Relatedness to chimpanzees

Tim Tyler said:

Regarding a old, recurring SBE debate...

Here's Dawkins on the relationship between man and chimpanzees:

``The 98% doesn't mean we are 98% chimpanzees. And it really matters what unit you choose to make
your comparison. If you count the number of whole genes that are identical the figure for humans
and chimpanzees would be close to zero.''

- A Devil's Chaplain, p.84.

I have some questions, would someone please answer...

1)What then does the 98% signify? Part genes? Do part genes code for any feature?
2)What percentage of identical genes will we find between 2 randomly selected humans? I assume that
50% number for parent-child arises out of meiosis. What about the number for between the two
parents? If black color for eye is so common compared to blue color, does it imply that even
between the unrelated parents, the eye-color gene is very likely to be identical. Or is it that
many non-identical genes code for black eye color?

Srinivas S

in article [email hidden], Srinivas S at [email hidden]
wrote on 2/23/04 10:08 AM:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler said:

Regarding a old, recurring SBE debate...

Here's Dawkins on the relationship between man and chimpanzees:

``The 98% doesn't mean we are 98% chimpanzees. And it really matters what unit you choose to make
your comparison. If you count the number of whole genes that are identical the figure for humans
and chimpanzees would be close to zero.''

- A Devil's Chaplain, p.84.

I have some questions, would someone please answer...

1)What then does the 98% signify? Part genes?

Not exactly. DNA is a polymer of 4 kinds of nucleotides, GAT and C. Humans and chimps have the same
nucleotide in 98& of the homologous positions of their DNA sequences. Only about 1% of the DNA in
humans and chimps encodes genes.

Quoted message said:

Do part genes code for any feature?

Generally speaking, genes don't code for organismal features, so your question seems to involve a
false premise. However, it seems that much of DNA sequence in the non-coding fraction of the genome
has nothing to do with organismal features.

Quoted message said:

2)What percentage of identical genes will we find between 2 randomly selected humans?

The data suggest that whatever this number might be, it will be much higher among humans than among
chimps, or of course in the comparison of a human with a chimp.

Quoted message said:

I assume that 50% number for parent-child arises out of meiosis.

Right. That number would be accurate if you start with every copy of a particular gene being unique
in a population. This is never the case.

Quoted message said:

What about the number for between the two parents? If black color for eye is so common compared to
blue color, does it imply that even between the unrelated parents, the eye-color gene is very
likely to be identical. Or is it that many non-identical genes code for black eye color?

I am not sure that I would have anything more to add than I offered above. However, I would suggest
that there is no such thing as a pair of unrelated individuals.

Guy

"Srinivas S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

1)What then does the 98% [ chimp/human homology] signify? Part genes? Do part genes code for any
feature?

I believe it means that 98% of bases in the human genome can be matched to identical bases in the
chimp genome. An expressed gene codes for a protein. If there is single point mutation then one
amino acid in that protein will be different (assuming it isn't a silent mutation). This could
have a huge effect on the gene if the amino acid is in a vital area, such as the binding site of
an enzyme, or it could have almost no effect if it is just in a nondescript structural part of
the protein.

Quoted message said:

2)What percentage of identical genes will we find between 2 randomly selected humans?

Mean heterozygosity is about 0.08%, or 1 in 1250 bases. This means that a randomly selected person,
who has two copies of each gene, will have 2 or 3 differences in the typical gene, which is maybe
3000 coding base pairs. However there is enormous variation - the insulin gene is only about 500 bp
whilst the titin gene is over 100,000 bp. Also, variations are not evenly distributed. Histones,
used to pack DNA, are very highly conserved, whilst immunogloblin genes are very variable. I don't
know exactly what percentage of genes will be identical.

Quoted message said:

I assume that 50% number for parent- child arises out of meiosis. What about the number for
between the two parents? If black color for eye is so common compared to blue color, does it imply
that even between the unrelated parents, the eye- color gene is very likely to be identical. Or is
it that many non- identical genes code for black eye color?

It could be either. It is only a few traits which can be linked definitely to one allele.

Srinivas S said:

Tim Tyler said:

Regarding a old, recurring SBE debate...

Here's Dawkins on the relationship between man and chimpanzees:

``The 98% doesn't mean we are 98% chimpanzees. And it really matters what unit you choose to make
your comparison. If you count the number of whole genes that are identical the figure for humans
and chimpanzees would be close to zero.''

- A Devil's Chaplain, p.84.

I have some questions, would someone please answer...

1)What then does the 98% signify?

Of the genes looked at, 98% of the bases are the same.

Part genes? Do part genes code for any

Quoted message said:

feature?
2)What percentage of identical genes will we find between 2 randomly selected humans?

That depends on the frequency distrbution of the different genes, so it's difficult to answer.

I assume that 50% number for parent-child arises out of

Quoted message said:

meiosis. What about the number for between the two parents? If black color for eye is so common
compared to blue color, does it imply that even between the unrelated parents, the eye-color gene
is very likely to be identical.

