Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man

[UTEOTW]

More molecular data that agrees with the fossil data concerning the evolution of man and the other apes.

"Phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes from DNA sequences in the psi eta-globin region," Miyamoto MM, Slightom JL, Goodman M, Science. 1987 Oct 16;238(4825):369-73.

Sequences from the upstream and downstream flanking DNA regions of the psi eta-globin locus in Pan troglodytes (common chimpanzee), Gorilla gorilla (gorilla), and Pongo pygmaeus (orangutan, the closest living relative to Homo, Pan, and Gorilla) provided further data for evaluating the phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes. These newly sequenced orthologs [an additional 4.9 kilobase pairs (kbp) for each species] were combined with published psi eta-gene sequences and then compared to the same orthologous stretch (a continuous 7.1-kbp region) available for humans. Phylogenetic analysis of these nucleotide sequences by the parsimony method indicated (i) that human and chimpanzee are more closely related to each other than either is to gorilla and (ii) that the slowdown in the rate of sequence evolution evident in higher primates is especially pronounced in humans. These results indicate that features (for example, knuckle-walking) unique to African apes (but not to humans) are primitive and that even local molecular clocks should be applied with caution.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3116671&dopt=Citation

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Another example of molecular data matching the fossil data for human evolution common with the other apes.

"Molecular phylogeny of the family of apes and humans," Goodman M, Koop BF, Czelusniak J, Fitch DH, Tagle DA, Slightom JL, Genome. 1989;31(1):316-35
[/b]

Genetic BALONEY!

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
More molecular data that agrees with the fossil data concerning the evolution of man and the other apes.

"Phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes from DNA sequences in the psi eta-globin region," Miyamoto MM, Slightom JL, Goodman M, Science. 1987 Oct 16;238(4825):369-73.

More genetic BALONEY!

 

[UTEOTW]

"More genetic BALONEY! "

That is a convincing comeback. It is on par with your other posts over the last few days. Nothing of substance, but I guess it makes you feel good to be handing me such a stinging rebuke.

Here is another case where the genetic data corresponds with the fossil record on human evolution.

"A comparison of TSPY genes from Y-chromosomal DNA of the great apes and humans: sequence, evolution, and phylogeny," Kim HS, Takenaka O, Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Jul;100(3):301-9.

The genes for testis-specific protein Y (TSPY) were sequenced from chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and baboon (Papio hamadryas). The sequences were compared with each other and with the published human sequence. Substitutions were detected at 144 of the 755 nucleotide positions compared. In overviewing five sequences, one deletion in human, four successive nucleotide insertions in orangutan, and seven deletions/insertions in baboon sequence were noted. The present sequences differed from that of human by 1.9% (chimpanzee), 4.0% (gorilla), 8.2% (orangutan), and 16.8% (baboon), respectively. The phylogenetic tree constructed by the neighbor-joining method suggests that human and chimpanzee are more closely related to each other than either of them is to gorilla, and this result is also supported by maximum likelihood and strict consensus maximum parsimony trees. The number of nucleotide substitutions per site between human and chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan for TSPY intron were 0.024, 0.048, and 0.094, respectively. The rates of nucleotide substitutions per site per year were higher in the TSPY intron than in the TSPY exon, and higher in the TSPY intron than in the ZFY (Zinc Finger Y) intron in human and apes.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Here is another case where the genetic data corresponds with the fossil record on human evolution.

"A comparison of TSPY genes from Y-chromosomal DNA of the great apes and humans: sequence, evolution, and phylogeny," Kim HS, Takenaka O, Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Jul;100(3):301-9."

Gibberish!

 

[UTEOTW]

"Gibberish! "

I don't know how much longer the data I am presenting can withstand such stinging attacks that go right at the facts in play.

But I'll keep trying.

Here is another example of genetic data that just happens to match the fossil record of human evolution.

