Apparently, our ancestors and chimps just couldn't keep their hands off each other:

The researchers, from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, propose that humans and chimpanzees first split up about 10 million years ago. Then, after evolving in different directions for about 4 million years, they got back together for a brief fling that produced a third, hybrid population with characteristics of both lines.

That genetic collaboration then gave rise to two separate branches, one leading to humans and the other to chimps.

This will no doubt drive the creationists ape.

[Via The Speculist]

I would say not. Those of us that "cling" to our "irrational belief" in Creation, think somewhere the DNA research will be found to have a hole in it.

Personaly, I believe I'll learn that particular truth when I get issued my harp and hymn book at the pearly gates.

I agree Steve, there are many things that researchers "propose" to be true that turn out not to be. Just like the researchers who propose that global warming is a man made issue, while having little if any proof that it be so.

I would say not. Those of us that "cling" to our "irrational belief" in Creation, think somewhere the DNA research will be found to have a hole in it.

Well, what does "Creation" mean? How does this preclude being related to monkeys and the rest of life on Earth? What was the process by which Creation occured?

I just am baffled by the hubris of people who claim to be humble worshippers of God yet supposedly know how God did or didn't do things. Let us note that no religion work including the Bible actually describes the process by which God created the universe (nor were any of these works written by someone who could understand the process even if they were so informed) and there's plenty of evidence lying around which supports the theory of evolution as the process by which life came to its present form. I might add that abiogenesis seems a fair theory for describing how life came about in the first place.

Karl,
my "hubris", is a gained reflex to a book I have read repeatedly. I believe it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I did not come up with my ideas while window shopping, nor while whistling in the dark. As to being humble, not my style. I should be humble, but I lean more toward arrogant, self assured, opinionated and loud. I try to work on those things daily.

You say:

Let us note that no religion work including the Bible actually describes the process by which God created...

I think the word you meant was religious. But my bible does say how it was done. It says he, God, CREATED. It doesn't say baked, built, molded, pushed, stacked, selected, sorted or any other verb.

That, Karl, is why we are called Creationists, we believe God has the almighty power to create from nothing. The fact that I don't understand how this works, and yet believe it, I call faith.

I believe my bible, you don't. I like anchovies, most people don't. That's what makes the world go around, different people believing or liking different things. It seems it's also the cause of a great deal of our troubles.

As to your evidence, I have no idea how long God's days were. So the scientific timeline from the beginning of time to now I tend most times to agree with. A great deal of science I agree with, but this item I doubt. I won't even say disbelieve.

The bible says God said let there be light. Scientest say the universe began when all the matter that existed was in one ball in the center of nowhere. The matter spread out after the Big Bang. Karl, I've seen just about every size expolsion that ever happened on earth. (gotta love cable tv huh?) I don't see how anyone who believes in the Big Bang, can see it didn't create plenty of light. I do believe in the Big Bang by the way. I don't see any inconsistency in joining Genisis and the Big Bang.

My being realted to monkeys or any other non-human life on earth is precluded by what I believe. My forbearers were created on a different day than the monkeys, and the rest of life.

That's my "belief", now show me your "proof".

Now I have had my turn again, the balls in your court.

Notice that I have twice posted here without calling anyone who doesn't believe as I do any names or defaming them in anyway.

You, sir cannot say that.

There are many religions in the world, all mutually inconsistent. At least N minus 1 of these fervent groups of believers (N = number of distinct religions) must be wrong. We just don't know which.

Steve, given that large numbers of people fervently believe in things, just like you do, but that most of them must be mistaken, how do you know that you're not also mistaken? These people have their holy texts they will point to, just as you do.

Why would Steve (or anyone else) explain his beliefs to someone who will not even sign his/her name to his/her beliefs?

To the unknown poster:

most of them must be mistaken, how do you know that you're not also mistaken

There are N competing theories for the origin of the universe, only one of them can be right. Yet somehow we don't throw out science! Everyone brings their knowlege and experience to the table - we disagree, but by learning from each other we make progress. (Except for the idoits that insist on blowing things up - but in the world according to me, hate is not a religion).

Dear unknown,
like the rest of the "unsure", I place my dis-beliefs down and use my faith. I agree, somebody is wrong, I think it's everyody else, they in turn, individually think it's everyone but them.

There are few people of faith, who don't have doubts. Regardless of their religioius beliefs, doubt is with them.

Do a web search of "heal my doubts" and see how many hits you get.

Are all scientists sure of every theory they postulate? If that were the case they wouldn't go chasing grant money to prove the big bang, evolution or that humans s3xed up some chimps. I'll bet, they are looking for more money as we speak to "look deeper" into this topic as we type.

Is every paleoanthroplogist onboard with the results of this study? I don't think so. Why don't they believe, they DOUBT, the results or the collection sample size or some aspect of the report.

Ok, here's an outline of the evidence that humans are related to primates, particularly chimpanzees. First, the basic precepts of evolution are pretty well established. There are inheritable traits. We know that DNA conains most, if not all of the necessary information to create all but a few RNA-based bacteria and viruses. Further, numerous ways of introducing changes in this genetic information have been discovered over the years. Finally, we have selection, namely that these inheritable traits do modify an organism's chances of propagating.

Physiologically humans are very similar to primates. We have the same general body form with grasping hands, large brain, two arms and two legs, etc. Behaviorly, we're very similar to the more intelligent primates like chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. Facial expressions are very similar and mean pretty much the same thing. It's important to note that no non-primate exhibits these sorts of similarities.

Now we get to the genetic evidence. Comparing genetic sequences is rather difficult since genetic material can and does get shuffled around. Even chromosome count can change. All which has been observed in humans. Great apes have 48 chromosomes while humans have only 46. So the usual process is to identify similar markers in the sets of chromosomes and see how they differ.

My understanding is that they've tried a number of different approaches here and arrive with consistent answers. In any case, once one has done these sorts of measurements, you can then construct a genetic "distance" based on how many markers two organisms share.

By these measures, these species are very similar genetically to humans while organisms that appear different physiologically are more distant genetically. Consistent with what you'd expect, if humans and primates were related and more closely so than humans with other mammal, vertebrates, animals, and plants (in declining order of relatedness).

Also, measures of genetic drift have been determined from genetic testing of sets of current lineages of humans and other animals that we know or have a good idea were closely related in the near past (say last 10,000 years). One can use that to construct a statistical estimate of how much genetic drift would occur over the few million year period that humans and chimpanzees allegedly diverged from each other. Supposedly this genetic drift over the proposed period of time is consistent with the amount of difference between humans and chimpanzees.

Then we go to the fossil record. There is a record of both humans and the chimpanzee that go backwards to an apparent common ancestor. Gradual changes in skeletal structure can be seen in these fossil records. This is again consistent with the assertion that humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor.

There are N competing theories for the origin of the universe, only one of them can be right. Yet somehow we don't throw out science!

That's because science answers the question that was posed -- 'how do you know?' -- by pointing to the observational evidence, and by noting that when observational evidence is lacking, science does not provide any reason for, or expectation of, belief.

Why does anyone with any sort of scientific training take ID fanatics seriously at all?

I can offer three pieces of evidence for the feasibility of evolution.

First is the well-known peppered moth saga - a fairly prolific species radically changing its phenotype, and presumably genotype, in less than a century.

Second is the recent reports of increasing numbers of adult African elephants with no tusks. The selection pressure here I leave as an exercise for the student.

And third, the very fact that MRSA infection is becoming a serious problem in hospitals. I confess to a personal interest in this issue - about 4 years ago I nearly died of MRSA septicaemia.