Yes. Now you can start to see why the previous question is difficult to answer.

Or

Quoted message said:

is it that many non-identical genes code for black eye color?

This is possible, indeed if the trait is old, then the gene could have mutated several times, but
have retained the phenotype.

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗ Journal
of Negative Results - EEB: jnr-eeb.orgjnr-eeb.orgOpen ↗

Tim Tyler said:

Regarding a old, recurring SBE debate...

Here's Dawkins on the relationship between man and chimpanzees:

``The 98% doesn't mean we are 98% chimpanzees. And it really matters what unit you choose to make
your comparison. If you count the number of whole genes that are identical the figure for humans
and chimpanzees would be close to zero.''

- A Devil's Chaplain, p.84.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

The old 98% number came from a small amount of sequence and the DNA hybridization studies. DNA from
chimps and humans was mixed together and melted and hybrid strands were formed. The melting
temperature profile of the hybrid strands indicated the amount of similarity between the sequences
of the two taxa under study.

We have a lot more sequence now. For single nucleotide changes the difference is closer to 99% than
98%. If you take into consideration deletion-insertion that can be very large the difference jumps
to 95% between the two genomes, but the number of mutation events to make those deletions does not
increase the over all mutational difference between the genomes significantly. Just a few deletion-
insertion mutations can change a lot of genome. Just think, one retroviral insertion-deletion can
change 5,000 base-pairs, but a single nucleotide mutation changes just one. The Old hybridization
data did not take the deletion-insertions into consideration it relied on melting profiles to
determine base similarity. You can't melt a hybrid strand if one of the two strands is missing.

The fact is that the number of mutational events that have been fixed (mutation is not the same as
fixation), that separate humans and chimps is around 2% of 3 billion or around 60 million. About 30
million in the human lineage and 30 million in the chimp lineage. This is quite a lot. The vast
majority of these mutations are thought to be selectively neutral. This vast number of mutations is
the reason that we have to rely on comparative genomics to determine the fraction of this 60 million
that might have done something important in the evolution of our species. By taking gorilla and
orang we could accurately root the tree and determine which mutations occurred in the chimp lineage
and which occurred in the human lineage. This would cut our work in half. By taking more divergent
species like monkeys, mice, chickens etc. we can determine the sequences that are conserved and so
probably are important, and see what changes are in these regions in humans compared to chimps. If
we didn't do comparative analysis to winnow the field of candidates we'd have to take each mutation
and test it to see what it does. We'd be at it until dooms day. I don't think that you'd want to
produce too many graduate students that had to put "I tested 100 mutations and didn't find jack" in
their PhD thesis.

Ron Okimoto

in article [email hidden], TomHendricks474 at
[email hidden] wrote on 2/24/04 12:57 PM:

Quoted message said:

<< Only about 1% of the DNA in humans and chimps encodes genes. >>

This reminded me of an article I read in Scientific American Nov. 03 titled, Unseen Genome, Gems
among the Junk by Wayt Gibbs. "Geneticists have long focused on just the small part of DNA that
contains blueprnts for proteins. The remainder - in humans, 98% of the DNA was often dismissed as
junk. But the discovery of many hidden genes that work through RNA, rather than protein, has
overturned that assumption."

Has anyone else read much about this?

Sure. This is a very hot topic in developmental biology, because these cryptic RNA genes probably
play important roles in gene expression. However, I think it is pretty premature to say that this
"has overturned that assumption." If, for example, as much of the genome encodes these RNA's as
encodes proteins (via mRNA's), that would still leave 98% of the genome without a coding function.

Cheers,

Guy

t

Quoted message said:

This reminded me of an article I read in Scientific American Nov. 03 titled, Unseen Genome, Gems
among the Junk by Wayt Gibbs. "Geneticists have long focused on just the small part of DNA that
contains blueprnts for proteins. The remainder - in humans, 98% of the DNA was often dismissed as
junk. But the discovery of many hidden genes that work through RNA, rather than protein, has
overturned that assumption."

Has anyone else read much about this?

There are two good articles in New Scientist (21st February 2004) as a preview of the chimpanzee
genome sequence being published in the next few weeks. There are so-called cis-regulatory sequences
which control gene expression in the regions of the genome that do not code for proteins. It is
thought now that these regulators are more important than the genes themselves for explaining the
differences between species. They have found more variation from person to person in the cis-
regulatory sites than coding variation in the human genome.

The second article looks at primate evolution. The main gist of the article is that duplications are
the secret of our evolutionary success. E.g. "A single gene originally coded for the globin portion
of the haemoglobin molecule. But the duplications allowed the evolution of several different globin
proteins, each adapted to a different stage of development from embryo to adult. Red and green cone
pigments of the eye - essential parts of colour vision - arose from a single duplicated gene." Evan
Eichler, a geneticist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his team
investigated whether the appearance of duplications coincided with important steps in human
evolution. "Most, they found, clustered around 25 million years ago - about the same time the
ancestor of old world monkeys and apes diverged from new world monkeys - and again 7 or 8 million
years ago - about when the human lineage branched off from the great apes." Why the duplications?
One theory is a genetic parasite called alu which is a transposon, a "jumping" gene whose main
purpose is to make copies of itself and scatter them around the genome. This affects recombination
because the DNA sequences don't match up resulting in duplicated segments.

