In a study published in the Oct. 20 issue of the journal Nature, Cornell scientists analyzed 11,624 genes, comparing how genes vary not only among 39 humans but also between the humans and a chimpanzee, whose DNA is 99 percent identical to humans.
The comparisons within and between species suggest that about 9 percent of genes that show some variability within humans or differences between humans and chimpanzees have evolved too rapidly to be explained simply by chance. The study suggests that positive Darwinian natural selection — in which some forms of a gene are favored because they increase the probability of survival or reproduction — is responsible for the increased rate of evolution. Since genes are blueprints for proteins, positive selection causes changes in the amino acid sequence of the protein for which the gene codes.
“Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome,” said the paper’s lead author, Carlos Bustamante, assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology at Cornell.
My favorite perception of irony focuses on folks who say, “you can’t rely on mathematics or biological sciences” — and go merrily about their lives relying on modern industrial products and medicine entirely founded on what they don’t believe.
“We have a long way to go before we can predict from looking at sequences, which mutations in which genes and under which environmental conditions can ultimately lead to disease. This is a first step in identifying the classes of genes that appear to be particularly vulnerable to these types of changes,” said Bustamante.
A team from Celera initiated the project and sequenced more than 20,000 genes in 39 humans and a chimpanzee. By comparing the DNA sequences of the 39 human subjects across the 20,000 genes, the Celera researchers identified DNA sites in the genome where individuals in the sample differed from one another. The chimpanzee sequence was then used to identify which form of the gene was the original ancestral form and which was the derived or new type. The original goal of the project was to identify novel amino acid variants that could then be tested for association with human disease in subsequent studies. The Cornell researchers became involved at the analysis stage in order to make predictions about what types of changes are most likely to be functionally important.
A fine example of research work in one area made available for other researchers to investigate.
I don’t think anybody denies natural selection. This research doesn’t seem particularly revolutionary.
I want to know why they only used the genes from one chimp. If all chimpanzees were genetically identical I could see their reasoning, but chimps aren’t all identical.
This study seems flawed. I understand using chimpanzee genes as a base-line, but I would think you would need to get an average of chimpanzee genetic make-up to really show whether we have “evolved” as rapidly as they suggest.
It seems to me that they’re using the chimp DNA as a distant-but-not-too-distant point of comparison, to triangulate. So individual variation in chimps isn’t so important; it’s just to give a broad overall context. And it seems like they’re not really trying to establish solid facts, they’re just trying to cut through the data overload in the genome & find locations that are more likely to bear fruit in later studies. But that’s just my guesses from not even RTFA so please ignore me.
“positive selection”, hmmm. sounds like another way of saying “intelligent design”, doesn`t it? 😉
I like this. If you come up with something that can’t really be explained by Darwin theory then you just say it’s because of another gean. That’s funny.
How would this gean function, by smell, taste? Does it do a DNA anaylsis? Is this a possible ‘intelligent design’? Science is great, it’s based upon an ordered universe, but we don’t know everything yet so it’s interesting to find so many “open minded” science individuals closed off to any other explanations.
If I had ONE WISH..I’d wish that the two words “intelligent design” would stop being used.
I’m sick of it already.
Give it a rest, bible thumpees…. come up with something more creative.
>I like this. If you come up with
>something that can’t really be explained by
>Darwin theory then you just say it’s because of another gean.
No, they postulating that it may be another *gene*. For now, scientists would say “we don’t know for sure.” Whereas “intelligent” deisgn bozos are claiming (without proof), “we know for sure and the answer is that it was crafted by someone.”
To claim design, you must be able to test for design. Until that happens, ID will be treated that same as those that believe in a flat earth.
It’s a good thing I used italics to point out a grammatical error ;-> That should be are postulating.
Contrare; Natural Selection has nothing to do with the “cause” of evolution. If you read the above citation, you will see that *everything* has been naturally selected; whatever has happened to the genome of either the chimp or man is contained within the incredible properties of DNA, and is currently unknown to science and scientists.
Professor Bustamante wants to get this “information” published, so he strokes other biologists with the term NS.
It is complete nonsense.
Huh?
The theory of natural selection without question explains most evolutionary development. While there are examples of mutations that are not easily explained by natural selection alone, on the whole natural selection explains a vast majority of mutuations quite nicely.
Either you didn’t read or didn’t understand the argument contained in the citation. (Click on the name “Doubting Thomas” to get to it). It is irrefutable proof that Darwin’s term “natural selection” is complete nonsense. You were no doubt taught, and no doubt believe, that NS is the *cause* of evolution. This belief is no different that a Creationist’s belief in the Bible: there is not a shred of scientific evidence for either.