Klik på en miniature for at gå til Google Books
|
Indlæser... Ancestors in Our Genome: The New Science of Human Evolution (2015)af Eugene E. Harris
   Ingen Der er ingen diskussionstråde på Snak om denne bog.  waltzmn | Dec 27, 2017 |   Genetic research and DNA sequencing have opened up a wide field of uses, and one of those is population genetics, the use of genetic evidence to determine the movements of entire groups. In Ancestors in Our Genome: The New Science of Human Evolution, Eugene E. Harris, a professor at NYU who studies human origins, explains how the information encoded in our genetic heritage can precisely track human evolution, including telling us which other species are our closest relatives and when we split off from the other species on the same branch of the evolutionary tree. This is a little more detailed than a general interest book on evolutionary biology, but that’s because it’s so loaded with information about what our genome can tell us ... Full review on Lit/Rant: http://litrant.tumblr.com/post/110983950785/ancestors-in-our-genome-the-new-scie... (  ) KelMunger | Mar 2, 2015 | ingen anmeldelser | tilføj en anmeldelse
In 2001, scientists were finally able to determine the full human genome sequence, and with the discovery began a genomic voyage back in time. Since then, we have sequenced the full genomes of a number of mankind's primate relatives at a remarkable rate. The genomes of the common chimpanzee (2005) and bonobo (2012), orangutan (2011), gorilla (2012), and macaque monkey (2007) have already been identified, and the determination of other primate genomes is well underway. Researchers are beginning to unravel our full genomic history, comparing it with closely related species to answer age-old questions about how and when we evolved. For the first time, we are finding our own ancestors in our genome and are thereby gleaning new information about our evolutionary past. In Ancestors in Our Genome, molecular anthropologist Eugene E. Harris presents us with a complete and up-to-date account of the evolution of the human genome and our species. Written from the perspective of population genetics, and in simple terms, the book traces human origins back to their source among our earliest human ancestors, and explains many of the most intriguing questions that genome scientists are currently working to answer. For example, what does the high level of discordance among the gene trees of humans and the African great apes tell us about our respective separations from our common ancestor? Was our separation from the apes fast or slow, and when and why did it occur? Where, when, and how did our modern species evolve? How do we search across genomes to find the genomic underpinnings of our large and complex brains and language abilities? How can we find the genomic bases for life at high altitudes, for lactose tolerance, resistance to disease, and for our different skin pigmentations? How and when did we interbreed with Neandertals and the recently discovered ancient Denisovans of Asia? Harris draws upon extensive experience researching primate evolution in order to deliver a lively and thorough history of human evolution. Ancestors in Our Genome is the most complete discussion of our current understanding of the human genome available. No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsIngenPopulære omslag
 Google Books — Indlæser...GenrerMelvil Decimal System (DDC)611.018166Technology Medicine and health Anatomy Anatomy Theory of Anatomy Histology Cells CentrosomeLC-klassificeringVurderingGennemsnit: (3.79)
Er det dig?Bliv LibraryThing-forfatter. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1
I have the feeling I'm just the sort of reader author Harris doesn't want. I know a significant amount about evolutionary biology and stemmatics, but not enough to be expert. That means that I can see certain weak points and errors in his presentation, but at other times don't find his explanation sufficient and don't know enough to fill it in.
A sample error, or weak point, or something: At one point in the book, a study was being done to determine the relatedness of modern humans and Neandertals. For comparison, the genome of chimpanzees was included in the study. That's fine; that's a good study. But Harris describes the chimpanzee as being used to represent to common ancestor of humans, Neandertals, and chimpanzees. Well, guess what, folks: We are not descended from chimpanzees. Some time around six million years ago, two lineages split. One lineage gave rise to humans and Neandertals (and Homo erectus and Denisovans and all sorts of other things). The other gave rise to chimpanzees and bonobos. Both lineages have evolved for six million years since then. None of the surviving creatures is the same as our ancestor. Was this ancestor more like chimps than like us? Probably -- since chimps and bonobos are pretty similar, and what they have in common is pretty much like gorillas, so humans are the odd ones out in the ape family tree. But that is not proof. Chimps could be the outgroup in the comparison Harris describes; that's good methodology. But they are not a proxy for the common ancestor.
I'm pretty sure Harris knows better than that. He clearly knows a lot! But goofs like that interfere with the explanations on the book. For me, that's pretty jolting.
If you can live with that, there is one other warning: This book is being sold as a study of the relationship between humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans, and by implication as a study of how they interbred after (mostly) separating into separate species. There is some of that, but only a little, near the end. That's fair, really, since we don't have all that much evidence. We have only a few Neandertal and Denisovan genomes. On the other hand, we have plenty of individual humans' genomes, and those haven't been brought into play as well as they should have -- we should be looking at dozens of individuals' genes, not one or two, to see how much Neandertal DNA is still around. That's not Harris's fault, but it is a fault in the studies, and he doesn't bring it out.
There are just too many things like that in this book. It's a good book; don't get me wrong. But I felt like there was more that I wasn't getting. (