Scientists who took DNA samples from the San Diego Zoo gorilla Camilla discovered new insights into the human evolutionary tree
Since the decoding of the human genome in 2001, there has been a race to decode the genome of other animals, first and foremost of our immediate relatives. The genome of the chimpanzees was decoded in 2005 and last year the decoding of the genome of the orangutan was completed.
Now part of the race is complete, a group of researchers has completed mapping the gorilla (lowland gorilla) genome. The mapping was done with the help of DNA taken from Camilla - a lowland gorilla living in the San Diego Zoo, as well as from other gorillas in zoos, which made it possible to find similarities and differences between the subspecies.
In this way, the genome of the Great Apes was finally decoded, a decoding that verified the assumption that the chimpanzees are closest to us, but showed that part of the human genome is closer to gorillas than to chimpanzees, a finding that conflicts with the accepted evolutionary "painting".
This is the first time researchers have compared the genomes of all four great (living) great apes: chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan and man.
The research led by researchers from the English research institute Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is published B: "Nature" monthly
The research provides a unique scale for the origin of man and is an important source for the study of human evolution, as well as an important source of information for the biology of gorillas and ways to preserve and protect the species.
The gorilla's genome sheds light on the time when we separated from our evolutionary "cousins" and makes it possible to study the genetic differences between humans and great apes.
The research team examined more than 11 thousand genes (in chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans) in an attempt to identify the important evolutionary changes. Humans and chimpanzees are the closest (genetically), but the researchers found that there are about 15% of the genes in which the human genome is more similar to gorillas than to chimpanzees, and at the same time 15% of the chimpanzee genome is more similar to gorillas than to humans.
A very important finding is that the difference between the species indicates not only the development over millions of years since the split, but also changes that have developed simultaneously since the common ancestor. It was found that gorillas and humans (and chimpanzees) have many parallel genetic changes, such as the development of the auditory system and the development of the brain (in the past it was suggested that the rapid development of the human auditory system is related to the development of speech, the new findings call this assumption into question).
It is common to calculate the split between man and chimpanzees about 6 million years ago, the mapping of the gorilla's genome shows that the split between gorillas and the ancestor of chimpanzees and man was about 10 million years ago.
About a million years ago there was a split between the lowland gorillas and the mountain gorillas, at about the same time there was a split between the chimpanzees and the bonobos. A little later the Neanderthal man appeared.
One of the interesting findings is that genes that in gorillas are not harmful at all, are linked in humans to diseases such as dementia and heart disease. It is possible that understanding the difference in gene activity will allow disease treatment and prevention.
The research links the development of the human species to its relatives and sheds light on periods when the chances of survival of the human population were slim, which reinforces the need to preserve those close to us.
Today, few populations of gorillas survive in the forests of equatorial Africa. The populations are isolated and in constant danger of extermination. The information will enable better and more correct management of the protection of the gorillas as well as an understanding that will enable the development of drugs for human diseases, possibilities that clarify the utmost importance of the research, the importance of deciphering the genome of the gorilla.
55 תגובות
The very use of the term junk dna shows how irrelevant xianghua's arguments are at all.
It has been known for years that there really is no such thing and that there is significance to a large part of the genome sequence, either because of binding or even because of non-coding rna (such as micro rna).
thanks for what? (-:..
The site looks very interesting
Thanks!
to a 'skeptic' (?)
For example, I have no background in biology, nor have I ever put a person in prison based on a DNA test.. But if the genome field interests you:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
('The three layers of ERV evidence for common ancestry')
In general, according to the little that I was able to understand, there are a lot of horizontal events, of which it is possible to distinguish through crossing information (very interesting by the way) in orthologous sequences..
xianghua
The part with the herv-k that is not found in man does not undermine evolution, as I also thought.
Here's why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ezqKnpTh8
xianghua,
You did not understand. It's just the opposite. According to the mathematical models, a neutral mutation takes, say, 80 million years (where does the aforementioned number come from?) to be assimilated into the general population, with the emphasis on "neutral".
If you find a change that occurs much faster, the conclusion is that it is not neutral. elementary.
But what do you do? You declare the aforementioned transposon as neutral (based on what??) and then you say "Well, it was assimilated much faster than expected!"
Conclusion: Evolution is wrong!
parable
Forgive me, but this is jumping to conclusions Damicolo. You don't hear the joke about the fly without legs, you know? So it's exactly the same.
jubilee,
Indeed, many people see epigenetics as a revival of the idea of Hallmarkism. If you are interested, I recommend the book or articles by Hava Yablonka on the subject. I assume that M. meant, am I right?
