"Scientific American" Nov 2005 edition (USA) has an article in the
"News Scan" section on page 36 titled: "Relative Distance" discussing
briefly the genetic connection between humans and chimpanzees, exampled
or discussed in earlier macroevolution threads in this series:
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
In the article, the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees
is clarified (clueless thread-starting declaimers of macroevolution
take note): "Although the human genome differs from our closest
relative's by 1.2% in terms of single nucleotide changes, the
international Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium finds that
duplications and rearrangements of larger DNA stretches add another
2.7% difference. Seven regions in the human genome bear strong
hallmarks of natural selection; for instance, one contains elements
regulating a gene implicated in nervous system development and another
possessing genes linked with speech."
As a footnote (and this isn't direct evidence of macroevolution, which
is why it doesn't get its own number) here's a Scientific American
article whcih demonstrates how useful genetics is in tracing ancestry,
a procedure which itself can provide evidence of macroevolution:
http://tinyurl.com/adod5
Budikka
.
|
