F Rosa Rubicondior: Common Origins
Showing posts with label Common Origins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Origins. Show all posts

Thursday 29 February 2024

Creationism in Crisis - Evolution By Loss Of Complexity - How A Mutation Cost Our Ancestors Their Tails


Change in Genetic Code May Explain How Human Ancestors Lost Tails | NYU Langone News

In that distant, pre-'Creation Week' history of Life On Earth, 25 million years before creationists think Earth was created out of nothing, and all living things on it were magicked into existence without ancestors, a 'jumping gene' inserted a short length of DNA termed AluY, into the gene which controls tail length in monkeys, and the resulting tailless monkeys went on to diversify into the apes - gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and the hominins which were to evolve into the Australopithecines and the Homo genus, including Homo sapiens, all of which still possess that short insertion in the TBXT gene, which otherwise is identical to one of the gene which grow the tail of the simians.

As an example of design, it is one of the least intelligent, since, instead of removing all the genes required to grow a tail, the 'designer' simply broke an essential gene and left all the others to do nothing apart from having to be replicated in every cell in every ape that ever lived, as an example of the massive waste and unnecessary complexity that characterises an evolved process and gives the lie to any notion of any intelligence being involved.

By inserting the AluY snippet into a mouse BBXT gene the researchers found a variety of tail effects, including mice born without tails. They also showed that there was a small increase in the incidence on neural tube defects (spina bifida) in mice.

Quite why tailless would have been selected for during the evolution of these ancestors of the modern apes is a matter for speculation; maybe a tail was becoming an encumbrance for a brachiating mode of locomotion as opposed to running along the top of branches and jumping from branch to branch, which the smaller monkeys used, where a tail was an important balance organ. For a heavier ape hanging beneath the branches by its arms, there would have been less need for a balance organ and a tail would have been liable to damage and infection.

How this was discovered by a team led by researchers at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, is the subject of an open access paper in Nature and a NYU Langone Health news release:

Tuesday 20 February 2024

Creationism in Crisis - How An Ancient Retrovirus Evolved To Create The Vertebrate Brain


Ancient retroviruses played a key role in the evolution of vertebrate brains | ScienceDaily
Schematic diagram of a neuron show the myelin sheath as the electrical insulator of the axon.

Extinct Late Devonian placoderm Bothriolepis canadensis. Myelin first appeared in these primitive early fish

Credit: Nobumichi Tamura / Stocktrek Images / Getty.
Creationists generally hate endogenous retrovirus (ERV's) because:
  1. They are one of the strongest pieces of evidence of common descent appearing in the same locations in the genome of all organisms in a clade, forming nested hierarchies exactly as the Theory of Evolution predicts. The probability of the same viral DNA appearing in the same locus in all species in a clade by chance is, of course, so small it can be dismissed as an explanation.
  2. They form a large part of the 'junk' DNA carried by all organisms, which, although a small proportion of it is transcribed into RNA, the RNA doesn't get translated into proteins and most of it doesn't serve any purpose. Some, but by no means all of it may have some regulatory functions.
  3. Occasionally, an ancient ERV may have become exapted for some useful purpose unrelated to the original virus, so showing how new genetic information can enter a genome, flatly contradicting creationist's claims that no new information can arise within a genome because the second law of thermodynamics [sic] and Shannon Information Theory somehow forbids it.
  4. An ERV serving a useful purpose also contradicts creationist claims that, while their favourite creator god is responsible for all the good stuff, another creator, called 'Sin', is responsible for the harmful stuff like parasites and viruses. Yet in those exapted ERVs we have viruses providing something that is beneficial and therefore, according to creationist dogma, must have been provided by their god!
  5. Lastly, the examples of where ancient ERVs have mutated and provided some additional ability or function, such as enabling the formation of the myeline sheath in vertebrates, can't be regarded as detrimental mutations, yet creationist dogma, courtesy of the hapless Micheal J. Behe, is that all mutations are 'devolutionary'[sic].

Sunday 21 January 2024

Creationism in Crisis - How Mammalian Brains All Work The Same Way - Just Like They Evolved From A Common Ancestor


Andrea Danti/Shutterstock.com
Study reveals a universal pattern of brain wave frequencies | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

It's a central dogma of creationism that humans are a special form of life created distinct from all other animals. This is one of the appeals of creationism to those who have such a high opinion of themselves that they like to believe they were created by and have a special relationship with the creator of the entire Universe, which it created specifically with them in mind.

