Re: Did humans and chimps once interbreed?

Josh Miles wrote:
NashtOn wrote:

Josh Miles wrote:

NashtOn wrote:

Marc wrote:

c'bert wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/gea6o
17 May 2006
>From New Scientist Print Edition



The Nature web site has the article in it's Advance Online
Publication section, this is the abstract:

****************************************
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

Nick Patterson, Daniel J. Richter, Sante Gnerre, Eric S. Lander
and David Reich

The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially
across the genome, conveying important information about the timing
and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying
this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned
sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly
related primates. Human-chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from
less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more
than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human-chimpanzee
speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more
recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils.
Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic
divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its
entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if
the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later
exchanged genes before separating permanently.

***********************************

It seems that somebody just couldn't leave their chimp alone.

NashtOn, what are your thoughts about this?
It's in your genes you know.


(signed) marc

.

My thoughts? I'll reserve judgment until I see some experimental data. When are they going to begin the experiment and which labs will attempt to duplicate the results?


Pervert.


Still no answer to my original question.


What makes you think that an experiment is necessary in this case?

What makes you think it isn't?



--
Nicolas

"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin

.

Relevant Pages