The Human Genome and Evolution

As a disclaimer I have no background in either genetics or biology, so I am not trying to make a point. I'm just looking for information. I'm a participant in the National Geographic "Genographic" project. Is it possible that through projects such as this or others that it will be possible to trace back human evolution to pre modern man or further.I guess what I'm really asking is, what is the connection, if any, between genetics and evolution, and will genetics ever be able to conclusively prove or disprove macroevolution.

It seems to me, just from a common sense point of view, that if evolution were just happening by natural selection that the genetic changes that occur in macroevolution would change incrementally one or two changes, of whatever type, at a time.If however there is divine intervention involved in the process it seems to me that it is more likely that several changes would occur simultaneously to bring about a new species.Does this make sense, and have biologists been able to sort out the rate of change that occurred in our evolutionary history, and if not, is there progress being made in this area?Thanks

Thanks a lot that helps a lot.Just so I understand what you mean by this; is it still considered macroevolution whether there is divine intervention or not. The term evolution seems to mean different things to different people.As far as I understand it the term evolution,(specifically macro evolution), still holds whether there is no divine intervention at all, if it is set in motion by divine intervention and then left to develop on its own, or whether it is divinely adjusted during the process. Would you agree?

Thanks. In the trials that are being conducted would it be conceivable then that human DNA could actually be traced back to a prehuman species? In simple terms what are the limits or do we know?

Thanks mick
When you say it has been done can you outline the result in the simplest of terms?

Hi EZ (If I can call you that for short )
My understanding is that evolution has us evolving from apes and that chimps are closest to humans in their DNA composition. By your diagram you seem to be suggesting that humans, chimps and neanderthals separately evolved from a common ancestor.Are you just using this for purpose of illustration or is this generally considered a possibility?With no background in this at all I try to stay away from any of the technical discussions except to try and learn what I can, but I'm very curious about the basis for your diagram. Thanks

I'm not sure that is fair. It seems to me that science can only tell us how we evolved; it cannot tell us whether or not there is any metaphysical intervention or not. Isn't it just as much a matter of faith to say that there is only random selection, with no divine intervention, as it is to say that evolution is guided by a metaphysical intelligence?There is no empirical evidence for either conclusion, so our opinions on this are formed from philosophy, or theology, but not science.This message has been edited by GDR, 07-11-2005 03:16 PM

You always come back to what is basically the old opiate of the masses thing. I would be a Christian with or without the concept of eternal life because I believe that it's the truth. I'm interested in what Christianity means to me in this life.I love what science has done but there is more to this world than what can be proven scientifically.

There are two great questions in life. How did we get here and why are we here. The how we got here is fascinating but the why is central to our whole being.To go back to the OP though, it was mentioned somewhere in the thread that the tracing back of our DNA will not be able to give evidence for, or against for that matter, macroevolution.Is it possible in lay terms to say why that is so? It seems to me that if macroevolution occurs incrementally, one mutation at a time, then there would be a DNA trail to follow. If however, there were multiple changes simultaneously then the DNA trail would stop at this point. (In asking this question I'm only trying to apply logic to a subject I know nothing about technically.)This message has been edited by GDR, 07-12-2005 07:50 AM

It seems to me that it is just as true to say that there is no proof that anything happened simply by natural processes. Science can only look at what happened and is unable to come to any conclusion whether there is any metaphysical interference or not. We have to take it on faith either way. Science can only be agnostic and anything beyond that requires faith in something that has been unproven. I would imagine that there are many who have studied philosophy who would disagree with you.

Thanks WK. You are right of course. I do let myself get sucked in. Back to the OP. I think that the clearest answer to my question was given early on by mick. It sounds as if genetic research will not be able to trace human lineage beyond our common ancestor and his comment on the Genographic project is correct as well.

My genographic history has me with a M168 marker that takes me back to a common ancestor about 60,000 years ago. As I understand it everyone goes back to a common male ancestor out of Africa about 70,000 years ago.Are you saying that if they did a study of the genome of a group of great apes they could then use that study to trace our DNA back even further to a common ancestor of both species?As I said at the beginning, I was wondering if through the study of genetic history if we would be able to provide conclusive evidence for how evolution occurred. I do understand that through genetics they have proven that we aren't related to Neanderthal man.

Thanks a lot. That's a very interesting site and although the technical part is so far over my head that the Hubble telescope couldn't find it, the site does pretty much answer my question, (along with your response). It has to be an exciting time to be a scientist in any field. I envy you guys that are.So, I think the answer is that in the future there is a good possibility that the study of genetics will be able to trace our ancestory through a period of macroevolution.In your opinion it sounds like these studies could be fairly conclusive in confirming evolution eventually, but could they prove a negative as well if it were to turn out that macroevolution does not happen?