However, when we look for evidence of this biological difference, we find instead evidence that we have the same biology as all other mammals and have much more in common than the relatively small differences that, like all other species, place us in a separate taxon. The similarities for a nested hierarchy which shows how closely (or distantly) related we are to the other mammals, particularly, in descending order, the other African great apes, the other anthropoid apes, the old-world monkeys and the other primates.

But creationists particularly like to point to our greater intelligence and aesthetic appreciation of art and music, and our ability to communicate. However, they too can be shown to be fat from unique to humans, who differ in those respects only by degree. Having special abilities with an organ of our body no more makes us a special creation than an elephant's special abilities with its trunk makes elephants a special creation, or a dolphin's special abilities with sonar makes dolphins a special creation.

Now, a team of neuroscientists from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA and Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA have shown that there are six distinct layers of the mammalian brain cortex and that each of these is associated with the same distinctive pattern of electrical activity. Their results were the subject of an open access paper in Nature Neuroscience a few days ago.

Thursday 21 December 2023

Creationism In Crisis - How We Have Evolved To Understand What Other Primates Are Saying


Can we decode the language of our primate cousins? - Medias - UNIGE

The UNIGE team wanted to find out whether the frontal and orbitofrontal regions of our brain activate in the same way when faced with human and simian vocalisations.
© Leonardo Ceravolo

One of the things that creationist frauds hate is the evidence of common descent in the form of redundant structures that now serve little or no function, but which were present in an ancient ancestor. Their problem with them is that they are evidence of common ancestry and make no sense as the work of an intelligent designer. What rational designer includes details and complications that have no function?

For example, humans and many herbivores such as rhinoceroses still have the enzymes for digesting the chitin exoskeleton of insects and other arthropods, even though they never eat them. However, the ancestral stem mammal was an insectivore, but there has been no selection pressure to remove the mechanism for digesting them as the herbivores evolved, so this retention is like a fossil, showing evidence of common ancestry.

Another example is the tendency for the hairs on our neck (and back, arms and shoulders if we have any hair there) to stand up when we are startled as an automatic part of the fight or flight response and a remnant of when making yourself look bigger was a benefit to a hairy ape suddenly surprised by a potential predator.

Now scientists at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, have discovered another largely redundant ability that only makes sense as something retained from an ancient primate ancestor which is present in modern primates where it still has a useful function, and in humans where its function is redundant for all practical purposes; humans subconsciously recognise the vocalisations of other primates.

This is just another in the list of redundant structures that are evidence of evolution and common ancestry:

Thursday 19 October 2023

Creationism in Crisis - Human And Chimpanzee Language Developments Have A Common Origin


Young chimps develop language in the same way that human babies do.
New study reveals similarities between chimpanzee and human language development | University of Portsmouth

The traditional creationist argument for the daft notion that humans were specially created without ancestors and are thus a different sort of creation to the other animals, is normally to point at unique characteristics of humans, oblivious of the fact that, by definition, any species will have unique characteristics that define it as a distinct species.

One of these supposedly unique abilities is the ability to communicate with complex languages. This again ignores the fact that orcas or killer whales form social groupings with unique cultures and vocalizations with which they communicate with members of their own pod.

Now research by scientists from the University of Portsmouth in England, the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland, and Université Clermont Auvergne in France have shown that there are clear similarities between the development of language in humans and the development of vocal communication in chimpanzees, strongly pointing to its origin in a common ancestor.

Friday 8 September 2023

Creationism in Crisis - How Human Shoulders and Elbows Show Our Common Ancestry With Chimpanzees


Our Shoulders and Elbows Began as Brakes for Climbing Apes | Dartmouth

Every week is a bad week for creationists but this one is shaping up to be especially bad, with a clutch of peer reviewed papers which either show creationist is a counter-factual superstition, or that any putative designer can only be regarded as a malevolent entity, forever plotting new ways to make its creation suffer with more effective parasite.

The first of these is a paper by Dartmouth researchers, published in The Royal Society Open Science, which shows that the human shoulder and elbow joints probably evolved in an arboreal ape ancestor on the evidence that chimpanzees have the same adaptations.

The adaptations evolved to act as brakes as the apes lowered themselves from trees, reducing their chance of falling or injuring these joints because of their relatively large bodies.

