Exciting discovery about the origin of humans

Aug 22, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A major evolutionary biological study, performed partly by researchers at Uppsala University, reveals what has driven the evolution of new forms of life. The study also shows how such a complex life form as the human being could emerge. The findings are being published in the scientific journal Science.

By looking at and comparing the genomes of humans, mice, , and two types of fish, these researchers were able to discern general patterns in what led to the emergence of new life forms in different time periods. They have also found what lies behind the evolution of the complexity and diversity of mammals.

In the period when evolved, some 100 million years ago, it turns out that genes that govern signals between cells were of great importance. that alter proteins and make other like sugar or phosphorous bind to proteins were also important. These findings surprised the scientists.

“We didn’t really know that it was so important in evolutionary terms for us humans, so this is an exciting discovery that can have a great impact on future research,” says Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, professor at the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology and one of the authors of the study.

What makes humans such complex organisms is thus not only how our organs were formed and developed but also the signals and advanced modifications of proteins that take place in our body. The complexity of a human being, with many organs that work together and an advanced brain, is thus something that nature has enabled with efficient signal routes and multiple protein modifications. This, according to Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, indicates that scientists should look more at protein modifications to understand what makes us functioning human being/organisms.

“This will also provide us with key information about how evolutionary pressure affects the emergence of diseases, and not only what proteins are involved but also what modifications are required for normal functioning.”

Explore further: Contrasting views of kin selection assessed

Related Stories

Man's best friend recruited in the hunt for disease genes

Oct 16, 2008

For centuries man has had a uniquely close relationship with dogs – as a working animal, for security and, perhaps most importantly, for companionship. Now, dogs are taking on a new role – they are helping in the hunt ...

Study sheds light on evolution of human complexity

Nov 03, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A painstaking analysis of thousands of genes and the proteins they encode shows that human beings are biologically complex, at least in part, because of the way humans evolved to cope with redundancies arising ...

Recommended for you

Contrasting views of kin selection assessed

Dec 17, 2014

In an article to be published in the January issue of BioScience, two philosophers tackle one of the most divisive arguments in modern biology: the value of the theory of "kin selection."

Microbiome may have shaped early human populations

Dec 16, 2014

We humans have an exceptional age structure compared to other animals: Our children remain dependent on their parents for an unusually long period and our elderly live an extremely long time after they have ...

DNA sheds light on why largest lemurs disappeared

Dec 16, 2014

Ancient DNA extracted from the bones and teeth of giant lemurs that lived thousands of years ago in Madagascar may help explain why the giant lemurs went extinct. It also explains what factors make some surviving ...

User comments : 17

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (27) Aug 22, 2011
In the period when mammals evolved, some 100 million years ago

How do they know this? Were they there? Was there someone there to observe and record this particular growth event?
NO.
Therefore this is simply crass guesstimation and assumption on their part. Evolution from a single ancestor never happened - we know enough about chemistry, biological processes and make-up as well as probability to figure out that evolution [from one single ancestor organism into all multiple life-forms ] is impossible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2011
Therefore this is simply crass guesstimation and assumption on their part.
So is your idiot religious dogma. But at least the science has evidence to support it. Your nonsense has tons of evidence AGAINST it.

Which do you think might be the more credible?

You should really consider another way of earning a living.
we know enough about chemistry, biological processes and make-up as well as probability to figure out that evolution [from one single ancestor organism into all multiple life-forms ] is impossible.
-One in which you wont have the need to peddle such obvious lies as these. Have you no self-respect man?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2011
You see, when kevin uses the term 'we' as in 'we know science better than the scientists who make these discoveries using methods compiled by generations of other scientists', he is only referring to his creationist buddies who in reality have no understanding of the science involved AT ALL. And most of them know this full well.

Just like the shysters who know full well that their snake oil is turpentine and spices.
Objectivist
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2011
If Kevin doesn't understand it it's not true everyone! Please stick to the rules. Thanks.

/God
malapropism
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
You see, when kevin uses the term 'we' as in 'we know science better than the scientists who make these discoveries using methods compiled by generations of other scientists'...