"Molecular evolution of the psi eta-globin gene locus: gibbon phylogeny and the hominoid slowdown," WJ Bailey, DH Fitch, DA Tagle, J Czelusniak, JL Slightom and M Goodman, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 8, 155-184.

An 8.4-kb genomic region spanning both the psi eta-globin gene locus and flanking DNA was sequenced from the common gibbon (Hylobates lar). In addition, sequencing of the entire orthologous region from galago (Galago crassicaudatus) was completed. The gibbon and galago sequences, along with published orthologous sequences from 10 other species, were aligned. These noncoding nucleotide sequences represented four human alleles, four apes (chimpanzee, gorilla, organgutan, and gibbon), an Old World monkey (rhesus monkey), two New World monkeys (spider and owl monkeys), tarsier, two strepsirhines (galago and lemur), and goat. Divergence and maximum parsimony analyses of the psi eta genomic region first groups humans and chimpanzees and then, at progressively more ancient branch points, successively joins gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, tarsiers, and strepsirhines (the lemuriform-lorisiform branch of primates). This cladistic pattern supports the taxonomic grouping of all extant hominoids into family Hominidae, the division of Hominidae into subfamilies Hylobatinae (gibbons) and Homininae, the division of Homininae into tribes Pongini (orangutans) and Hominini, and the division of Hominini into subtribes Gorillina (gorillas) and Hominina (chimpanzees and humans).

http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/155

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Here is another example of genetic data that just happens to match the fossil record of human evolution.

"Molecular evolution of the psi eta-globin gene locus: gibbon phylogeny and the hominoid slowdown," WJ Bailey, DH Fitch, DA Tagle, J Czelusniak, JL Slightom and M Goodman, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 8, 155-184.

Redundant hyperbole!

 

[UTEOTW]

"Redundant hyperbole!"

Great comeback there.

Here is another case where the genetic tree is found to match the fossil tree for human evolution. It is getting redundant. But not in your favor.

"Methods for Computing the Standard Errors of Branching Points in an Evolutionary Tree and Their Application to Molecular Data from Humans and Apes," Masatoshi Nei, J. Claiborne Stephens, and Naruya Saitou

The DNA sequence data suggested that the chimpanzee is the closest and that the gorilla is the next closest to the human species. The orangutan and gibbon are more distantly related to man than is the gorilla. This topology of the tree is in agreement with that for the tree obtained from chromosomal studies and DNA-hybridization experiments.

http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1985/0201/5nei.pdf

 

[UTEOTW]

Here is another redundant statement.

"Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets," M Ruvolo, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 14, 248-265.

The implication of the multiple-locus test is that existing DNA sequence data sets provide overwhelming and sufficient support for a human-chimpanzee clade: no additional DNA data sets need to be generated for the purpose of estimating hominoid phylogeny. Because DNA hybridization evidence (Caccone and Powell 1989) also supports a Homo-Pan clade, the problem of hominoid phylogeny can be confidently considered solved.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Here is another case where the genetic tree is found to match the fossil tree for human evolution. It is getting redundant. But not in your favor.

"Methods for Computing the Standard Errors of Branching Points in an Evolutionary Tree and Their Application to Molecular Data from Humans and Apes," Masatoshi Nei, J. Claiborne Stephens, and Naruya Saitou"

Reiterative rhetoric!

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Here is another redundant statement.

"Because DNA hybridization evidence (Caccone and Powell 1989) also supports a Homo-Pan clade, the problem of hominoid phylogeny can be confidently considered solved."

Hominoid humbug!

 

[UTEOTW]

"Hominoid humbug!"

Still overwhelming us with data I see. You missed making a snappy comment for the last one, the one that said "the problem of hominoid phylogeny can be confidently considered solved."

In the mean time, here is some more genetic evidence for you to chew on. Amazing how that genetic evidence keeps matching the fossil evidence if the fossil evidence is not true!

