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.'"
The researchers found that 'substantially more genes in chimps evolved in ways that were beneficial than was the case with human genes.'"
Well, that explains the creationists, anyway...
Once again, we prove our vast superiority over the monkeys!
...
Apes! I meant apes!
dammit...
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I work in a closely related field, and it's very hard even for those who work on evolutionary biology to hold in our minds the idea that things don't evolve towards greater complexity (with human beings at the pinacle), they evolve towards whatever works.
Often people giving scientific talks about some detailed aspect of evolutionary biology slip into terms like 'primative' and correct themselves with 'simple'. I think part of this is because we tend to organize organisms by appearance, and before the genomic era this was the only thing we had to go on. We now know that many of the organisms that seem simple have the same or greater gene complexity as ourselves.
Sometimes I think Evolution needs a better iconic image than the ape to man progression
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.
A chimp writes, "Those damned dirty humans keep shoving probes up our asses to find out if we evolved faster than they did. They should leave us alone and let us fling our poo."
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
George Bush's family are preparing a statement:
"Nerrrrr nerrrrr told you we were better!!!"
liqbase
Exactly. Chimps are smarter because they don't get fucking married. I myself am guilty of slowing evolution.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
"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
It should be remembered that in the context of evolution, "beneficial" always refers to an individual's ability to pass along his genes through reproduction. And, as most of Slashdot readers surely know from personal experience, larger brains and advanced cognitive abilities are not particularly beneficial in this task.
It is classified as Humor because it was posted by kdawson, whose method of category selection is, ironically, very similar to monkeys throwing feces at a wall.
Because they don't have blogs. Yet.
Back in time, the intelligent ones were more able to survive and raise their children to breed, whilst the less intelligent perished or killed their children because of their own stupidity. Nowadays, however, too many of the more intelligent and able dedicate most of their efforts to help the less intelligent ones to survive instead of breeding themselves. Intelligence has become a handicap in building a society that's intended to live off the intelligent and able. As we get higher on Maslow's Pyramid, our efforts become less egoistical.
There will be the inflection point, however, where the less intelligent outbreed by far and even destroy the most intelligent out of plain envy (seen in cases such as Pol Pot's Cambodia). Then the lack of intelligence will again play against the group and roll the changes back to the point where the intelligent (and egoistical) will prevail again.
..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!
If you consider that humans are to the "society" what cells are to the human body, it makes sense. Humans get specialized, and brain cells don't reproduce (much*) either. It's also probably better because they use a lot more energy and live longer.
* (IIRC it has been found a few years ago that they can duplicate, though at a slow pace, while before it was believed they didn't)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
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
The traits that our capitalist society rewards (excellence in a field gives extreme wealth, and competence in certain people oriented skills trumps competence in technical fields, etc.) is the appearance of socially what we want. If the pay is better, the supply should increase. However, if you look at birth patterns, things that correspond with higher birthrates are: religion (more => more children), region of country, etc. Traits that are NEGATIVELY correlated are education (more education, for women especially, lowers birth rates), income, etc.
:) But seriously, if you think that the religious right is bad now, well in 50-60 years, if they continue to have double the birth rate or more as secular America... well they WILL be the majority in time...
Even MORE interesting is the rate of genetic diversity. The crew most decried by the family values crew (the single mother with multiple children from different fathers) has interestingly creating more genetic diversity. Gentlemen like "K-fed" are producing multiple offspring with multiple women, ensuring their genetic diversity.
This is interesting because after generations of decreasing religiosity, increasing education, and healthier people living longer, it looks like those same biological forces are shrinking those characteristics. There was an amusing editorial a few years ago suggesting that Roe v. Wade destroyed the Democratic party, NOT because abortions were unpopular, but because they were popular. Because of the high correlation of political views with those of the parents, the the correlation of being a Democrat with abortion (roughly 2-3 times more likely to have an abortion if a Democrat than a Republican), then 18 year after Roe v. Wade we found a shrinking pool of Democrats.
Similarly, the higher birthrates of fundamentalists of all religions is causing a slow reversal of post-enlightenment reforms and changes in religious communities. The "mainstream Protestant Churches" are losing numbers, the Catholics are holding steady overall, but their growth is in South America and Africa, while their presence in Europe shrinks and American Catholics are increasing of Latin origin, Judaism has watched a growth of its Orthodox wing (from about 8% 20 years ago to close to 15% of Jews), which itself has been shifting rightward, and Muslim growth rates are outstripping everyone.
