Human Species 'May Split In Two'

[RedWine]

Human species 'may split in two'


Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

Race 'ironed out'

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.



http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7777/42207552evolution4hf1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Receding chins

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.

He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

[zubin]

This assumes that human culture will be so degenerate as to not provide mechanisms for equality and collective prosperity. I find no basis for this prediction (in fact it seems to me like a misinterpretation of evolution and an arbitrary, inaccurately based and cruel social darwinism).

[zubin]

An other assumption that it makes is that attraction is due to different genes, which though many psychologists and laypeople believe is true, is probably a very exaggerated finding. There's a lot of evidence that a person's confidence brings sexual attraction.

[indian_blues]

i think this is scrap..total nonsense. human race will be exterminated by themselves in the near future...thats sure.

[RedWine]

i think this is scrap..total nonsense. human race will be exterminated by themselves in the near future...thats sure.

Why you are so sure about that ?

[golgol85]

This is bogus, but funny to think of. Those who are pretty or handsome do have an edge over those who are not as good looking when it comes to just about everything. Lack of social skills will drag people backwards rather than forwards. I think Hari has a point though, the fate of the world looks grim.:(

[nedamm]

;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[zubin]

This is bogus, but funny to think of. Those who are pretty or handsome do have an edge over those who are not as good looking when it comes to just about everything. Lack of social skills will drag people backwards rather than forwards. I think Hari has a point though, the fate of the world looks grim.:(

grim, but what about improving?

[zubin]

I was also just curious about your definition of pretty/handsome.

[golgol85]

why would there need to be improvement when we have been on such a downward spiral? I am an optimistic person, but i still feel that we need to be realistic, if people from different countries decided to care about eachother then there is hope of improvement, otherwise grim wont even begin to explain what will happen when all the countries start attacking eachother due to lack of cooperation.

As for my definition of beautiful and handsome, i am speaking in strictly aesthetic terms here. I am not talking about inner beauty or thought or values. Personally, i feel that inner beauty is more important than outer beauty, because even the most gorgeous man becomes average when you live with him for a couple months, but his values have to be compatible with mine. In a man with similar values, he may not be the most handsome man but his actions and his big heart make him handsome to me. Maybe i think about things too simply or this would only apply in a utopian society, but i still maintain hope that someone good out there exists who can make me happy, but if by luck i dont find this person, i wont just settle. I went off on a bit of tangent, sorry.

Back to the topic mentioned here: this divergence wont happen because we have all seen the hot guy that married the ugly girl or vice versa. A mixture of genes will always be inevitable, so you cant segregate the good looking from the badlooking in terms of having a good looking upper class and an ugly lower class. Genetic recombination can make even the good looking couple have an ugly child, so this logic is just flawed.

[zubin]

That's interesting. I just don't think outwardly attraction is genetic but rather believe it is psychological and social. At least, the genetic difference that makes one more outwardly attractive than another is negligible. So I don't share your definition of prettiness, including the use the words of "hot/pretty/ugly etc" as objectively existing phenomena. But hey, difference in opinion is good right?

[mike435]

i dont no man when the world had scholars like plato it was a dirty and discusting world still

today with all the human rights awarness we are still more than ever on the brink of anailation

i have given up on imprvment

[golgol85]

I didnt say outward attraction is genetic, looks are genetic though. Attraction is a matter of preference. All I am saying is that when someone looks at another person, the physical looks of the person drive us to make judgements about them. For example, in an upper division psych class i took called woman and the body, it has beenproven that those who are fat are considered to be ugly and lazy, even if they are really not so. The fact that they are fat makes people assume they are lazy and look at them as ugly. They are also viewed as stupid because it appears they cant see the health risks associated with being fat. We live in a world where people are judged by their looks, the better looking person gets the job with higher pay even if they dont have the credentials soley because of their looks. Better looking people are viewed as more competent, eventhough again this sterotype may not hold true in all cases.

[zubin]

Psychology is a young science, though there are better interpretations coming out. To say a person's weight causes us to view them as lazy neglects the fact that it doesn't cause this reaction with every person. There is a beliefs and social factor in every human that causes some people to be prejudiced. In other words, we can recognize two basic factors: the person's looks combined with different beliefs/societies. But the beliefs/societies factor is what counts because that is what is actually tilting a person's view from prejudiced to non-prejudiced and vice versa.

I just want to let you know that psychology can be a very politically biased and unscientific science sometimes. Unfortunately, the true science of psychology is largely ignored because it goes against many political ideologies. Mainstream psychology like in most classes is biased by neo-liberalism as social factors are not given their proper weight and analysis.

