Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..
this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
is laughable.
you don't have a theory you have speculation, why? you have no testable evidence (no evidence at all) that god exists.
so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..
Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1
1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: [email protected]
Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatustraceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage : Abstract : Nature
Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube
MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]
The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]
The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]
MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
right!One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
and you expect to be taken seriously !
bullshit!One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.
The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Contents [hide]
1 Time estimates
2 Pan Prior
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]
One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like.
V. Sarich, Background for man[1]
Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).
In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma...
White et al. (2009), [2]
Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.
This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]
once again talking out your ass!
can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..
this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
is laughable.
you don't have a theory you have speculation, why? you have no testable evidence (no evidence at all) that god exists.
so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..
Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1
1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: [email protected]
Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus—traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3—shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage : Abstract : Nature
Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube
MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]
The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]
The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]
MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
bias....link invalid.can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.
Apologetics Press - Weak Jaws Equal Bigger Brains?
bias....link invalid.can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.
You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.
Apologetics Press - Weak Jaws Equal Bigger Brains?
the gene is only mutated in human if you had watched either of the 2 clips I provided
you would have known that.
While studying human muscle disease, Stedman, a gastrointestinal surgeon, found a new version of a gene that encodes for a muscle-fueling protein called myosin. "Myosin is the most abundant protein in muscle," explains Stedman. "It's the motor protein that generates all the force. The body is able to make a wide range of different myosins, and each one has a different gene. The surprise came in finding that one of them winds up having a mutation that cripples its ability to make a functional myosin in all humans, as far as we can tell."
Missing DNA Link: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral
What makes us human?
How to turn an ape into a human
Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
How are they doing it? By comparing our DNA to the DNA of other species like apes, dogs or fish.
All species have their own sequence of DNA; that is what makes them separate species. The idea is that if we can figure out what the differences are, then we'll be able to figure out what sets us apart. The DNA sequence most useful in answering the question of what makes us human is the chimpanzee's.
About 6 to 8 million years ago, two groups of apes became separated. They stayed separated long enough to evolve into two different species, humans and chimpanzees. This evolution was a gradual process resulting from small changes in DNA over time. In other words, all of the changes that make us biologically different from the chimp are at the DNA level.
That's easy then, just figure out the differences and you're done, right? Well, no, it's actually much harder than that. First, about 1.5 % of our DNA is different from that of the chimpanzee. This might not sound like much but since our DNA is made up of 3 billion base pairs that means there are 45 million differences between our DNA sequence and that of the chimps.
The second problem is that not all of these changes are responsible for making us humans. There are lots of changes that have nothing to do with turning an ape into a human.
So as you can probably guess, finding out which of those 45 million differences were needed to make us stand upright or get bigger brains is actually pretty daunting. In two different types of studies, scientists have recently found DNA differences that may have made our distant ape ancestors more human.
The two studies start by figuring out DNA changes or mutations that have happened within the last 6 million years. The scientists argue that these mutations somehow helped our ancestors and also made them more human like. The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.
What makes us human? | Understanding Genetics
Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring. You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing. Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.
Ditto. I don't remember you responding to what the agreed upon scientific definition of fitness is. Or having provided me with one experiment where even any definition of fitness was proven to be responsible for the mutation surviving and being passed to a descendant.
However, I will respond that humans intuitively know and recognize design. Archeologists do it all the time. That is how they differentiate ancient man-made artifacts from wind and erosion. How do they know the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligence and not acts of nature? Why does an acheologists recognize an arrowhead as being man made and not just a weird shaped rock? How does one determine Mt. Rushmore is man made and not the result of erosion? Why do we think Stonehenge was arranged by humans?? How do we know humans are responsible for cave paintings? Why don't we think crop circles occur by some natural phenomenom? How will SETI differentiate a signal from another world from static? Why would we think the mysterious shapes in the peruvian desert are the work of an intelligent agent and not nature?
Living in Peru » Travel : We know who drew these giant shapes in Peru's desert -- but why?
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." -Dr. Who
I did respond to the fitness question, but I don't know if there is an agreed upon scientific definition. If the only thing evolution postulated was that some organisms are more fit than others, it would be more of an issue.
With ID, the only thing that I can see that makes it anything other than already established fields of science is that it postulates a designer is responsible for the creation of certain things. That being the case, if there's only one thing that differentiates ID from already established science, that one thing needs to be clearly defined and observable/testable.
And as I've said many times, determining if something was created by humans is different from determining if something was created by intelligence. Unless we have observed examples of another intelligence designing things, as we do with humanity, the comparison fails. We can look at things we already know to be human-designed and compare them to archeological finds to see if they match, thereby concluding something was made by man. What do we compare, say, DNA to? Something man-made? That would indicate man created DNA. Do we compare it to something god created? To something aliens created? There is no basis for comparison for non-terrestrial intelligence, which is what ID proposes, so I don't see how you can test for it. If there is no test, and there is nothing else that differentiates ID from other scientific fields, how is ID a separate branch of scientific inquiry?