Hi Otto, sorry, I accidentally clicked a 1-star on this comment when I intended a 5. Apologies.
DavidMcC
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2011
I note that kevin is a practitioner of the "fire and forget" post. He seems to be driven to make a one-off creationist statement on every thread that refers to evolution. He probably doesn't even dare to look at replies, because he's so defenceless.
DavidMcC
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2011
On the substantive issue, I think the title is misleading. The word "humans" should be replaced by "mammals".
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2011
How do they know this? Were they there?
No Kevin no Human was. Since you think there has to be someone there, clearly someone you know I guess you must have a direct written account, by an eyewitness, to the Great Flood.

So when was that Flood Kevin and who recorded it. I will have to take a failure to answer as a sign that you don't have any such evidence and thus I must ask why do you believe whatever the hell it is that you do believe? What evidence supports that belief?

Ethelred
MrHanson
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2011
Based on a few genes, they made broad sweeping generalizations about three mythical periods of innovation that made us what we are today. So astonishing are their powers of genetic divination, the press release said, these researchers were able to discern general patterns in what led to the emergence of new life forms in different time periods. Not only that, They have also found what lies behind the evolution of the complexity and diversity of mammals. Trouble is, they did not explain how changes in the regulatory genes could produce an elephant trunk, a mouse tail, a whales sonar, or a rocket scientists brain. They merely read back into the data those traits that they assumed evolution somehow produced. This is known as circular reasoning.

It's just a shame that the Darwiniac flashmob can't recognize their own religiosity.
chthoniid
5 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2011
Technically, molecular phylogenies aren't based on a few genes but routinely take into account hundreds- often thousands of genes. The fact is that the distribution of these genes isn't random (uniformly-distributed) amongst different taxa. Rather there is a specific pattern that requires scientific explanation.

Inheritance is not presumed, but tested against the alternative hypotheses that random events could duplicate the same distribution. Such alternatives are readily rejected for their mathematical implausibility.

Funnily enough, the distribution of inheritable traits as actually evidence of inheritance.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2011
It's just a shame that the Darwiniac flashmob
It is a shame that one hit wonders from Creationism rarely stick around to support their fantasy based claims.

So on the off chance that you do stick around how about you answer me these questions three.

When was the Flood?

Why don't see evidence in the genetic testing that humans had just one single male ancestor from whenever you think that the Great Flood actually occurred?

If Evolution is the crock you claim why are there megatons of fossils from long ago and why doesn't the genetic evidence agree with you in any way?

Ethelred

Ramael
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2011
evolution [from one single ancestor organism into all multiple life-forms ] is impossible.

Seven days of creation from nothing is more plausible?
thematrix606
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2011
evolution [from one single ancestor organism into all multiple life-forms ] is impossible.

Seven days of creation from nothing is more plausible?


Not to be a bother but... we have our big bang, we're not really sure what was there before it either... so how is that different then 7 days or a day or a few seconds?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
7 days is exactly 7 times one day. And rather a lot more than a few seconds and none of those are even remotely close to 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 3.5BY for life on Earth.

So did you have a point?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2011
Here is a link to thematrix606 previous hit and run engagement wherein he engaged in disingenuous posts and false claims that evolution is somehow a religion.

http://www.physor...ion.html

Are you going to discuss it THIS time. You said you would last time and then you ran.

Ethelred
thematrix606
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
Here is a link to thematrix606 previous hit and run engagement wherein he engaged in disingenuous posts and false claims that evolution is somehow a religion.

http://www.physor...ion.html

Are you going to discuss it THIS time. You said you would last time and then you ran.

Ethelred


Oh I'm sorry about that, I was watching some propaganda and just resiting. I've learned to keep an open mind.. hopefully you can do that too, and realize people DO change, and change is good, mmmhmm :)

The one thing I can say is, that we know a lot less than we think we do. And thinking the opposite leads to arrogance, more than anything else!
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2011
Kids, kids, kids...
The researchers made extrapolitions on the basis of 29 critter's DNA. That's maybe what - .05% of the number of mammals on the planet? And a much smaller percentage when you consider the TOTAL number of creatures in existance on our little speck of dirt.
However, like little kids learning about stuff in their environment, we like to show everyone else what we've learned - making the assumption that we now know most everything there is to know on a subject...
No wonder the aliens have decided to give us a little more time before they show up...:-)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.