[mike435]

I didnt say outward attraction is genetic, looks are genetic though. Attraction is a matter of preference. All I am saying is that when someone looks at another person, the physical looks of the person drive us to make judgements about them. For example, in an upper division psych class i took called woman and the body, it has beenproven that those who are fat are considered to be ugly and lazy, even if they are really not so. The fact that they are fat makes people assume they are lazy and look at them as ugly. They are also viewed as stupid because it appears they cant see the health risks associated with being fat. We live in a world where people are judged by their looks, the better looking person gets the job with higher pay even if they dont have the credentials soley because of their looks. Better looking people are viewed as more competent, eventhough again this sterotype may not hold true in all cases.

you are right about that about both sexes

but you have to concider that some of it is based on truths two

my own example in one year we went throgh 3 employes

i promis with out prejudice i chose people and after the year i noticed the fat ones were lazy i swear i am not kidding
at the same time the skinny guy was lazy to but the fat guy was lazier

but sadly what you said is true

[golgol85]

you look for the laziness in the fat guy though since you EXPECT him to be lazy. For the white guy, aval you give him the benefit of the doubt and he gets to prove you wrong by showing you he is in fact lazy but the fact man is not given the same chance. mardom aghleshoon be cheshmeshooneh.

[mike435]

Psychology is a young science, though there are better interpretations coming out. To say a person's weight causes us to view them as lazy neglects the fact that it doesn't cause this reaction with every person. There is a beliefs and social factor in every human that causes some people to be prejudiced. In other words, we can recognize two basic factors: the person's looks combined with different beliefs/societies. But the beliefs/societies factor is what counts because that is what is actually tilting a person's view from prejudiced to non-prejudiced and vice versa.

I just want to let you know that psychology can be a very politically biased and unscientific science sometimes. Unfortunately, the true science of psychology is largely ignored because it goes against many political ideologies. Mainstream psychology like in most classes is biased by neo-liberalism as social factors are not given their proper weight and analysis.

man go live in a cave at least their you may fined some unbiased enviorment

dud everything can be biased, that doesent mean you have to dissmiss it becuase it could be potentialy biase plus you can never be totaly objactive unless you make every one the same veil of ignorance if everyone weres it

also absolutly your right phys is only 100 years old and that for a scince is nothing

but what golgol says is right people are treated diffrantly becuase of the way they look and that is becuase they are conditioned to do so
why when ever i say computer nerd you imediatly think of an aisian kid

or when i say whitecolor criminal you thin kof some white guy

or basket ball athlete you think of a black man

even thogh their is no natural predespesition to any "race" to be what they are

blacks can be computer nerds
white color criminals can be native americans
basketball player can be ahmadinejad look a like

you see how foreigh these ideas are it is becuase we are conditioned in to thinking like this becuase we get our conditioning from experiances

you ussualy do see a computer nerd being aisian
basketball player being black

[zubin]

man go live in a cave at least their you may fined some unbiased enviorment

dud everything can be biased, that doesent mean you have to dissmiss it becuase it could be potentialy biase plus you can never be totaly objactive unless you make every one the same veil of ignorance if everyone weres it

also absolutly your right phys is only 100 years old and that for a scince is nothing

Psychology is a science, but is a science in the Marxist sense more than clinical or Kantian sense, in that it is controlled most by the environment than anything else. This is now proven and you can detect biased observations on the basis of this finding.

[golgol85]

Mike the point is that our biases can lead us to wrong conclusions, but there will always be some biases somewhere along the way. The best way to understand any given subject is to look at it from all points of view, to try to argue against what you believe to have a wholistic view of the particular subject.

Psychology involves the brain and the brain is quite complex, it may be a new science and it has a long way to becoming fully developed, but there is much to be learned from psychology even now. Every field of work requires some knowledge of psychology: from being a sales person to a doctor to a lawyer to a hairstylist.

[mike435]

you look for the laziness in the fat guy though since you EXPECT him to be lazy. For the white guy, aval you give him the benefit of the doubt and he gets to prove you wrong by showing you he is in fact lazy but the fact man is not given the same chance. mardom aghleshoon be cheshmeshooneh.

exactly
perfect

[mike435]

i updated post 17 while you guys were responding to it

[zubin]

I'm confused. Do you agree that physical attraction is mostly not innate/fixed at birth and is a result of culture, upbringing, experience, conditioning, in one word, environment?