The subject of the first article was also covered in Matt Ridley's latest book, Nature via Nurture.
Here's a snippet: "To make grand changes in the body plan of animals, there is no need to invent new
genes, just as there is no need to invent new words to write an original novel (unless your name is
Joyce). All you need to do is switch the same ones on and off in different patterns. Suddenly, here
is a mechanism for creating large and small evolutionary changes from small genetic differences.
Merely by adjusting the sequence of a promoter, or adding a new one, you could alter the expression
of a gene." All this is relevant to chimpanzees as Ridley says "It means that until scientists know
how to find gene promoters in the vast text of the genome, they will not learn how the recipe of a
chimpanzee differs from that of a person. The genes themselves will tell them very little, and the
source of human uniqueness will remain as mysterious as ever."

Quoted message said:

TomHendricks474 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This reminded me of an article I read in Scientific American Nov. 03 titled, Unseen Genome, Gems
among the Junk by Wayt Gibbs. "Geneticists have long focused on just the small part of DNA that
contains blueprnts for proteins. The remainder - in humans, 98% of the DNA was often dismissed as
junk. But the discovery of many hidden genes that work through RNA, rather than protein, has
overturned that assumption."

Has anyone else read much about this?

Yes. Sci Am had two articles sequentially, probably in the Nov & Dec. issues.

Quoted message said:

The main point is that biologists for several decades now have been making the false assumption
that only the DNA sequences that code for proteins are of significance, and that the rest is
"junk". Now it has been discovered that, not only is the non-coding DNA important, even though it
is not understood, but that in addition there are additional molecules attached to the outside of
the DNA strands, and these play a role in heredity also.

Hmmm ... that's what the article said but I didn't think that anyone knowledgeable would actually
believe it.

I've been teaching about regulatory sequences and genes that encode functional RNA for 26 years. I
don't know of any molecular biologists who made the "false assumption" that you allude to. Do you?

Same with DNA modifications. We've known about then for thirty years and they've been a popular part
of most university courses since the late 70's. I recall teaching about the mechanism of inheritance
of methylated DNA sequences back in 1978.

Quoted message said:

A big revolution has occurred in genetics, and probably most people in the fields are not yet
really aware of it.

If there was any "revolution" it took place in the 1960's. Any student who's taken a biochemistry or
molecular biology course since that time knows all about these things. It may be news to the author
of the Scientific American article but that's because he hasn't taken such a course (or read a
textbook).

Larry Moran

Ron Okimoto <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler said:

Regarding a old, recurring SBE debate...

Here's Dawkins on the relationship between man and chimpanzees:

``The 98% doesn't mean we are 98% chimpanzees. And it really matters what unit you choose to
make your comparison. If you count the number of whole genes that are identical the figure for
humans and chimpanzees would be close to zero.''

- A Devil's Chaplain, p.84.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

The old 98% number came from a small amount of sequence and the DNA hybridization studies. DNA
from chimps and humans was mixed together and melted and hybrid strands were formed. The melting
temperature profile of the hybrid strands indicated the amount of similarity between the sequences
of the two taxa under study.

We have a lot more sequence now. For single nucleotide changes the difference is closer to 99%
than 98%. If you take into consideration deletion-insertion that can be very large the difference
jumps to 95% between the two genomes, but the number of mutation events to make those deletions
does not increase the over all mutational difference between the genomes significantly. Just a few
deletion-insertion mutations can change a lot of genome. Just think, one retroviral insertion-
deletion can change 5,000 base-pairs, but a single nucleotide mutation changes just one. The Old
hybridization data did not take the deletion-insertions into consideration it relied on melting
profiles to determine base similarity. You can't melt a hybrid strand if one of the two strands is
missing.

The fact is that the number of mutational events that have been fixed (mutation is not the same as
fixation), that separate humans and chimps is around 2% of 3 billion or around 60 million. About
30 million in the human lineage and 30 million in the chimp lineage. This is quite a lot. The vast
majority of these mutations are thought to be selectively neutral. This vast number of mutations
is the reason that we have to rely on comparative genomics to determine the fraction of this 60
million that might have done something important in the evolution of our species. By taking
gorilla and orang we could accurately root the tree and determine which mutations occurred in the
chimp lineage and which occurred in the human lineage. This would cut our work in half. By taking
more divergent species like monkeys, mice, chickens etc. we can determine the sequences that are
conserved and so probably are important, and see what changes are in these regions in humans
compared to chimps. If we didn't do comparative analysis to winnow the field of candidates we'd
have to take each mutation and test it to see what it does. We'd be at it until dooms day. I don't
think that you'd want to produce too many graduate students that had to put "I tested 100
mutations and didn't find jack" in their PhD thesis.