The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.
[Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
Yet even more evidence of design...
"Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though its unlikely they evolvedlets make that highly unlikelywe know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."
Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?
Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination. Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry. If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer? Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.
It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with probability and chance. It is so ironic to me that Darwinists call Christians the brainwashed ones.
right!One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
and you expect to be taken seriously !
I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.
once again you're talking out your ass http://sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/science_papers/myosin_gene_mutation.pdfbias....link invalid.You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.
Apologetics Press - Weak Jaws Equal Bigger Brains?
the gene is only mutated in human if you had watched either of the 2 clips I provided
you would have known that.
While studying human muscle disease, Stedman, a gastrointestinal surgeon, found a new version of a gene that encodes for a muscle-fueling protein called myosin. "Myosin is the most abundant protein in muscle," explains Stedman. "It's the motor protein that generates all the force. The body is able to make a wide range of different myosins, and each one has a different gene. The surprise came in finding that one of them…winds up having a mutation that cripples its ability to make a functional myosin…in all humans, as far as we can tell."
Missing DNA Link: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral
What makes us human?
How to turn an ape into a human
Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
How are they doing it? By comparing our DNA to the DNA of other species like apes, dogs or fish.
All species have their own sequence of DNA; that is what makes them separate species. The idea is that if we can figure out what the differences are, then we'll be able to figure out what sets us apart. The DNA sequence most useful in answering the question of what makes us human is the chimpanzee's.
About 6 to 8 million years ago, two groups of apes became separated. They stayed separated long enough to evolve into two different species, humans and chimpanzees. This evolution was a gradual process resulting from small changes in DNA over time. In other words, all of the changes that make us biologically different from the chimp are at the DNA level.
That's easy then, just figure out the differences and you're done, right? Well, no, it's actually much harder than that. First, about 1.5 % of our DNA is different from that of the chimpanzee. This might not sound like much but since our DNA is made up of 3 billion base pairs that means there are 45 million differences between our DNA sequence and that of the chimps.
The second problem is that not all of these changes are responsible for making us humans. There are lots of changes that have nothing to do with turning an ape into a human.
So as you can probably guess, finding out which of those 45 million differences were needed to make us stand upright or get bigger brains is actually pretty daunting. In two different types of studies, scientists have recently found DNA differences that may have made our distant ape ancestors more human.
The two studies start by figuring out DNA changes or mutations that have happened within the last 6 million years. The scientists argue that these mutations somehow helped our ancestors and also made them more human like. The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.
What makes us human? | Understanding Genetics
Biased source.
They are saying this so called mutation happened millions of years ago how convenient, naturally they will say it happened about the time of the so called divergence happened to stay consistent with their theory. That is not science that is pure B.S. someone trying to make a name for himself.
They have no evidence to draw that conclusion zero, none. You want to remain brainwashed be my guest.
funny you should say that because you fairy tale assumes facts not in evidence from start to finish.The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.
Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????
FSJ - The Fellowship of St. James bias source invalid .[Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
Salvo Magazine A Sound Barrier by Denyse O'Leary
btw P.T. BARNUM NEVER SAID THAT, no one knows who did.bullshit!One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.
The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Contents [hide]
1 Time estimates
2 Pan Prior
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]
“ One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like. ”
—V. Sarich, Background for man[1]
Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).
“ In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma... ”
—White et al. (2009), [2]
Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.
This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]
once again talking out your ass!
There is sucker born every minute. They always make these claims only to be proven wrong at a later date.
It
right!
coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
and you expect to be taken seriously !
I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.
Every last one? That sounds too incredible to believe!
btw P.T. BARNUM NEVER SAID THAT, no one knows who did.bullshit!
Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.
The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Contents [hide]
1 Time estimates
2 Pan Prior
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]
“ One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like. ”
—V. Sarich, Background for man[1]
Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).
“ In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma... ”
—White et al. (2009), [2]
Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.
This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]
once again talking out your ass!
There is sucker born every minute. They always make these claims only to be proven wrong at a later date.
It
it is however more proof that you ,to quote afriend of mine"are speaking from non knowledge"
as is your bigoted link!
You have missed my point. Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue. The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.
Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.
I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.
Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination. Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry. If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer? Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.
It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with probability and chance. It is so ironic to me that Darwinists call Christians the brainwashed ones.
Probability and chance are multiplied greatly, when you're talking billions of years. Remember, it only has to happen once in a relatively small area to get the ball rolling.
