Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
"Guy A Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f0asov$2c9s$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love it. We humans are incredibly defensive about how special (perfect,
even) and best adapted we are, and we are highly skilled at making arguments
to defend this sort of self-image in the face of evidence to the contrary.
We generally do this in a religious sort of way, as I think is done by Varki
below. "The data don't PROVE that our evolution is ordinary, so you can't
make me stop believing that it was."
I had never heard of Varki, but your comment sent me Googling to learn more
about his POV. Based on some very cursory research, I don't see much to
indicate that he is religiously motivated, except maybe an animal-rights
stance regarding captive chimpanzee research:
http://cmm.ucsd.edu/Lab_Pages/varki/varkilab/B104.pdf
Varki was also co-author of an interesting article on chimp human differences
and what the genome comparisons are likely to show.
http://cmm.ucsd.edu/Lab_Pages/varki/varkilab/B096%20copy.pdf
I'm curious as to what ReMine's take would be on the suggestion in the Zhang
paper that only 154 selective changes separate us from our common ancestor with
the chimp. Wasn't there some kind of argument from incredulity involving
the number 1667?
Incidentally, the Zhang article is now available online here
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0701705104v1
but unfortunately I can only read the abstract and supporting materials.
I think I understand that they are not claiming that the 154 identified
changes constitute the totality of the selective changes. These are only
the ones they can be 95% confident of. Perhaps someone who understands the
pop-gen math better than I do can tell me what the selection coefficient for
the cutoff point would be, approximately.
I am not saying that we don't belong
on a pedestal; that would be a different argument. I am saying that
evidence to the contrary is a healthy thing promoting open mindedness in the
science of human evolution.
Cheers,
Guy
in article f08kl9$1973$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Danniel Soares at
dannielsc@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 4/19/07 1:49 PM:
[...]
Jianzhi Zhang, a population geneticist, and his colleagues compared
nearly 14,000 protein-coding genes in humans and chimpanzees, which
have about the same size genome. Using a statistical analysis, they
identified 154 human genes that have been positively selected. In
contrast, they found 233 such genes in chimpanzees, a 51% increase,
I wish she had written "51% greater" rather than "a 51% increase"!
they report online this week in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
[...]
The study "challenges the idea that there was a great burst of
adaptive change in humans, one that was more profound than in other
primates or mammals," says Morris Goodman, an evolutionary biologist
at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan.
But that's not the whole story, argues Ajit Varki, a physician-
scientist at the University of California, San Diego. "It's a terrific
paper, but they're only looking at one mechanism, the changing amino
acids in proteins. Other mechanisms in gene evolution--such as gene
expression, duplication, conversion, and inactivation--are likely to
be equally important." Further, Varki adds, these types of genomewide
analyses are limited, because they do not address the issue of gene
function. "It could be that the deletion of a specific gene or a
single amino acid change could have more biological significance than
a large number of genes that seem to have undergone many changes." And
that means we're still a long way from explaining what makes us human--
or them chimpanzee, he says.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/416/1?rss=1
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- From: Guy A Hoelzer
- Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- References:
- Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- From: Danniel Soares
- Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- From: Guy A Hoelzer
- Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma
- Next by Date: Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma
- Previous by thread: Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- Next by thread: Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