The research, and its significance for understanding human evolution, is explained in a Dartmouth news release:

Saturday 29 April 2023

Creationism in Crisis - Evolution by Loss of Genetic Information, or What Made us Human

Creationism in Crisis

Evolution by Loss of Genetic Information, or What Made us Human
Illustration by Michael S. Helfenbein

‘Deletions’ from the human genome may be what made us human | YaleNews

A trio of papers out recently should make creationists feel even more despondent, if only they could find the courage to read them, and if they could understand their contents. I'll write about them over the next couple of days, time willing.

The first, published yesterday in Science, concerns a new study led by researchers at Yale and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, which has shown that, in addition to gaining some new genes that allowed us to speak, for example, what also differentiates us from chimpanzees is about 10,000 lost pieces of DNA, some as small as a few base pairs.

This of course, flies in the face of creationist dogma which says loss of genetic information is always deleterious and so can't contribute to evolution. It's something that creationist guru Michael J. Behe ludicrously calls 'devolution', which is a nonsense term, since there is no mechanism by which deleterious mutations can accumulate in the species gene pool, unless, rarely, they are closely linked to a strongly beneficial mutation.

But then Behe is writing primarily for a readership that doesn't understand what evolution is or the processes that cause it and who have no intention of ever finding out. Instead, they tell themselves that 'evolutionists' believe a mutation can turn a one species into another as a single event. As we've come to expect, creationist dogma is counter-factual because it's based on deliberate misinformation.

These are the same people who have boon fooled into believing that mainstream biologists are turning against the Theory of Evolution and turning to their childish superstition with its magic and an unevidenced supernatural magician. Another creationists delusion refuted by this research paper.

That this is not a case of chimpanzees gaining something that their common ancestor with humans did not have is evidenced by the fact that the genetic information chimpanzees still have is also in the genome of many other mammals. The probability of multiple species all gaining the same small fragments of DNA are incalculably small.

So, what benefits did these deletions convey? That they did so is concluded from the fact that they are present in all humans so must have given a common ancestor and advantage early in. As the Yale News article by Bill Hathaway explains:

Wednesday 23 November 2022

Creationism in Crisis - Modern Humans Are Not The First To Appreciate Art

How we discovered that Neanderthals could make art
Neanderthal woman
Reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman

Morten Jacobsen (CC BY 2.5)
Creationist superstition says that human beings were made somehow differently to all the other animals, although they can never say how, exactly. Some believe only humans have an unproven and undefined magic entity living inside their body, called a 'soul', but other animals don't have this magic ingredient; others argue that animals also have this magic ingredient. They disagree endlessly on this point simply because they have no facts by which to determine the truth. If the 'soul' was detectable, the issue could be resolved easily and quickly. As it is, all they have is dogma.

But whatever their view of who has a magic soul and who doesn't, high on their list of abilities that humans have that other animals allegedly don't have will be aesthetic appreciation of art, music, love, etc. Some attribute this to the magic soul thing, others are happy to regard it as part of some unique aspect of human psychology, neuro-physiology, and/or genetics, so, of course, any evidence that another species has aesthetic appreciation is a major embarrassment for them.

However, with regard to artistic appreciation, there is now strong evidence that our cousin species, Neanderthals, could make artistic or symbolic designs, so, since we are related through a common ancestor - probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus, if indeed they were different species, it is highly likely that at least the potential for making symbolic drawings was present in that ancestor.

How do we know Neanderthals could make art?

In this article reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license, Dr Chris Standish, Postdoctoral Fellow of Archaeology, and Professor Alistair Pike, Professor of Archaeological Sciences, both of Southampton University, Hampshire, UK, present the evidence.

The article is reformatted for stylistic consistence. The original can be read here:

How we discovered that Neanderthals could make art

Neanderthal art.
Credit: P. Saura

Chris Standish, University of Southampton and Alistair Pike, University of Southampton

What makes us human? A lot of people would argue it is the ability of our species to engage in complex behaviour such as using language, creating art and being moral. But when and how did we first become “human” in this sense? While skeletal remains can reveal when our ancestors first became “anatomically modern”, it is much harder for scientists to decipher when the human lineage became “behaviourally modern”.

One of the key traits of behavioural modernity is the capacity to use, interpret and respond to symbols. We know that Homo sapiens have been doing this for at least 80,000 years. But its predecessor in parts of Eurasia, the Neanderthal, a human ancestor that became extinct around 40,000 years ago, has traditionally been regarded as uncultured and behaviourally inferior. Now our new study, published in Science, has challenged this view by showing that Neanderthals were able to create cave art.

The earliest examples of symbolic behaviour in African Homo sapiens populations include the use of mineral pigments and shell beads – presumably for body adornment and expressions of identity.