Ron Okimoto

This is the DNA profile of a Chimpanzee named - Bobby Amelogenin X,Y ; D8 (10,12) ; D21 (28,29) ;
vWA (12,12) ; FGA (17.3,23.3) ; D3 (14,14) ; THO1 (6,7) ; D2 (21,22) ; D16 (9.3,9.3) determined by
UK Forensic Science Service. In other words the same as any human DNA profile for forensic purposes

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htmOpen ↗ or nutteingd in a search engine

e mail [email protected] (just one dot)

Has anyone come out with the explanation as to why the Australopithecines evolved into [censored]? What
factors or forces propelled the evolution of the Australopithecines and why did the same force not
acted on other mamals in terms of increase in intelligence and developing bigger brains? . Why did
the law of evolution failed to apply to the present day apes in the same way that it did for the
Australopithecines? Meaning that why did [censored]'s cousin, the Ape remained stagnant in intelligence?

It has been explained that [censored] Sapien's intelligence and brain size increased when he turned from
leaves eater to meat eater. It is felt that its large brain will require the rich protein of meat to
sustain its performance. If that be the case, then why is that the lion having the same nutrient as
[censored] failed to develop much intelligence? It appears to me that the lion being meat eater is no
better in intelligence than the deer which is totally a grass eater. So how do we explain this
anomaly? I hope someone has the answer.

Khoon.

"Red Dragon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

What factors or forces propelled the evolution of the Australopithecines and why did the same
force not acted on other mamals in terms of increase in intelligence and developing bigger
brains? .

All organisms are trying to solve the same basic problem, which is how to get their DNA into the
next generation. To use an analogy, most Westerners are trying to solve the problem of how to get as
much money as possible into their bank accounts. Now there are many ways you could go about solving
this problem. Some people invest a lot in university education and professional training in order to
earn lots of money, others decide to start earning as soon as they leave school. Some go into
medicine, some into law, some people try to set up their own businesses doing different things, some
try to make money illegally by dealing drugs. The choices you make early on narrow the number of
options available, for instance if you have spent seven years training as an accountant it is very
difficult to switch to medicine. Evolution is similar. The evolutionary strategy of making a big-
brained primate with opposable thumbs has proved spectacularly successful, but not as successful as
the strategy of making a bacterium that lives in the gut, a rodent that can live in sewers, or a
small plant that has leaves that break off easily when grazed and grow from the bottom up. The other
great apes have relatively large brains, but the evolutionary pressure hasn't been as great as for
humans. We don't know exactly why humans are so clever, but it probably has something to do with
tool use, in particular fire, and something to do with language. Every organism's closest competitor
is another member of the same species, and once a strategy is set, whether that be for running speed
or for high intelligence, evolution will tend to push it further and further.

Red Dragon <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Has anyone come out with the explanation as to why the Australopithecines evolved into [censored]?

Yes, but don't get ahead of the game. First we need an explanation of how Apes evolved in A'pith.

Quoted message said:

What factors or forces propelled the evolution of the Australopithecines and why did the same
force not acted on other mamals in terms of increase in intelligence and developing bigger brains?
Why did the law of evolution failed to apply to the present day apes in the same way that it did
for the Australopithecines? Meaning that why did [censored]'s cousin, the Ape remained stagnant in
intelligence?

It has been explained that [censored] Sapien's intelligence and brain size increased when he turned from
leaves eater to meat eater. It is felt that its large brain will require the rich protein of meat
to sustain its performance. If that be the case, then why is that the lion having the same
nutrient as [censored] failed to develop much intelligence? It appears to me that the lion being meat
eater is no better in intelligence than the deer which is totally a grass eater. So how do we
explain this anomaly? I hope someone has the answer.

I have the answer. It starts with a shift in climate, at about 8mya, that introduced a monsoon
climate, a climate that had not existed on this planet for at least 300 million years. The element
of this climate that is most significant with respect to understanding human origins is seasonal
dessication.

tinyurl.com2yq23Open ↗

Seasonal dessication created a problem in A'piths habitat that did not exist in ape habitat, the
seasonal scarcity that is associated with an extended dry season. Seasonal scarcity weakened them
and made them vulnerable to predators. Most of the other large quadrupedal mammals in the greater
environment were able to deal with the implications of seasonal scarcity by way of their ability to
migrate to locations that were less effected by seasonal dryness, most notably patches of forest
near rivers, stream, lakes and places of high ground water. Migration was a good strategy for most
species because their quadrupedalism afforded them the ability to move efficiently over the land and
the ability to move swiftly to escape predators.