Basically. out secular atheistic culture has reached such a pinnacle of self indulgence and freedom that it might actually shrink itself. The American Left is constantly blaming the Bush administration, but the cultural shifts underneath America demonstrate that demographics and not demagoguery is actually causing the reactionary political pull.
It's very interesting, but I find it the HEIGHT of irony that the bible-thumping anti-evolutionary wings of all religions, that were marginal a generation ago, are suddenly making gains, while the secular, science and reason based culture with decades of dominance after WW2 finds itself on the retreat, and the REASON is that the anti-evolution crew is spreading their genetic material and creating offspring to advance their agenda, and the pro-science pro-evolution crew is cutting off their genetic material with families of 0-2 children.
In fact, most disturbing is that the men that engage in the most socially irresponsible behavior -- serial cheating, divorce, etc., are generally fathering many more children than those that "play by the rules." So with whatever genetic material influences behavior, we're going to find each generation a little more adulterous...
If current trends continue, which of course they will NOT, things will swing the otherway, but amusingly, in 4 or 5 generations, we'll have a general population of non-white, deeply religious Americas who going to Church/Synagogue/Mosques regularly, while engaging in adulterous relationships during the week.
Amusing amateur demographic observations...
Alex
I think they're spot-on, if a bit verbose.
Summary:
Reactionary and generally stupid people mate more, and thus have more offspring. This is a system with a positive feedback loop since the next generation of K-Feds and Britneys will also likely get pregnant and work shitty jobs (moreso than make it to Harvard).
Whereas, progressive and generally smart people may fuck as much (or more) but do not mate as much. This system also has a feedback loop.
Note that it is the PROGRESSIVE attitude towards sex (whatever, whenever) coupled (heh) with STUPIDITY that leads to the dumb outbreeding the smart.
Neuroscience student here, and yes there do appear to be some growth of new neurons in the adult brain, but at vastly reduced numbers. While we have pretty good evidence for neurogenesis(birth of new neurons) in most parts of the primate brain, there's somewhat less good evidence for it in the neocortex of humans. silly ethics rules slow research down! >;(
/.ers consider themselves to be a bit smarter than average? And the running joke for years has been that none of them get laid. :P Besides, the smart ones are the people who'll use birth control properly right? Instead of just accidently knocking someone up.
There's also somewhat debateable data on what these new neurons do exactly. What the consequences of them are. The data on their being related to learning/memory and such is a bit muddy. They do get functionally integrated in other species anyway, and there seems to be a link to depression. Possibly lower neurogenesis is what mediates stress inducing depression. And the lag of a few weeks before alot of the SSRIs begin to work seems to fit with the few weeks needed for new neurons to be made and mature.
And just to clear one other thing up, these new neurons aren't being made from mature neurons undergoing mitosis and splitting in two. They're made from multipotent stem cells in the dentate gyrus and along the subventricular zone.
As for humans evolving to become smarter, I'm not really sure that being smarted conveys much evolutionary fitness. After all, don't most
So that`s the reason why president Bush was elected twice. I knew US citizen had a :)
very gooood reason
Dawkins suggests this is powerful evidence that humans have been dramatically changed by their own environmental manipulations - perhaps accounting for the rapidity of our divergence away from our cousins - not easily accounted for by the relatively recent forking of the family tree.
Just another case where the surprising complexity of natural selection can 'play into' the wilful distortions of the creationists.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!
>> 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!
There is a certain irony to it in the human case. Since the first replicators appeared they have been engaged in mortal combat for survival through the phenotypes they build. In most cases the greedy nature of the algorithm has meant good short term solutions but catastrophic long term ones - as evidenced by the fact that >99% of all species that have existed on Earth are today extinct. The genes available today in the gene pools of all organisms are the elite - unlike countless other genes, they have survived so far.
The big mistake our gene dictators made was the development of our human brain. Sure, it was an excellent short term solution - it clearly had its advantages. But now when that big brain thing has led to the development of bio-tech, the phenotype will rule the genotype. The survival machines that were built to protect and propagate the genes have revolted and are seizing power. Sure, natural selection will always exist, but it is way too slow. By giving us too much control they've sealed their fate. The genes that gave us our large brains may still be around for a while - but they too are at our mercy. Not that they could have foreseen it in any way, but still, it was certainly the wrong way to go from the selfish genes' point of view.
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
Fleshy feet that cant walk along most surfaces without shoes
Bull *shit*.
Maybe your pansy, city-slicker feet are too soft and lily-white for you to stand to walk barefoot long enough for you to adapt but I've lived barefoot a fair bit in my life and a LOT of people walk barefoot on surfaces which you may not think possible.