However, evidence for such behaviour by other human species is far more contentious. There are some tantalising clues that Neanderthals in Europe also used body ornamentation around 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. But scientists have so far argued that this must have been inspired by the modern humans who had just arrived there – we know that humans and Neanderthals interacted and even interbred.

Wall in Maltravieso Cave showing three hand stencils (centre right, centre top and top left).

Credit: H. Collado
Cave art is seen as a more sophisticated example of symbolic behaviour than body ornamentation, and has traditionally been thought of as a defining characteristic of Homo sapiens. In fact, most researchers believe that the cave art found in Europe and dating back over 40,000 years must have been painted by modern humans, even though Neanderthals were around at this time.

Dating cave art

Unfortunately, we have a poor understanding of the origins of cave art, primarily due to difficulties in accurately dating it. Archaeologists typically rely on radiocarbon dating when trying to date events from our past, but this requires the sample to contain organic material.

Calcium carbonate crust overlying pigment in La Pasiega.

Credit: J. Zilhão
Cave art, however, is often produced from mineral-based pigments which contain no organics, meaning radiocarbon dating isn’t possible. Even when when it is – such as when a charcoal-based pigment has been used – it suffers from issues of contamination which can lead to inaccurate dates. It is also a destructive technique, as the sample of pigment has to be taken from the art itself.

Uranium-thorium dating of carbonate minerals is often a better option. This well-established geochronological technique measures the natural decay of trace amounts of uranium to date the mineralisation of recent geological formations such as stalagmites and stalactites – collectively known as “speleothems”. Tiny speleothem formations are often found on top of cave paintings, making it possible to use this technique to constrain the age of cave art without impacting on the art itself.

A new era

We used uranium-thorium dating to investigate cave art from three previously discovered sites in Spain. In La Pasiega, northern Spain, we showed that a red linear motif is older than 64,800 years. In Ardales, southern Spain, various red painted stalagmite formations date to different episodes of painting, including one between 45,300 and 48,700 years ago, and another before 65,500 years ago. In Maltravieso in western central Spain, we showed a red hand stencil is older than 66,700 years.

Ladder shape in red painted in the La Pasiega cave.

Credit: C.D Standish, A.W.G. Pike and D.L. Hoffmann
These results demonstrate that cave art was being created in all three sites at least 20,000 years prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens in western Europe. They show for the first time that Neanderthals did produce cave art, and that is was not a one off event. It was created in caves across the full breadth of Spain, and at Ardales it occurred at multiple times over at least an 18,000-year period. Excitingly, the types of paintings produced (red lines, dots and hand stencils) are also found in caves elsewhere in Europe so it would not be surprising if some of these were made by Neanderthals, too.

Drawing of the ladder symbol painted on the walls.

Credit: Breuil et al. (1913)
We don’t know the exact meaning of the paintings, such as the ladder shape, but we do know they must have been important to Neanderthals. Some of them were painted in pitch black areas deep in the caves – requiring the preparation of a light source as well as the pigment. The locations appear deliberately selected, the ceilings of low overhangs or impressive stalagmite formations. These must have been meaningful symbols in meaningful places.

Our results are tremendously significant, both for our understanding of Neanderthals and for the emergence of behavioural complexity in the human lineage. Neanderthals undoubtedly had the capacity for symbolic behaviour, much like contemporaneous modern human populations residing in Africa.

To understand how behavioural modernity arose, we now need to shift our focus back to periods when Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interacted and to the period of their last common ancestor. The most likely candidate for this ancestor is Homo heidelbergensis, which lived over half a million years ago.

It is perhaps also now time that we move beyond a focus on what makes Homo sapiens and Neanderthals different. Modern humans may have “replaced” Neanderthals, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Neanderthals had similar cognitive and behavioural abilities – they were, in fact, equally “human”. The Conversation
Chris Standish, Postdoctoral Fellow of Archaeology, University of Southampton and Alistair Pike, Professor of Archaeological Sciences, University of Southampton

Published by The Conversation.
Open access. (CC BY 4.0)

Friday 3 June 2022

Evolution News - How Humans Evolved Social Behaviour and Cooperation

Neanderthals may have had less prosocial behaviour than modern humans. They had smaller social groups and may have had a polygynous social structure with more male-male competition.
What oxytocin can tell us about the evolution of human prosociality - Universitat de Barcelona

One of the more nonsensical creationist talking points you still hear occasionally, is that evolution can't account for altruism because survival of the fittest means the selfish survive at the expense of others less selfish. This is demonstrably untrue because the result of evolution show that cooperation at all levels of organisation, from intracellular organelles to social groups of multicellular organisms, is better than conflict, and human society especially demonstrates the truth of this where any tendency towards freeloading is moderated by social ethics and the affiliative needs of individuals.