tinyurl.comyscvqOpen ↗

For our tree-dwelling A'pith ancestors migration was not a good strategy, mostly because they were
too slow to escape large predators that infested the surrounding treeless habitat, trees being their
main strategy to avoid predation. Moreover, and inconjunction with the fact that the discontinuous
nature of the remaining treed habitat left them isolated at whatever treed patch they happened to
reside, migration itself was a problem: the inmigration of large browsing/grazing food competitor
species exacerbated the seasonal scarcity at their localities. This weakened them during the depths
of the dry season and caused them to have to take chances to find food and water, making them
vulnerable to predations, most notably from social predators, lions, hyena, and dogs. So, not only
was migration not a good strategy for their own survival but the poverty inducing effects of
migration of other species often resulted in poverty induced, predatory massacres of the A'pith
community that occupied a locality.

tinyurl.com26byeOpen ↗

The strategy that emerged amongst our A'pith ancestors can be best understood from the fact that if
they could avoid the depths of poverty associated with the dry season then they would, largely if
not completely, be ignored by hyena, lions, and dogs that might otherwise decimate their community.
And the best way to avoid the depths of poverty is by stopping or reducing inmigration from
competing browsing/grazing food competitors. More precisely, the strategies that emerged involved
the following: 1) Mob oriented, rock-throwing, stick-wielding assault behavior directed against
inmigrating browsing/grazing species to effect the preservation of the food resources at their
locality; 2) Private ownership of property within the greater context of the communal site (city-
sized, town-sized treed patches) to give the bands that comprise the community the incentive to
stand their ground against the assaults of inmigrating browsing/grazing species as well as the
exchange or trade of this property to effect the earliest palpatations of commerce; 3)
Consciousness, communicativeness, and a hierarchical social structure that enabled a community of
relatively disparate bands to network and thereby effect a collective entity that could more
efficiently achieve the rock-throwing, stick-wielding continuing war against poverty inducing
inmigrating species.

tinyurl.com3glagOpen ↗ tinyurl.com2xdf4Open ↗

The very unusual form of selection that resulted from the scenario described above set the stage for
the emergence of [censored]. But this scenario is not a scenario that we would expect to produce much in
the way of brain growth, afterall their main competitors in this scenario is other relatively small
brained migratory species and predators. The growth of head size that we start to see with the
emergence of [censored] was more directly a result of the fact that by that time,
2.5 to 1.8 mya, our ancestors had achieved greater dominance over the inmigrating species as well
as the predators that previously were such a problem. But now they had a new competitor,
themselves. This marked the beginning of the evolutionary arms race that resulted in the growth
of human brain size.

Jim

Quoted message said:

The other great apes have relatively large brains, but the evolutionary pressure hasn't been as
great as for humans. We don't know exactly why humans are so clever, but it probably has something
to do with tool use,

in

Quoted message said:

particular fire, and something to do with language. Every organism's

closest

Quoted message said:

competitor is another member of the same species, and once a strategy is set, whether that be for
running speed or for high intelligence, evolution will tend to push it further and further.

Whereas it is true that [censored] learned to make use of tools, they are not the only one to do so. The
Chimps, Apes and some Monkeys also do make use of tools such as using sticks to probe for grubs and
ants, using stone to break open nuts etc. When they are specially trained as in the circus, they are
capable of making use of bicycles, roller skates, skateboard etc. The point is that unlike [censored], the
evolutionary force failed to work on these primates, so that they remained stagnant in brain growth.
However [censored] continued to be gifted with brain size increase, such that they progressed to the
capabilty to make fire. At this stage, they became king of the animal kingdom. Cold and fear of
beast were no more a factor. [censored] were then able to begin their task to populate the world.

Khoon.

Quoted message said:

I have the answer. It starts with a shift in climate, at about 8mya, that introduced a monsoon
climate, a climate that had not existed on this planet for at least 300 million years. The element
of this climate that is most significant with respect to understanding human origins is seasonal
dessication.

This was the earlier thinking. But recently, due to elaborate research into primordial climate
through wood fossils, evidence revealed that the climatic condition experienced by
Australopithecines were no different from that of the other primates. Following this, the
dessication theory had been dropped and search is on for some other possible explanation.

Khoon.

"Red Dragon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have the answer. It starts with a shift in climate, at about 8mya, that introduced a monsoon
climate, a climate that had not existed on this planet for at least 300 million years. The
element of this climate that is most significant with respect to understanding human origins is
seasonal dessication.

This was the earlier thinking.

Uh, no it isn't.

But recently, due to elaborate research into

Quoted message said:

primordial climate through wood fossils, evidence revealed that the climatic condition experienced
by Australopithecines were no different from that of the other primates.

A monsoon climate, which has seasonal rains and seasonal dryness, is different from the climate in
Ape habitat which is seasonless and it rains all year round.

Following this, the dessication theory had

Quoted message said:

been dropped and search is on for some other possible explanation.

You're mixed up. Earlier theory did assume a dry TREELESS habitat like we currently find in East
Africa. We now realize that the climate was not quite as dry as it is currently. But, more
importantly, we now realize that A'pith weren't in treeless habitat but at the treed patches in a
habitat that was mostly treeless. The factor that dictates this is a monsoon climate. Think of the
climate in India: lots of rain at one part of the year and little or no rain for the rest of the
year. This dictates the patchiness of the remaining forest.