Beyond that, I totally agree with what you say, but what most people mean is a lite version of Lamarxism that refers to the possibility that environmental changes enter the genetic code and are passed on. For example, a cell that, as a result of an environmental change, stops expressing a certain gene by closing it in the chromatin structure (by histone modifications, for example) and this change is passed on to future generations. This is a certain Marxism that contradicts Lederberg's principle that all permitted mutations and changes are completely random.
RH, do you shoot the arrow and then mark the target?
If according to the mathematical models we needed a minimum of 80 million years. So the claim of the scientists is wrong and should be replaced. Or alternatively, to claim that there is no common ancestor. But it is not serious to wave and claim that the insertions were not neutral, if there is no research that confirms this claim.
jubilee:
A Lamarck component in evolution (in the conventional sense of the word - not necessarily as Lamarck thought and not as some people use the term to promote the sale of their books) requires an agent who knew how to predict the effect of chemical changes in the cell on the functioning of the organism.
Not only has no example been found for this, but it contradicts the logic of causality that underlies all sciences.
There are simpler things for which the description "Lamarkey" does not fit, although people sometimes use it.
This does not only include epigenetic changes that are inherited (a phenomenon that some of the known examples of its existence do not demonstrate an improvement in survival, but the opposite) but also something more sophisticated related to changing the rate of mutations in stressful situations (something that does give higher chances of survival).
None of this really deserves the title of marquee.
R. H.,
I'm not sure what I'm asking either 😛
Since there are certain parallels between several information systems, I try to throw from one to another and look for things we hadn't thought of.
The things you said about epigenetics (changes in DNA that are controlled by the cell and transmitted by inheritance) make me wonder (it's very likely that I just didn't understand) whether there is also a Le Marche component in evolution.
jubilee,
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The genetic code has many different layers. The most basic is the sequence of DNA bases. Above that is the epigenetics. These are modifications to the exons (the proteins that wrap the DNA) and to the DNA itself. These modifications, in contrast to mutations, are a dynamic thing that is controlled by the cell, and on the other hand, they are inherited. Above this is the layer of proteins that controls gene expression and epigenetic modifications, above them are the proteins that control the proteins and so on.
xianghua,
It's awfully simple. If a retrovirus or mutation or any genetic element appears more frequently than would be expected from a neutral mutation, then it is not a neutral mutation. That means he has a selective advantage. What is the argument here? From this you conclude that there is no evolution? I rather conclude that there is no quantum mechanics.
"The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that —— few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates——. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
Still skeptical:
It's just you
RH, it's not me, it's actually the evolutionary scientists who called it "junk". That's why they should check themselves. I know of some studies that show that retroviruses play a role in gene control and expression, but some evolutionary scientists still use them as evidence for evolution. Specifically regarding the pterv1, according to the following article they are not active:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/06/21-02.html
More than 100 copies of inactive PtERV1 are sprinkled throughout the chimpanzee and gorilla genomes, whereas humans have none
So if that's true, my argument is valid. And in addition, the phylogenetic mismatch of 15% of the tested bases must be taken into account.
"I can now bring a video "evidence for evolution" that was created only a few years ago and already half of the claims in it will be wrong or at least inaccurate."
There are also people who deny the age of the world, and there are even people who deny that the world is round.
Evolution is simply in the front..
If cosmology were at the front of the fire, you would find people disputing the need to award a Nobel Prize to the discoverers of the 'Cosmic Background Radiation'.
R.H., thank you
My use of "idioms" is not successful. Idioms are a product of spoken language and the possibility of putting them in writing is only accidental. Although we do not have evidence from which we can conclude that the genetic code is influenced by the organism, we can see that different combinations of the same bases code for different proteins. A similar phenomenon emerges from the holocaust for programming languages: a machine language has a very small number of commands - a few dozen. But different combinations of these commands create a huge variety of computing possibilities. What I am looking for is the possibility to show that the genetic code is not written only in "machine language" but in "elite language".
Is it just me or does every new piece of information that comes to light require us to abandon previous hypotheses and adopt new ones?
Obviously, every scientific theory improves and changes, that's the whole beauty of science.
But in evolution it has already passed the limit of good taste.
I can now bring a video "evidence for evolution" that was created only a few years ago and already half of the claims in it will be wrong or at least inaccurate.
"If that's not enough, there is also a retrovirus called herv-k found *at the same location* in the chimpanzee and gorilla genomes, but not at all in humans."
Where does it say that it cannot be found - in the same location -? The whole question is what is the percentage of infections - in the same location - out of the total number of infections.. and what environment are these creatures in..
xianghua
Read what effect what you call junk has on evolution:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091501?journalCode=genet
It's probably not really junk, is it?
