Slashdot Log In
Chimps Evolved More Than Humans
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Apr 17, 2007 04:44 PM
from the our-chimp-overlords dept.
from the our-chimp-overlords dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Creationists (Score:4, Funny)
Well, that explains the creationists, anyway...
Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:4, Interesting)
Your selecting for different genes. Instead of beign faster, stronger, tougher. You get smarter, craftier, less moral, hornier, and better looking. Since these tend to be the features that get you more kids. Although the pressure in those direction would be weaker because you dont' get killed if your below a certain IQ. The pressure is weaker.
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Where do the smart genes come in to play again?
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution vs Intelligence (Score:3, Interesting)
* (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)
Re:Evolution vs Intelligence (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolutio (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolu (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolu (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolu (Score:5, Funny)
George Bush Senior?
Parent
No (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Creationists (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Creationists (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget the digital watches!
Parent
can't walk without shoes????? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Proof! (Score:5, Funny)
Once again, we prove our vast superiority over the monkeys!
...
Apes! I meant apes!
dammit...
Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [google.com]
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:5, Interesting)
In reality, there is no "evolution" in the way that people understand it. There is natural selection, which results in changes that create animals that are more adapted to their environment. In this sense, it doesn't matter that chimps' genes have changed more than ours, because by developing a sophisticated brain capable of reasoning we have sidestepped the need for much of the adaptations chimps may have had to undergo. Once we learned to shape our environment to our tastes, rather than change ourselves, the game was over.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution is not a mechanism, it's a result.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not entirely sure
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That may not be true. Suppose that "success" is evenly distributed over the full range of complexity. To define this more concretely, suppose that the probability that a particular DNA sequence codes for a "successful" organism is independent of the length
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:4, Informative)
So, you get a whole load of species radiating off a single branch, some branches producing further branching, others being cropped and ending that particular evolutionary pathway.
Essentially the process should be viewed as such:
G encodes the information for a genome. The replication of G introduces mutations into that genome into the successors. This is mutation. If we take a simple asexual reproductive organism O1 then:
And so on... we rapidly try out a whole range of G, some of which will be branches that lead to dead-ends (i.e. solutions that produce organisms that are poorly adapted), some will lead to better solutions and eventually some of these solutions will incorporate significant phenotypical changes.
So there was no 'progression' towards homo sapiens, we're just an end point of a huge exploration of a genetic search space.
Parent
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:4, Informative)
>it's not that man's ancestor was an ape, it's that apes and man have a common ancestor that was neither ape nor man.
Any objective taxonomy of primates includes Homo, Australopithecus, and the other human ancestors among the African great apes (family Hominidae). Not only was our ancestor an ape; we are apes.Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no necessity built into evolution that makes it true, because it is a scientific claim. There could be a counterexample tomorrow that refutes evolution completely, and if we accepted it we'd have to abandon evolution and form a new theory. Evolution is not a true theory unless it is backed up by experi
Conventional wisdom? (Score:5, Insightful)
The selective pressures on both species were/are different so different amounts of evolution will occur.
Simple selection pressure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple selection pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The genes' final mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
GWB is happy (Score:4, Funny)
"Nerrrrr nerrrrr told you we were better!!!"
It's all in your perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember how evolution works! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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
They seem to have evoloved... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello? Natural Selection? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Amount of Evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
- 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.The whole premise is flawed (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahhh, I understand now... (Score:3, Funny)
very gooood reason
Re:Humor? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The real question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)