Jim

Quoted message said:

A monsoon climate, which has seasonal rains and seasonal dryness, is different from the climate in
Ape habitat which is seasonless and it rains all year round.

Following this, the dessication theory had

Quoted message said:

been dropped and search is on for some other possible explanation.

You're mixed up. Earlier theory did assume a dry TREELESS habitat like we currently find in East
Africa. We now realize that the climate was not quite as dry as it is currently. But, more
importantly, we now realize that A'pith weren't in treeless habitat but at the treed patches in a
habitat that was mostly treeless. The factor that dictates this is a monsoon climate. Think of the
climate in India: lots of rain at one part of the year and little or no rain for the rest of the
year. This dictates the patchiness of the remaining forest.

Jim

Your monsoon theory may be right, but what is important is that whether it be monsoon climate or
dessication climate, it affected both the dwellings of the Australopithecus and the other primates
simultaneously. The effect somehow caused the Australopithecus to be bipedal from being of 4 footed,
so as to stand a better chance to survive in a hostile savannah type environment. Climatic changes
propelled Australopithecus into bipedalism, but in no way was it related to the evolution from it to
[censored]. Logically speaking, being a bipedal primate grasping a weapon in its flexible hand can be
considered to possess sufficient means to survive in the hostile environment of the Savannah. It was
then a stable entity, just like the lion, the cheetah. and the crocodile etc. No problem was faced
with obtaining food and producing offsprings.

But somehow, Australopithecus continued to evolve into [censored] with increasing brain size, consequently
acquiring greater intelligence. What is to dfferentiate between Australopithecus and [censored]? Where do
we draw the line? It is the brain size. The same primate is called [censored] the moment its brain size
exceeded 700 cc.

An interesting thought is that when the Monsoon climate came to India, what effect did it had on the
primates there? I dont think any primate there became bipedal.

Khoon

"Red Dragon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A monsoon climate, which has seasonal rains and seasonal dryness, is different from the climate
in Ape habitat which is seasonless and it rains all year round.

Following this, the dessication theory had

Quoted message said:

been dropped and search is on for some other possible explanation.

You're mixed up. Earlier theory did assume a dry TREELESS habitat like we currently find in East
Africa. We now realize that the climate was not quite as dry as it is currently. But, more
importantly, we now realize that A'pith weren't in treeless habitat but at the treed patches in
a habitat that was mostly treeless. The factor that dictates this is a monsoon climate. Think of
the climate in India: lots of rain at one part of the year and little or no rain for the rest of
the year. This dictates the patchiness of the remaining forest.

Jim

Your monsoon theory may be right,

It's completely supported by the paleoclimatic evidence. Think about
it. What are the odds that this climate would just happen to emerge at the right place and time
(about 8mya) as our ancestors emerged. Check out this link:

tinyurl.com22de3Open ↗

but what is important is that whether it

Quoted message said:

be monsoon climate or dessication climate, it affected both the dwellings of the Australopithecus
and the other primates simultaneously. The effect somehow caused the Australopithecus to be
bipedal from being of 4 footed, so as to stand a better chance to survive in a hostile savannah
type environment.

The shift to bipedalism was, primarily, a rock-throwing, stick-wielding adaptation.

Quoted message said:

Climatic changes propelled Australopithecus into bipedalism, but in no way was it related to the
evolution from it to [censored].

You lost me here. Rock-throwing, stick-wielding provides the perfect evolutionary uprampt to more
sophisticated tool/weapons usage.

Logically speaking,

Quoted message said:

being a bipedal primate grasping a weapon in its flexible hand can be considered to possess
sufficient means to survive in the hostile environment of the Savannah.

No, they'd be dead meat on a treeless savanna. A'pith weapons were only effective in large groups
and only to defend territory (against inmigrating food competitors).

It was then a stable entity, just like the lion, the

Quoted message said:

cheetah. and the crocodile etc. No problem was faced with obtaining food and producing offsprings.

You lost me here.

Quoted message said:

But somehow, Australopithecus continued to evolve into [censored] with increasing brain size,
consequently acquiring greater intelligence. What is to dfferentiate between Australopithecus and
[censored]? Where do we draw the line? It is the brain size. The same primate is called [censored] the moment
its brain size exceeded 700 cc.

An interesting thought is that when the Monsoon climate came to India, what effect did it had on
the primates there? I dont think any primate there became bipedal.

I don't know. But humans do live there.

Jim

"Jim McGinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Red Dragon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A monsoon climate, which has seasonal rains and

seasonal dryness, is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

different from the climate in Ape habitat which is

seasonless and it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rains all year round.

Following this, the dessication theory had
> been dropped and search is on for some other

possible explanation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're mixed up. Earlier theory did assume a dry

TREELESS habitat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like we currently find in East Africa. We now realize

that the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

climate was not quite as dry as it is currently. But,

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

importantly, we now realize that A'pith weren't in

treeless habitat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but at the treed patches in a habitat that was mostly

treeless. The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

factor that dictates this is a monsoon climate. Think

of the climate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in India: lots of rain at one part of the year and

little or no rain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for the rest of the year. This dictates the

patchiness of the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

remaining forest.

