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.'"

Conventional wisdom?

[2nd Post!]

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.

Simple selection pressure

[sakdoctor]

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

Signs this article is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"If we see an excess of functional changes (compared to silent changes) the inference is these functional changes occurred because they were positively selected, because they were useful in some way to the organism," said study team member Margaret Bakewell, also of UM.

What a moronic inference. Without understanding the effect these protein changes have it is silly to say it was beneficial. These fools think of everything as black and white, ignoring the idea that there are changes to which natural selection may be indifferent. Just another example of people overcome with such zeal to crush creationists that they embrace bad science.

It's all in your perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re:Simple selection pressure

[2nd Post!]

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

Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better

[Xonstantine]

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.

They seem to have evoloved...

[thewils]

..past the point where they need to shoot each other with guns.

Just remember..

[Arceliar]

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.

Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[Forge]

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.

Hello? Natural Selection?

[__aagmrb7289]

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."

Amount of Evolution?

[camperdave]

Chimps evolved more? So what does that mean?

1. Maybe chimps have shorter lifespans. Thus there have been more generations of chimps to mix and mingle the chimp gene pool.
2. Perhaps chimps have a bigger gene pool. More chimps=more genetic variety=more chance for beneficial genes to surface.
3. Maybe human DNA doesn't have the same genetic variety as chimp DNA. Thus the variability in chimps could be greater than in humans.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better

[AeroIllini]

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.

Re:Proof!

[alexjohnc3]

Sorry, humans are still apes.

The whole premise is flawed

[cyborg_zx]

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.

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[osu-neko]

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.

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[smallpaul]

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.

Re:Hello? Natural Selection?

[julesh]

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.

No

[geekoid]

"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.

Re:Creationists

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Re:Remember how evolution works!

[Chemisor]

> 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 [slashdot.org] 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.

Re:Creationists

[Mr. Safety EFT]

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.

Re:It's all in your perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

but I don't think your average dolphin could understand probability densities in Quantum Mechanics if it wanted to.
Kind of sounds just like the average human.

Re:It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolu

[Profound]

>> 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!

Re:Creationists

[Jorgandar]

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! :)

Re: Intelligence and heritability

[gringer]

That link again:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= search&DB=pubmed&term=heritability%20intelligence [nih.gov]

[I only now realised that pubmed doesn't seem to save search terms in the location bar]

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[espressojim]

The time frame for this is 6 million years (since the human-chimp divergence.) How long have we been meaningfully been manipulating our enviornment in a way that blunts the forces of natural selection? Let's be generous and say...10,000 years? That's 1/600th of the time, and your hypothesis is that all of the 'extra' chimp evolution has occurred in that period of time?

It just doesn't make any sense. I understand your ideas about how humans (in 1st world countries, anyway) are much less subjected to some obvious forms of natural selection like predation by other animals, but it just hasn't been long enough to be meaningful.

And yes, IAAPG (population geneticist)

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[dsanfte]

High degrees of specialization usually have trade-offs. I wouldn't be surprised if the high expression of genes for athletic performance had epistatic effects on other genes, perhaps such as spending more protein on muscle building at the expense of other vital systems.

The human genome is a maze of interconnecting fibers, each supporting another. You can definitely say by pulling one fiber out that it causes a big defect (cerebral paulsy, down's syndrome), but you can't say just by looking that any one fiber is more important than another.

Re:maybe big brains prevent evolution?

[Brad1138]

I don't believe in the theory of evolution

I wonder, do you believe in the computer you used to post on /.?

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[TempeTerra]

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.

Re:Creationists

[Drawkcab]

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.

Re:can't walk without shoes?????

[Kaboom13]

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.

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[SEE]

Er, no, sorry, that was not the topic. Try re-reading Forge's post yourself, this time without leaping to conclusions.

See? Most of his post was about how human society has insulated humans from evolutionary pressure, not individual human intelligence. His only comment about the potential genetic basis of intelligence, which followed the athlete remark, was that people better hope intelligence isn't genetically determined.

Granted, Forge was not perfectly clear in the way he expressed himself. But you have to make a major leap of logic to come to the idea that he was asserting that athletes are smarter than most people, a slightly smaller jump to claim he was asserting intelligence is genetically determined, and then tie both together into a really long jump to come up with your response.

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[packeteer]

I was reading an article in a news paper about sex offenders. There are many theories about WHY they do what they do. Some people think it could be trama as a child or social factors. One distinct possibility is that people who will rape and sexually assault others are more likely to have their genes passed on.

We evolve towards whatever ISN'T "in"

[alexhmit01]

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.

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... :) It's not intentional, it's a whole lot of subconscious things.

Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists

[king-manic]

Good thing abortion is legal. It curbs the genetic advantage of being a rapist. Perhaps surgical castration of repeat offenders would also help.