- Jan 30, 2014
- 1,856
- 50
- 48
An interesting new paper describes how scientists tested two different models for the history of humans, common ancestry with other primates versus separate ancestry (humans are separate and distinct from all primates). They looked at the genetic data among humans and primates and ran it through statistical analyses. Not only that, but they also took steps to account for sequence similarity being possibly explained by other means, e.g., functional constraint (where the sequences are the same simply because that's what works).
I'll let the researches describe their results....
It's fascinating work. Anyone who's interested can read the paper here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/01/10/036327
I'll let the researches describe their results....
What's also interesting is how they built upon previous statistical tests that while they reached the same conclusion, had some flaws and/or possible alternative explanations. These researchers incorporated more data, addressed other possible explanations, and corrected flaws in the earlier research.We find overwhelmingly strong evidence against [separate ancestry] in favor of [common ancestry] in primates at both the subordinal and family levels. Additionally, we find common ancestry between primate orders and among primate families. We find very strong statistical evidence against a hypothesis of SA of humans from other primates, This supports the conventional view that humans are closely related to other primates rather than deriving from an independent origin event.
It's fascinating work. Anyone who's interested can read the paper here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/01/10/036327