Jim

Your monsoon theory may be right,

It's completely supported by the paleoclimatic evidence.

Think about

Quoted message said:

it. What are the odds that this climate would just happen

to emerge

Quoted message said:

at the right place and time (about 8mya) as our ancestors

emerged.

Quoted message said:

Check out this link:

tinyurl.com22de3Open ↗

but what is important is that whether it

Quoted message said:

be monsoon climate or dessication climate, it affected

both the dwellings

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the Australopithecus and the other primates

simultaneously. The effect

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

somehow caused the Australopithecus to be bipedal from

being of 4 footed,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so as to stand a better chance to survive in a hostile

savannah type

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

environment.

The shift to bipedalism was, primarily, a rock-throwing,
stick-wielding adaptation.

Quoted message said:

Climatic changes propelled Australopithecus into

bipedalism, but in no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

way was it related to the evolution from it to [censored].

You lost me here. Rock-throwing, stick-wielding provides

the perfect

Quoted message said:

evolutionary uprampt to more sophisticated tool/weapons

usage.

Quoted message said:

Logically speaking,

Quoted message said:

being a bipedal primate grasping a weapon in its

flexible hand can be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

considered to possess sufficient means to survive in the

hostile environment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the Savannah.

No, they'd be dead meat on a treeless savanna. A'pith

weapons were

Quoted message said:

only effective in large groups and only to defend

territory (against

Quoted message said:

inmigrating food competitors).

It was then a stable entity, just like the lion, the

Quoted message said:

cheetah. and the crocodile etc. No problem was faced

with obtaining food

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and producing offsprings.

You lost me here.

Quoted message said:

But somehow, Australopithecus continued to evolve into

[censored] with increasing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

brain size, consequently acquiring greater intelligence.
What is to dfferentiate between Australopithecus and

[censored]? Where do we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

draw the line? It is the brain size. The same primate

is called [censored] the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

moment its brain size exceeded 700 cc.

An interesting thought is that when the Monsoon climate

came to India, what

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

effect did it had on the primates there? I dont think

any primate there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

became bipedal.

I don't know. But humans do live there.

Jim

Certainly, bipedalism and refined usage of hands were the
first steps in evolving [censored] sap. intelligence--A good
overall reference to important other ideas is still W.H.
Calvin's book The Ascent of Mind (Bantam 1990) on the ice
ages and how human intelligence evolved; the "throwing
theory" is one aspect. See:
williamcalvin.combk5.htmOpen ↗

The idea that, the earliest attempts at rock throwing (and
crude estimations of future trajectories etc.) led the human
brain's organization to develop and refine itself into a
larger and "what-if" modeling organ makes a lotta sense to
me. (Paragraph 8, above web ref.) Brain size is also
explained by the "Juvenilization" effect and associated
cultural evolution I think. ...tonyC

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C4038C.8D417AC0 Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable

Quoted message said:

It's completely supported by the paleoclimatic evidence.
Think about
it. What are the odds that this climate would just happen
to emerge at the right place and time (about 8mya) as
our ancestors emerged.=20 Check out this link:
tinyurl.com22de3Open ↗

I do not know how accurate can we be in determining the
paleoclimatic = condition at that moment of time. What
geotechnical evidence do we = have? The monsoon theory does
make a lot of sense but has to have a = very dry season that
will motivate some rather more intelligent = primates, to
come down from the trees and make a living on its 2 legs. =
The monsoon theory is also more logical because the
Australopithecus = were much more ape-like than [censored].
Despite being bipedal, their body = features were more
towards tree dwellers and their brain sizes were = small.=20
=20

Quoted message said:

The shift to bipedalism was, primarily, a rock-throwing,
stick-wielding adaptation.

More to this. Bipedalism improved environmental vision, and
also gave = greater mobility in running. There is also spear
throwing ability which = was very deadly. =20
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Climatic changes propelled Australopithecus into
bipedalism, but =

in no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

way was it related to the evolution from it to [censored].

=20
You lost me here. Rock-throwing, stick-wielding provides
the perfect evolutionary uprampt to more sophisticated
tool/weapons usage.

I am thinking of the question of why Australopithecus needed
to evolve = to [censored]. And had it anything to do with
bipedalism? Being bipedal and = clutching weapons had
already solved their survival problem, but they = did not
stop at that. They continued to do better, unlike the ape
and = the chimp. I have seen the chimp and ape clutching
sticks and beating = their opponent. But I have never seen
them throw stones or throw a = sharp stick at their
opponent. Their evolutionary pattern stagnated. = Why?
=20

Quoted message said:

No, they'd be dead meat on a treeless savanna. A'pith
weapons were only effective in large groups and only to
defend territory (against inmigrating food competitors).