R.H., I rely on this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
And also about the usual claim by evolution scientists about retroviruses in general (below, they are junk).
xianghua,
From where do you conclude that - "and according to the evolutionists it is neutral (retrovirus)"? After all, if it spread at a faster rate than expected for a neutral mutation, then the conclusion according to evolution is that it is a selective factor. What evolutionist would argue otherwise?
jubilee,
As I wrote to the layman before, there is more similarity between the genetic language and the programming languages than the spoken language. It is a bit difficult to see genetic "fangs", but it happens that identical proteins do different things depending on signals or environmental conditions. For example, a genetic controller (transcription factor) can activate certain genes in this cell and other genes in another cell in light of the conditions in which the cells are found.
In the spoken languages there are, in addition to words, also idioms that create a different meaning than the words they are composed of. Is there something equivalent to idioms in the genetic code as well?
To Yair and Eric, the calculation is quite simple. Each retrovirus insertion is actually a new allele appearing in the genome. Since according to evolution researchers it is neutral, it is necessary to calculate its fixation time in the population. And that's what I did, and the results are known. And they do not match the proposed model. In practice, it is nothing more. According to the aforementioned study, about 1000 genes, which are about a million bases, are more similar in the gorilla than in the chimpanzee. This is very far from the evolutionary prediction and quite a serious deviation. Which suggests a lack of common ancestry. If this is not enough, there is also a retrovirus called herv-k found *at the same location* in the chimpanzee and gorilla genomes but not at all in humans.
R.H
"All this is evolution" I mean to marvel at the magnitude of sophistication revealed to the poor researcher upon "opening the book" from a world devoid of intelligence at the level of stones and foundations (see Mr. M. Rothschild's response to one of the commenters to his article entitled "What is heard"), to such beauty and intelligence.
serious
As long as I remain anonymous, I am not harmed by what people think of me in my honesty as a layman, who is not trustworthy in the science of genetics and my whole purpose is to satisfy my curiosity like any other person and the truth is I did not know that this should harm me in the future perhaps I should not use this nickname.
^ Sorry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26836/
serious
Reporter:
"However, contradictions and disagreements are often revealed between the researchers and between the various assumptions, as we saw in this article."
There is no contradiction discovered in the article, it is simply a quote without context.. If you read the article again you would understand.. I am linking to it again to make it easy for you..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26836/figure/A1405/?report=objectonly
Ernest,
Thanks for the info but what do you want from me? He chose a layman's nickname and there was no intention to hurt him by using the nickname, so what are you attacking?
layman,
This is not evolution but genetics and molecular biology. From the information that emerges from such studies, evolution emerges as a necessary conclusion.
R.H
Complicated for God, and is this all evolution? How do you get out of such a trap?
R.H
The two words idiot and layman are a corruption of one word from the Greek language,
When "the layman" appears alone as a pronoun, it gives a negative image, like being ignorant.
layman,
It's not accurate. Perhaps a better analogy is from the field of computers. You find memory cards. When you put them in the computer, they run different programs.
In the first step you try to decipher what is written on the memory card. After hard work you discover that the information appears as bits of 1's and 0's. You manage a method to read the sequence of bits. This is what it looks like to decode the card, but this is only the first step.
Now you are trying to understand how from 1 and 0 you get pictures, movies, games, office files and internet connections.
Now imagine that Word doesn't work on one of your memory cards. You need to find:
A. Where is the word software coded
B. What is her problem with the specific card? It is not enough just to compare it to word on the other memory cards because there are some differences in each one and it is difficult to know who is responsible.
third. You need to find a way to fix the problem.
The problem may be more complicated. Maybe word doesn't come up (as happens in many cases) not because it is not correct but because there is a memory conflict with another software so that the problem is somewhere else not at all expected. Or maybe the operating system is the one that is damaged and cannot load word.
Problems similar to these and others face genetics.
Ernest,
You are confusing between an idiot that describes a backward rank and is also a derogatory word and a layman that refers to a lack of knowledge in a certain field and is not used as a curse. So before you go, open a dictionary, drink some water and relax. What's more, layman is the nickname chosen by the person who asked the questions, which by the way are excellent questions.
what is
They still haven't been able to decipher what the defect is in the gene or group of genes
that brings a person to excessive pride that causes him to call another, a layman.
^ Sorry, my mistake
I'm pretty sure that Xingua's quote is not from the article he linked to..
I found it here, you can read it..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26836/
(And I have the slight suspicion that he takes advantage of the complexity of the conditions through which fixation is established, but I will leave that for the benefit of those in the field)
Exactly, you understood correctly, we were able to open the book and flip through it from beginning to end and identify which letters are written on each page (and the order of the letters) now it remains to understand what the letters mean.... What words and sentences do they create and what is their meaning, i.e. what instructions are they decoded into when the body is built, what proteins are created in the body from every combination of letters, etc.
