Humans have ranged all over the planet, thus human genes don't get as much of a chance to mix.
- Maybe human evolution has slowed because there are different social pressures on our mating practices. It's not all about physical prowess and attractiveness with people. Certain families/tribes don't mix with certain others, or perhaps only mix with others. Religion, money, power, history, language, etc all affect how (with whom) humans mate. Chimps are free from these pressures.
In short, perhaps chimps are more evolved, but so what? Cockroaches are probably far more evolved than either of us.When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I think the trouble comes about when we start to think of evolution as a "force". Evolution is not the driving force behind change; instead, outside forces in the environment (temperature, weather, resources, competitors, etc.) create natural selection, which drives change. Evolution is merely the description of that change.
Evolution is not a mechanism, it's a result.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Sorry, humans are still apes.
It doesn't mean anything to say X is more evolved than Y or evolving more. It is a meaningless statement. Talking about the 'speed' of evolution doesn't mean anything unless you've got a predefined goal in mind and evolution most certainly does not - no matter what your Star Trek DVDs tell you.
The whole point of evolution is that a species changes over time to deal with pressure from its environment. Humankind has been "coddling the weak" for thousands upon thousands of years now.
OTOH, the timescale of this study was 6,000,000 years. ~10,000 years of civilization shouldn't have had a huge overall effect on our evolution compared to the preceding 5,990,000 of them.
"Once man learned to manipulate his environment rather than evolve to fit it, the rate of human evolution slowed down."
Damn that bugs the hell out of me. It is wrong.
Technology does not stop evolution, it is part of it.
Natural selectio m akes what is best for the 'enviroment'. As an enviroment changes, the traits that are desirable in a mate change, but evolution marches on.
Why do you think 'Engineers' are the only people who are smart? what amount of shear gall is needed to say that?
There are smart people everywhere doing all kinds of work.
I would say someone who bacame a plumber right out of haghschool is probably bettter of financially then an engineer.
In fact, it would ahve been far smarter of me to become a plumber then a engineer.
Less money spent to maintain my career, higher earning.
I see people being smart all the time, and if you look you would see it to.
Just because someone has an opposing view, or that you have no idea what there motivations are doesn't make there decesion stupid, it makes you ignorant.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't think that counts when it's your species domesticating your local environment to fit your current genes. The rest just makes sense- the chimps, without major building projects and air conditioning, were forced to evolve to fit local conditions. Mankind, who had these luxuries in various forms over the last 50,000 years or so, didn't need to evolve-he changed his environment instead of changing his body.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
> being a brilliant and beautiful woman never helped me get laid.
> Even though I am, if I may be frank, fairly good looking.
Good looking to whom? All the intelligent women I've known seemed beautiful to me, and that even before I knew they were intelligent. Conversely, many famous women and beauty contest winners leave me baffled as to what is so great about them. My guess is that our standard of beauty is biased toward people of intelligence level equal to ours. In my experience, I can usually guess any person's approximate intelligence level simply from their appearance, and, as I have recently discussed in my journal, this measurement has a strong impact on whether I would wish to befriend them and, apparently, on my evaluation of the quality of their looks.
You missed the point of the article. Humans may have more genetic variation - because we have a larger chance of producing offspring - but that is not what the article says. The article says that the chimps had a larger portion of beenficial mutations. This makes perfect sense in a setting lke ours, where there is tons of variation in which nature is playing little to no role toward selection. We have plenty of variation, but because of our domestication, no beneficial variation becomes the biological norm; but it does happen in the chimp population.
>> if you could only find a credible link about intelligence being hereditary
Yes, this isn't immediately obvious so we need to raise a monkey and a baby human together and see which grows up to be smarter!
It makes sense to me. For example: I cant see worth a damn without some sort of correction device. In nature i should have been a bigger animals lunch or starved to death a long time ago. Therefore the "bad vision" gene should have been selected out of the gene pool a long time ago as well. Yet here it remains for a lot of us.
:)
We have are a few more 'features' i can think of that probablly should have been selected out of the gene pool:
Teeth that dont last (without brushing) and are prone to rotting
Fleshy feet that cant walk along most surfaces without shoes
Immune systems that are unable to fight off many common infections without medical treatment
Damn you man-kind for inventing stuff. look what you've done to us!
That link again:
= search&DB=pubmed&term=heritability%20intelligence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD
[I only now realised that pubmed doesn't seem to save search terms in the location bar]
Ask me about repetitive DNA
I don't believe in the theory of evolution
/.?
I wonder, do you believe in the computer you used to post on
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Well, some of these factors are pretty recent in human history. Evolution isn't that quick, and hasn't had nearly enough time to catch up with modern civilization. Humans and chimps branched from each other long long before most of these changes in environment. If you had grown up several thousand years ago, your same genes may not have resulted in the same problems, due to environment. For example, our teeth rot particularly quick due to our diet high in simple carbohydrates, made possible by agriculture. In nature, people may not eat quite so many starches and sugars. Our eyes may develop differently due to all the reading and maybe even artificial lighting. Our feet don't have to become hard and calloused because shoes are available.
While it's true that with experience the soles of your feet toughen, but a lot of people have fallen arches, bone splints, etc. that can make walking without proper supportive shoes painful. Just because our feet are capable of getting us around, doesn't mean we aren't a lot better off with shoes, and considering the the major cultures throughout history all over the world have invented various forms of shoes or sandals and considered them important. Unsupported/protected human feet are prone to injury and developing various painful conditions as they get older. Not to mention, I for one don't think having to carefully consider my footsteps when not engaged in rock climbing a plus, less time spent looking at the ground gives you more time to look at the surrounding environment. The evolution our feet seemed to stop after "good enough" for us to get around and last us until we can procreate, but compared to many animals they don't seem particularly well suited. I guess the benefit of big brains is we can make tools (aka shoes) that can be far superior to most animals and can be changed and adapted to the environment at will.
In a way, the existence of filthy bare-footed hippies proves the article's point. If evolution was at work in humans, people who bucked useful tools like shoes just to stick it to them man would die out.
That's the thing, the "in" thing to do is use birth control and not have children. Feminist ideology has be subtly discouraging women from having families. It isn't blatant, but it's the "start your career first," "plan your children," etc., that suggests that children are a burden. It's a subconscious thing, but if children are things to wait to have until you can afford, and should be planned for, clearly they are a "bad thing," and it is reflected in birth rates.
:) It's not intentional, it's a whole lot of subconscious things.
The culturally "in" things are: get a good education, make a lot of money, buy fancy toys, etc. People that DO those things have fewer children than those that DO NOT. People that have the most children either "get knocked up as teenagers," engage in anti-social behavior like cheating and child abandonment, or are religiously motivated.
We are selecting cultural and genetic traits that are NOT culturally in. Unless culturally large families become a status symbol (which is unlikely as the government and courts make having large families miserable, try getting 3 kids into a sedan, easy in the 70s, but now with 1-2 car seats and 1-2 booster seats, it can't be done, you need a mini-van or SUV -- and that's just at 3, not large yet) and the cultural elites have big families, you're going to keep de-selecting those traits.
Hell, look our Ms. Spears is derided for getting married and having two kids, while her "rivals" are lauded for partying all night. She is criticized for acting like the celebrity culture wants her to act because she has kids, talk about a message to young people that having kids sucks...