Exactly. I was talking about them living and hunting as a
group. With = stones, sticks and spears in they hands ,
survival is no more an = issue.

Quoted message said:

It was then a stable entity, just like the lion, the

Quoted message said:

cheetah. and the crocodile etc. No problem was faced
with =

obtaining food

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and producing offsprings.

Quoted message said:

You lost me here. =20

My point is that the evolutionary law had stopped applying
to these = animals and they had remained like they are now
for umpteen million = years. An evolutionary dead end. Why?
Because they had achieved a = very stable form in surviving.
This is unlike the Australopithecus = which after achieving
this state, continued to developed bigger brains = and
achieve greater things.

So it brings to me some perplexing questions. Primates are
found = everywhere in the world. And the monsoon climate and
dessication = phenomena happened everywhere on earth. So why
was it that = bipedalism of the Astralopithecus was found
only in East Africa? Why = did it not happened in the Gobi,
the Attacama and all other places = that also experience the
same thing?

Khoon

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C4038C.8D417AC0 Content-Type:
text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-
Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META
content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> It's completely
supported by the = paleoclimatic=20 evidence.
Think about<BR>> it. What are the odds that
= this=20 climate would just happen to
emerge<BR>> at the right place and time =
(about=20 8mya) as our ancestors emerged. <BR>>
Check out this link:<BR>> = </FONT><A=20
href=3D"tinyurl.com22de3Open ↗"><FONT
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>tinyurl.com22de3Open ↗</FONT></A></DIV>
<DV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT
face=3DArial = size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DVI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>I do not know
how accurate can = we be=20 in determining the
paleoclimatic condition at that moment of=20
time. What geotechnical evidence do we
have? The monsoon = theory does=20 make a lot
of sense but has to have a very dry
season that=20 will motivate some rather
more intelligent primates, = to=20 come
down from the trees and make a living on its 2
legs. = The=20 monsoon theory is
also more logical because the=20
Australopithecus were much more ape-like than
[censored]. Despite = being=20 bipedal, their
body features were more towards tree dwellers and =
their=20 brain sizes were small. </S-
TRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DVII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR>> The shift
to bipedalism = was,=20 primarily, a rock-
throwing,<BR>> stick-wielding =
adaptation.</FONT></DIV>
<DVIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>More to
this. Bipedalism = improved=20 environmental
vision, and also gave greater mobility in
running. = There is=20 also spear throwing
ability which was very deadly. =
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR>> >
Climatic = changes =20 propelled
Australopithecus into bipedalism, but in =
no<BR>> >=20 way was it related to
the evolution from it to [censored].<BR>> =

<BR>> You lost me here. Rock-throwing, stick-
wielding provides = the=20 perfect<BR>> evolutionary
uprampt to more sophisticated tool/weapons=20
usage.</FONT></DIV>
<DXI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>I am thinking of
the question = of why =20 Australopithecus
needed to evolve to [censored]. And had it anything to do
= with=20 bipedalism? Being bipedal and
clutching weapons had already = solved=20 their
survival problem, but they did not stop at
that. They=20 continued to do better,
unlike the ape and the chimp. I have = seen=20
the chimp and ape clutching sticks and beating their
opponent. But = I have=20 never seen them
throw stones or throw a sharp stick at
their=20 opponent. Their evolutionary pattern
stagnated. =20 Why?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DXIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR>> No,
they'd be dead meat = on a=20 treeless
savanna. A'pith weapons were<BR>> only
effective in = large=20 groups and only to defend
territory (against<BR>> inmigrating food=20
competitors).</FONT></DIV>
<DXIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>Exactly. I
was talking = about them=20 living and hunting as a
group. With stones, sticks and = spears
in=20 they hands , survival is no more an
issue.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DXVI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR><FONT
face=3DArial = size=3D2>> It=20 was then a
stable entity, just like the lion, the<BR>>

Quoted message said:

= cheetah.=20 and the crocodile

etc. No problem was faced
with =

obtaining food<BR>> > and producing
offsprings.</FONT></DIV>
<DXVII><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> You lost me
here. = </FONT></DIV>
<DXVIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXIX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>My point is that
the = evolutionary law had=20 stopped applying to
these animals and they had remained like they are =
now for=20 umpteen million years. An
evolutionary dead end. = Why? =20
Because they had achieved a very stable
form in = surviving. This=20 is
unlike the Australopithecus which after achieving
this state, = continued to=20 developed bigger
brains and achieve greater =
things.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DXX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>So it brings to
me some = perplexing=20 questions. Primates
are found everywhere in the world. And =
the=20 monsoon climate and dessication phenomena
happened everywhere on=20 earth. So why
was it that bipedalism of the Astralopithecus
= was=20 found only in East Africa? Why
did it not happened in the=20 Gobi, the
Attacama and all other places that also
experience = the=20 same
thing?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DXXII><FONT face=3DArial
size=3D2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Khoon</FONT></DIV>
<DXXIV><FONT face=3DArial
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C4038C.8D417AC0--