"Molecular evidence on primate phylogeny from DNA sequences," Goodman M, Bailey WJ, Hayasaka K, Stanhope MJ, Slightom J, Czelusniak J, Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994 May;94(1):3-24.

In contrast to the confused morphological picture of sister group relationships within Hominoidea, orthologous noncoding DNA sequences (spanning alignments involving as many as 20,000 base positions) now provide by the parsimony criterion highly significant evidence for the sister group relationships defined by a cladistic classification that groups the lineages to all extant hominoids into family Hominidae, divides this ape family into subfamilies Hylobatinae (gibbons) and Homininae, divides Homininae into tribes Pongini (orangutans) and Hominini, and divides Hominini into subtribes Gorillina (gorillas) and Hominina (humans and chimpanzees). A likelihood analysis of the largest body of these noncoding orthologues and counts of putative synapomorphies using the full range of sequence data from mitochondrial and nuclear genomes also find that humans and chimpanzees share the longest common ancestry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8042704&dopt=Citation

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
.... and divides Hominini into subtribes Gorillina (gorillas) and Hominina (humans and chimpanzees).

Holy Hominini and Hominina!

Just watch out with those ad Hominini attacks cuz I ain't no Hominina!

 

[UTEOTW]

I'll continue to respond to the word games with facts. The word games are not convincing in the least. The facts are extremely convincing. At least to those who open their minds.

Another example of using genetic data to track the evolution of man.

"Cytochrome b Phylogeny and the Taxonomy of Great Apes and Mammals," Jose Castresana, Molecular Biology and Evolution 18:465-471 (2001)

Using maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees constructed from a large number of complete or nearly complete mammalian cytochrome b sequences, I show that the distributions of intrageneric and intergeneric distances derived from these trees are clearly separated, which allows the limits for a more rational generic classification of mammals to be established. The analysis of genetic distances among hominids in this context provides strong support for the inclusion of humans and chimpanzees in the same genus.

http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/4/465

 

[jcrawford]

UTEOTW posted November 23, 2004 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The facts are extremely convincing."

What facts?

"At least to those who open their minds."

And their wallets.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Using maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees constructed from a large number of complete or nearly complete mammalian cytochrome b sequences, I show that the distributions of intrageneric and intergeneric distances derived from these trees are clearly separated, which allows the limits for a more rational generic classification of mammals to be established. The analysis of genetic distances among hominids in this context provides strong support for the inclusion of humans and chimpanzees in the same genus."
==========================

Genetic junk!

 

[UTEOTW]

"What facts? "

Have you been reading? You see, I have been presenting something called evidence. You might not recognize it. But it consists of those little bits of data above and in other posts that support the things that I assert. For instance, in this thread I assert that the chance that man did actually evolve from an ancestor common to the other apes is very high because the genetis evidence from a wide variety of sources agree with the data that can be gleaned from the fossil record on the same subject. This data would be extremely hard to explain without common descent being a fact.

Your responses are great examples of not using any facts. You basic response seems to be to make some general, nonsensical, unsupported, unsupportable assertion. I guess when there are no facts to support your position, you must play the hand that you are dealt. I think the hand you are attempting is simply to get your name at the end of each post. It certainly is not to make a reasoned and factual rebuttal. Again, when you have no facts, your options are quite limited.

How is the sand down there?

"And their wallets."

Ummm. I'm not paying for any of this. Not sure of your point.

"Genetic junk!"

You think that response up on your own?

Let me show you how to find facts. Again. This time another paper on the agreement between the fossil record and the molecular record.

"Primate Phylogeny: Morphological vs Molecular Results," Shoshani J., Groves C.P., Simons E.L., Gunnell G.F., Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 1996, vol. 005, no. 1, pp. 102-154(53).

