1a. Chimps are a member of the hominidae family, same as humans and according to some, they split from human evolution about 6 million year ago. There are also two species of champs that are the closest living relatives to humans. So I guess it makes sense that "99.4% of the most critical DNA sites are identical in human and chimp genes". After all, we all come from the same family, right?
1b. I enjoyed the tutorial. There were a couple of questions that I had to go back and re-try, but overall, it was enjoyable and educational.
2. I found "Early Models of Evolution" quite interesting. Lamarck's theory of "use or disuse of various organs made them larger or smaller...and these traits could be inherited or passed on to offspring". But opposing evidences are clear in the mutation of mouse tail experiment and the practice of circumcision - mice still born with tail and practice of circumcision has no impact on future offspring. It's like our appendix, it has no function, but people are still born with it. Since this theory of Lamarck's is quite similar to the concept of "survival of the fittest", so with these opposing evidences, may be it's not quite "survival of the fittest" after all. What are the deciding factors that determine what physical attributes or traits are passed on to the future generation and what are discarded? What made some chimps evolve into humans and some remained as chimps? It's like looking into the origins of plants. Apparently, a tiny algae - algal mats was supposed to be the mother of all plants. Difficult to imagine one small algae giving birth to the wide array of plants we see today. But the theory is the same, this algal mats still thrives today but many have evolved into new organisms. Same question: what made some evolve and others not?
No comments:
Post a Comment