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.'"

15 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. Conventional wisdom? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Simple selection pressure by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our relatively large brains, cognitive abilities, and bipedalism has allowed us to avoid selection pressure to a greater degree than the chimps.

    1. Re:Simple selection pressure by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which means our genepool is larger just in case there is a need for a classically unselected gene.

  3. It's all in your perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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

  4. Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better by Xonstantine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists by Forge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?
    1. Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't. Evolution merely rewards the best fuckers. Being intelligent may give someone an edge at that, but it's not the only way to get an edge, and not necessarily the best one, either.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      What makes you think that people at the bottom of our social order necessarily have "lesser" genes than those at the top? Your reference to professional athletes is especially telling.

    3. Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists by TempeTerra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An athlete's ability is determined by their genes (and dedication and training, of course), but they are only 'superior' based on the value system you put them in. You could just as easily talk about the 'superior' people with long, silky hair, and how their 'superiority' is genetic. Their genes are not superior in an objective sense, they're just one of many sufficient arrangements for our way of life.

      From a survival-of-the-species perspective, genetic diversity is the best thing. What if everybody had the physique of a pro athlete, and then some kind of contagious wasting disease wiped them out because their body fat percentages were too low? The slobs and geeks would have been fine, but in that hypothetical situation the 'superior' genes are a liability. The broadening gene pool of humanity is an asset, and the gene pool is broadening specifically because survival no longer depends on having a narrowly specified genetic makeup.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  6. Hello? Natural Selection? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."

  7. The whole premise is flawed by cyborg_zx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Creationists by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Remember how evolution works! by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > 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.

  10. Re:It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolu by Profound · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> 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!

  11. Re:Creationists by Jorgandar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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! :)