Close relationships among Homo, Pan, and Gorilla have been confirmed during recent decades; Pongo is the sister group to this trichotomy. With increasing molecular data, Homo and Pan appear to be closer to each other than to any other living hominid taxon. Gorilla is a sister group to the Homo-Pan clade and Pongo is a sister group to all of them. Morphologists have given limited evidence for such a dichotomous grouping. In this study, we support the Homo-Pan clade, although with characters not as strong as for other clades.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/fy/1996/00000005/00000001/art00009

 

[jcrawford]

UTEOTW posted November 24, 2004 04:49 PM
-------------------------------------------------

"You see, I have been presenting something called evidence."

Your "quotes" aren't evidence of evo. They are merely assertions based on a belief in evo.

"But it consists of those little bits of data above and in other posts that support the things that I assert."

These "little bits of data" just reinforce prior beliefs in evolution.

"For instance, in this thread I assert that the chance that man did actually evolve from an ancestor common to the other apes is very high because the genetis evidence from a wide variety of sources agree with the data that can be gleaned from the fossil record on the same subject."

There is no genetic evidence for evo over millions of years. Geneticists can only trace human ancestry back to a continent of origin.

"This data would be extremely hard to explain without common descent being a fact."

What data?

"Your responses are great examples of not using any facts."

It might be helpful if you were to explain just what you think a "fact" is before we start discussing them.

"You basic response seems to be to make some general, nonsensical, unsupported, unsupportable assertion."

Nonsense. I'm just responding to the facts.

"I guess when there are no facts to support your position, you must play the hand that you are dealt."

What "facts" support your position besides the "facts" which other evos claim are facts?

"I think the hand you are attempting is simply to get your name at the end of each post."

It's a 'fact' that our names are posted at the BEGINNING of each post.

"It certainly is not to make a reasoned and factual rebuttal."

Well, I may not have the same kinds of "facts" at my disposal which you do but that doesn't mean that my arsenal of "facts" is inferior to yours.

"Again, when you have no facts, your options are quite limited."

Is that why you attempt to belittle other posters?

"How is the sand down there?"

Down where? Are you in some ivory tower?

"Ummm. I'm not paying for any of this. Not sure of your point."

Well, many other evos make a lot of money pushing their Darwinist beliefs, don't they?

"Let me show you how to find facts. Again. This time another paper on the agreement between the fossil record and the molecular record."

Papers that "agree" with the fossil record and the molecular record (according to evos) are biased at the outset, so why bother?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close relationships among Homo, Pan, and Gorilla have been confirmed during recent decades; Pongo is the sister group to this trichotomy. With increasing molecular data, Homo and Pan appear to be closer to each other than to any other living hominid taxon. Gorilla is a sister group to the Homo-Pan clade and Pongo is a sister group to all of them. Morphologists have given limited evidence for such a dichotomous grouping. In this study, we support the Homo-Pan clade, although with characters not as strong as for other clades."

Babbling balderdash!

 

[The Galatian]

Some evidence:
http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf

Here's some human and chimp chromosomes matched up:

Notice that even where there is one human chromosome to two for the chimp, the two line up exactly like one human chromosome as a fusion. There are even remains of telemeres where the fusion occured.

It's more that than, too. Primates lack the ability to make vitamin C. Like some other animals, they have a damaged gene for vitamin C. But all the primates have it damaged in the same way, and no non-primate does.

The phylogenies of humans and other apes is based on evidence. You might not like it, but that's how it is.

Well, many other evos make a lot of money pushing their Darwinist beliefs, don't they?

I was making a lot more money before I retired and started teaching about evolution. If you expect to get rich on Darwinism, you'd better be an extraordinarily gifted writer.

 

[jcrawford]

"I was making a lot more money before I retired and started teaching about evolution. If you expect to get rich on Darwinism, you'd better be an extraordinarily gifted writer."

You can always make a decent living teaching evo in public schools.

 

[The Galatian]

There's a big difference between what you consider a decent living and what I consider a decent living, karl.

It took years of saving to get to the point where I could afford to do it.