Now this reasoning has been supported by research which shows that human evolution included improving the ability to empathize. Empathy, of course, is the basis for all human prosocial behaviour and is even acknowledged in the Judaeo-Christian holy books with the invocation to do unto others that which you would they do unto you - the 'golden rule', common to all human societies.

Modern human societies are characterised by comparatively high levels of prosocial behaviours such as intraspecies empathy, social tolerance, cooperation and altruism. Now, Constantina Theofanopoulou, as part of her doctoral thesis carried out under the co-supervision of Cedric Boeckx, ICREA researcher at the Institute of Complex Systems at the Universitat de Barcelona (UBICS) and Erich D. Jarvis, professor at Rockefeller University, has shown that this has an evolved genetic basis involving the genes that control oxytocin and vasotocin receptor in the brain. Oxytocin, also known as the 'love' hormone, is responsible for social bonding as well as sexual attraction and parent-child bonding.

By analysing the genomes of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans as well as non-human primates, the common chimpanzees, bonobos and macaques, Theofanopoulou and her colleagues have shown that there are five sites in the oxytocin and vasotocin receptors where modern humans are unique in one of their two (or more) variants compared to archaic humans and non-human primates, and which are at the same time found in more than 70% of the modern human population.

The scientists have published their finding's, open access, in the journal, Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology.

The Universitat de Barcelona news release gives more details:
Variants unique to modern humans in more than 70% of the population

Past studies that compared the entire modern human genome with the Neanderthal or the chimpanzee genomes have focused on changes that are fixed or nearly fixed in modern humans. This has led to them identifying sites where, for example, all Neanderthals had Adenine (one of the four nucleotides that with guanine, cytosine and thymine form the DNA) and nearly all modern humans (say, 98%) have Guanine. In this study, we searched for differences on locations where, by definition, not all modern humans share the same nucleotide, namely on polymorphic sites, where for example, 70% of the modern human population has Adenine and 30% Cytosine.

[the differences] might be relevant to the smaller social groups attributed to Neanderthals and Denisovans or to the decreased modern human androgenization. They might also be relevant to a different social structure, i.e., Neanderthals have been linked to a polygynous social structure and a higher level of male–male competition than most contemporary modern human populations.

The sites that are unique in both us and archaic humans versus non-human primates can elucidate the genetic underpinnings of the progressive social tolerance needed for the intensive cultural transmission of technological innovations (e.g., fire use) in the evolution of humankind, as well as for the reduced aggression indicated by several markers in early hominid evolution, such as the reduction of male canine size and the accelerated demographic success.

The convergent sites in modern humans and bonobos could be insightful for understanding the posited similarities in prosociality, social tolerance and cooperation between us and bonobos, and the differences of both compared to chimpanzees. For example, bonobos outperform chimpanzees on tasks relevant to social causality or theory of mind and are more attentive to the face and eyes, suggestive of higher empathic sensitivity.

Understanding developmental disorders through evolutionary lenses can aid into us achieving what we call an evo-devo (evolutionary and developmental biology) understanding of these disorders. If indeed “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”, then deciphering our evolutionary trajectory may shed light to new genetic spots for clinical research that might, in turn, lead to earlier disorder diagnosis.

Constantina Theofanopoulou, first author
PhD Candidate
Laboratory of Neurogenetics of Language
Rockefeller University, New York, USA
And Institute of Complex Systems
University of Barcelona
Catalonia, Spain
Considering the evidence on modern human prosociality and on the involvement of the oxytocin and vasotocin genes in social behaviours, the researchers hypothesized that the evolution of these genes might elucidate the genetic basis of the evolution of hominin prosociality. With this aim in mind, the study explored the differences between modern humans, archaic humans and non-human primates in polymorphic heterozygous sites in the human genome – locations where at least two alternative sequences are found in a population.

The study compared the available genomic sequences of these genes between modern humans, non-human primate species (e.g., chimpanzees, bonobos, and macaques) and, for the first time, archaic humans.