Thanks to the tortured
R.H
That is, a book has been identified and ethics and words have been identified, deciphering the genome means that they know what all the different combinations that make up the words and sentences that make up the person are? And what is not deciphered is their translation into proteins and properties? Thanks!
layman,
The genome consists of chains of billions of molecules called DNA bases that can appear in four forms A, G, C or T. Their order determines which protein will be produced, when, how much and where. Proteins that are formed affect in many cases the rate of formation of themselves and others and therefore the system is complex like no other.
When they say "decipher the genome" it means that we know the sequence of bases in DNA. This is where the hard work of understanding what these bases are coded for begins.
This is similar to a closed and sealed book written in a secret code. The first step is to open it and read it. In the second step, you have to decipher it and understand what it says.
That is, the exact position of each and every letter.
The meaning is that they were able to identify all the letters that make up the genome from start to finish, but there still remains the tedious work of identifying which proteins each segment in the genome translates to, that is, what each segment means in the construction of the body.
Decode the genome - reveal all the genes of that creature, not beyond that
Maybe someone can explain what Zeot means the Genome piano? After all, there are millions of words and letters, have they all been deciphered? And if so, why haven't they used them to solve the ills of the human race? Thanks to whoever will be willing to shed light on the matter. Or will he direct me to an article that may have been written in "Yaden" on the subject.
Yair
There is certainly no point in disputing the findings, especially in recent years in this field, which have pushed millions of years into the distant past. Science works to prove with their help the evolutionary continuity from the ancient father to the modern man by comparing genetics, brain development and more, but contradictions and disagreements between researchers and between the various assumptions are often revealed, as we have seen in this article.
Many have the impression that the theory that explains the causes or the process of change. The development or jumps from that creature of millions of years to the modern man., is lacking.
Ruby,
The way is not a "wet" experiment but a computational bioinformatics one.
The genomes are compared and phylogenetic trees are built from them based on the similarity (as in a paternity test):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
For example - if we have three details whose similarity is:
1-2 70%
1-3 30%
2-3 10%
It can be assumed that 1 and 2 separated from 3 and only then separated from each other.
Regarding the calculation of time, there are experimentally based estimates of the time it takes for mutations to accumulate and according to this the separation time is calculated.
Is it possible to get an explanation of how to determine when the split from the ancestor was? What is the method? Not carbon 14 of course.
Xingue
What R.H. tells you In sifting the Lilog is something like this: you try to create the impression that you rely on scientific research by referring to articles.
But contrary to your attempt to create the impression, you present not the conclusions of the studies done by hundreds of thousands of researchers who agree on the main points of scientific theories, but independent opinions that completely disagree on the scientific conventions, and you fail to convince that you relied on articles. What is needed now is for you to justify your opinion, which is completely different from any opinion heard in science, without further reference.
The book you provided in the previous response completely agrees with the accepted opinions in research.
Answer to Elias Jabbour
As you know, great apes have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46, you can believe that two pairs of chromosomes spontaneously joined them in exactly the right places and became 46 chromosomes...this is one possibility, the second possibility you mentioned.
Wow xianghua, have you already received an invitation from Nature to work for them? Congratulations that you were able to see what all their reviewers did not see, amazing!
Check, check, maybe there is also a letter from Stockholm in your mailbox.
xianghua leave, of course you are right but it won't help.
Let them believe what they want to believe.
A problem for those in the know. In chimpanzees and gorillas there are about 100 copies of retrovirus type pterv1, and in humans there is not a single one.
But how long will it take? According to the genetic models, about 800000 years are required for the fixation of one mutation (in our case - the introduction of a new erv into the genome):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26836/
A detailed analysis of data on human genetic variation suggests an ancestral population size of approximately 10,000 during the period when the current pattern of genetic variation was largely established. Under these conditions, the probability that a new, selectively neutral mutation would become fixed was small (5 × 10–5), while the average time to fixation was on the order of 800,000 years
And it turns out that we will have to move the common parent not to 10 million years but to 80 million years. Or alternatively, to claim that there is no common ancestor for the primate species at all.
To this must be added thousands of mutations in common bases (parallel evolution). Which lowers the chances even more.
By an irrational being of course…
yaniv,
Manipulation by natural selection or by an intelligent being?
Science continues to spin its tail.
The differences between chimpanzees and humans are so great that it is impossible for one factor or "link" to connect us, if we are talking about ten missing links, the truth is that science does not have any serious explanation regarding the origin of humans, the only possible thing is manipulation of the genetic structure that was carried out in the apes when it was in the past Not so far away (hundreds of a thousand years)
exciting! Cheers!