There are a couple of factors which contribute: the toughness of the soles of your feet will improve quite a lot and the way in which you walk counts for a lot as well. Then theres being observant.
Most people going barefoot for the first time over rough or sharp surfaces, such as rocky coastlines or dirt roads, try to walk in the same style as they walk when wearing shoes; this is going to lead to pain and injury. They are also used to being able to walk pretty much without looking where they are going.
After watching how 'native' people walk barefoot I realised that it helps a lot to put the foot down fairly flatly, not heel first but as if you are trying to plant the whole surface of the foot on the ground at the same time.
Then you have to look ahead of yourself and get used to having a view of the world which includes the surface of the ground which you are about to step on. People in 'civilised' parts of the world are *incredibly* unobservant and self-absorbed. *INCREDIBLY*. Walking barefoot with your head in the clouds is going to get you hurt.
I've found myself able to walk on sharp, bare, volcanic rock with no pain or injury even with deconditioned (ie: softened) soles of my feet (after not going barefoot for a long time) merely by looking where I'm going and treading properly.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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
...and very astute ones at that. I've been "wondering" along the same lines for years now.
It makes more sense to me by viewing intelligence as the servant of reproduction, rather than the other way 'round.
In "intelligent society" (with which I'm quite familiar and which much Western secular media essentially defines itself as representing, if not defining), people generally assume reproduction is all about making sure future generations are at least as intelligence as the current one. "Civilization" is, itself, another (very important) means to transmit intelligence to future generations.
From that point of view, the most important reproductive organ in the human body, especially the female's, is the brain. While other reproductive organs are necessary to make a baby, the parents' (especially the mother's) intelligence and other mental qualities will exert much more influence on how the child "turns out" than the physical aspects of reproduction.
However, the "Universe" (or Nature) itself really doesn't care about intelligence per se. Entropy guarantees an overall increase in disorder, so, for information (such as DNA) to survive the corrupting effects of being in this universe, it must reproduce, either directly or indirectly.
From that point of view, "intelligence" evolved merely to improve the odds of DNA surviving. That it currently happens to be primarily human DNA isn't (according to modern science) the "point" of the Universe, neither does the Universe care that the human species has suddenly exploded in population to several Billion and might actually be causing another extinction event, just as the Universe doesn't care that the human species is probably the first to appear on this planet, if not in the entire Universe, that is actually capable of preventing a much more severe extinction event (such as an asteroid hitting the planet, or a supervolcano erupting).
Meanwhile, until a potential extinction event, threatening the human species itself, is on the horizon and requires extraordinary intelligence and coordination to detect and prevent it, the sheer success of the human species prevents the usual evolutionary pressures compelling continued "progress" towards increased intelligence.
That means people who reproduce even somewhat more "vigorously" than the rest of the population will ultimately become a majority of the population, even if they're "not as smart" as those who reproduce less vigorously.
And, socially and culturally, it certainly seems that "intelligence" is now widely viewed as corresponding to "global awareness", including of such concerns as overpopulation; women's reproductive rights (which almost always means less reproduction, as men are almost always willing, especially in a time and place of plenty, to reproduce more, given their substantially lower personal investment in the process); and "quality of life" (including its length as well as the overall "expense" a life is deemed to be worth society's provisioning), which typically includes enjoying the fruits of sexual desire without necessarily having to bear any of the responsibilities for fulfilling those desires (such as bearing and raising actual children).
These views themselves can be viewed as somewhat akin to DNA that has an anti-reproductive component, and that therefore tends to not flourish or even survive in the long run.
And these views are not necessarily correlated with religion so much as with whether they view sexual reproduction as low or high cost (corresponding roughly with the masculine versus the feminine outlooks on sexual reproduction). For an extreme example, the Shakers were successful in many ways by "modern" intellectual assessments, but they viewed sexual reproduction as extremely high-cost, the result being that they are no longer "reproducing" except via prop
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
If anything, it hints that life does not generally evolve towards big intelligence like ours, even when it gets the chance (there was after all 500+ million years of complex life prior to us, none of which could start a fire)-
.. K
We may be specialists, evolved to think great thoughts since that was advantageous for our context at the time. Since it appears evolution does not favour philosphers, it might means we're an accident, and pretty alone in the cosmos.
Would be kind of sad if we made our own extinction then, wouldn't it.
>> I can't remember his name at the moment. But there was a scientist who raised a chimpanzee along side his own son. He discontinued the experiment after his son started immitating it
George Bush Senior?
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...