The researchers identified five sites in the oxytocin and vasotocin receptors where modern humans are unique in one of their two (or more) variants compared to archaic humans and non-human primates, and which are at the same time found in more than 70% of the modern human population. Next, they conducted functional and frequency analyses to establish whether the variants are relevant. They performed a range of analyses on the five sites and found that some of the variants are highly functional, indicating that they have an effect on the molecular function of the proteins activated by these genes.

The researchers also found that these sites are encountered in genome regions that are active in the brain, particularly in the cingulate gyrus, a brain region involved in social cognition-relevant pathways. Moreover, all these sites have been associated in other studies with a plethora of social behaviours or social deficits, such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), aggression, and so on.

These findings may help to explain some of the social differences between modern humans and what we presume to know about the social behaviours of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Variants present only in modern and archaic humans

The study also found two sites on the oxytocin receptor under a positive selection in modern and archaic humans: that is to say, modern and archaic humans showed a variant that was not present in any other non-human primate. This means that these sites are found in very high percentages in the modern human population (in this case, more than 85%). These same sites have also been associated with a great many social behaviours or deficits, and one of them was predicted to be a highly functional site in their regulation analyses.

Convergent sites with bonobos

Lastly, the researchers found three sites where modern humans and bonobos, a primate species that shows convergence of prosocial behaviours with humans, have the same nucleotide.

All the sites identified in this study have also been independently associated with disorders that include social deficits, such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD).
Because the same sites were not found in the common chimpanzees, with whom we share common ancestry with bonobos, the team reasoned that the three sites which humans and bonobos have in common is most likely a case of convergent evolution. This emphasises the selective advantage in this mutation in bonobos, in which prosocial, empathetic behaviour is highly developed.

More detail is given in the abstract and highlight section to their paper:
Copyright: © 2022 The authors.
Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access. (CC BY 4.0)
Highlights
  • We compared the oxytocin/vasotocin receptors in modern humans, archaic humans, and non-human primates.
  • We found 5 sites with modern human specific variation.
  • In these sites, the modern human allele is the major allele in the global population.
  • Several sites were predicted to be functional and with selection signatures in modern humans.
  • We also identified 3 sites of convergent evolution in modern humans and bonobos.

Abstract

Modern human lifestyle strongly depends on complex social traits like empathy, tolerance and cooperation. These diverse facets of social cognition have been associated with variation in the oxytocin receptor (OTR) and its sister genes, the vasotocin/vasopressin receptors (VTR1A/AVPR1A and AVPR1B/VTR1B). Here, we compared the available genomic sequences of these receptors between modern humans, archaic humans, and 12 non-human primate species, and identified sites that show heterozygous variation in modern humans and archaic humans distinct from variation in other primates, and for which we could find association studies with clinical implications. On these sites, we performed a range of analyses (variant clustering, pathogenicity prediction, regulation, linkage disequilibrium frequency), and reviewed the literature on selection data in different modern-human populations. We found five sites with modern human specific variation, where the modern human allele is the major allele in the global population (OTR: rs1042778, rs237885, rs6770632; VTR1A: rs10877969; VTR1B: rs33985287). Among them, variation in the OTR-rs6770632 site was predicted to be the most functional. Two alleles (OTR: rs59190448 and rs237888) present only in modern humans and archaic humans were putatively under positive selection in modern humans, with rs237888 predicted to be a highly functional site. Three sites showed convergent evolution between modern humans and bonobos (OTR: rs2228485 and rs237897; VTR1A: rs1042615), with OTR-rs2228485 ranking highly in terms of functionality and reported to be under balancing selection in modern humans (Schaschl, 2015) [1]. Our findings have implications for understanding hominid prosociality, as well as the similarities between modern human and bonobo social behavior.


It is entirely possible therefore that modern human groups were able to out-compete the archaic hominins because we were able to sustain larger cooperative groups, with reduced internal conflict stemming from male-male rivalry, than the archaic hominins could manage. This improved social cohesion gave us an evolutionary advantage, hence it came to predominate in the human gene pool, in a classic example of evolution by natural selection.

No doubt, despite evidence such as this to the contrary, we will still get creationists denying the common ancestry of humans and other apes and asserting that natural selection can't account for altruism and love because it would favour selfishness. Creationism requires its dupes to stay stoically ignorant of 'toxic' science. No doubt too that creationists will still make the increasingly forlorn claim that the TOE is a theory in crisis, despite the evidence such as that in this paper that it is fundamental to our understanding of biology and the only scientific theory that makes sense of the evidence without resorting to magical mysteries and childish fairy tales.

Thank you for sharing!









submit to reddit

Web Analytics