[mike435]

i think it is both

i would say enviorment
but than right when i come to say it
you remeber natural butey

forexampel porportion is beutiful and that is regardless of enviorment
and you look at the animal kingdom and they know beuty

you look at nature and their are some sence that give the feeling of serinity and beuty while others oposte
so both

[golgol85]

I'm confused. Do you agree that physical attraction is mostly not innate/fixed at birth and is a result of culture, upbringing, experience, conditioning, in one word, environment?

have you seen anyone who doesnt like a pretty or handsome face? We all like to look at pretty things, if we say we dont we are lying. Physical attraction and beauty may be judged differently in different cultures, so yes the environment does influence what is viewed as beautiful. For example, in some african cultures long necks are viewed as beautiful so they women elongate their necks with necklaces. We might find that to be a deformity, but to them its a sign of class and beauty. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldnt hold more true. Different people are attracted to eachother, based on what each find to be attractive.

[zubin]

have you seen anyone who doesnt like a pretty or handsome face? We all like to look at pretty things, if we say we dont we are lying. Physical attraction and beauty may be judged differently in different cultures, so yes the environment does influence what is viewed as beautiful. For example, in some african cultures long necks are viewed as beautiful so they women elongate their necks with necklaces. We might find that to be a deformity, but to them its a sign of class and beauty. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldnt hold more true. Different people are attracted to eachother, based on what each find to be attractive.

Given what you are yourself saying then there is no such thing as "pretty" and "handsome" in the exclusive sense. We can't say one person is "pretty" and another "handsome" in comparison to another because the opposite will be true for someone else. Yet, this is how the term is most often used.

There is also an alternative explanation. Inner beauty is outer beauty, and there is no distinction. I think you are interested in evolutionary logic and the evolutionary logic is that when we understand someone, they become beautiful. When we don't understand someone, they are ugly or negative because we don't understand it and can't trust it for our own protection and survival. People bias themselves and mystify human beings based on media definitions of beauty and ugliness and this is simply a bias and does not point to any real beauty. The real beauty comes out when we understand the person, which is helped when that person makes him/herself clear through his/her confidence level and ingenuity. Confidence and ingenuity are also reinforced for those who are more accepted through those same arbitrary media and cultural devices.

[mike435]

have you seen anyone who doesnt like a pretty or handsome face? We all like to look at pretty things, if we say we dont we are lying. Physical attraction and beauty may be judged differently in different cultures, so yes the environment does influence what is viewed as beautiful. For example, in some african cultures long necks are viewed as beautiful so they women elongate their necks with necklaces. We might find that to be a deformity, but to them its a sign of class and beauty. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldnt hold more true. Different people are attracted to eachother, based on what each find to be attractive.


but do you agree that there are some universal beuties

see i think what joubin is saying that we like buty becuase we are told to like it and that is why we like it and you said that to

i think that regardless of enviormet naturaly we would like some aspects that we fined beutiful regardless of letsay big neck means better offspiring so i fined big necks beutiful

i thik there are some instances that we fine beuty for the sake of buty somthing is beutiful because it is beutiful nothing else

[abadani69]

Mike and Golgol, please do not argue. I have seen in few threads that you guys have been argueing. As I said before, if you guys wanna argue or even kill each other, plz do it in the PM. Respect the subject of threads and other people here.

Thanks for participation!! ;)

[zubin]

Bebakhsheed, vali Agha Arman. Eenja discussion forume ya na? Een do ta daran raje be yek mozue marbut be thread goftegu meekonan. Agar taghseere kesiye taghseere mane ke discussion ro baraye een do nafar shoru kardam. Osulan ma se nafar az bahso goftegu khoshemun meeyad va agar ghadeghane lotfan moshakhas koneed. Begeed eenja baraye discussion neest moshakhasesh koneed.

[abadani69]

Khob aslan be man che, bezanid aslan hamdige ro bokoshid, taze injoori 3ja halva mofti mikhorim vo vasatoon fataha mifrestim :D man ke nagoftam bahs nakonid, goftam argue nakonid :D yani laj vo lajbazi nakonid :D

[zubin]

rooye cheshm azizam. Vali tu een thread ke aslan laj bazi va zyadi ravi nashode moshakhase. aslan eena daran rajebe Zibaii harf meezanan. Bezar hal koneem agar aybi nadare!

[abadani69]

rahat baashid jigar. vali ino bedoonid ke har cheghadr ham raje be zibai harf bezanid hanooz khodam az hamatoon khoshgeltaram :D:D:D:D

[zubin]

hahaha. khosham omad. daset dard nakone aziz. Faghat movazeb bash momkene Nilofar ham ye javabi behet bede!

[zubin]

but do you agree that there are some universal beuties

see i think what joubin is saying that we like buty becuase we are told to like it and that is why we like it and you said that to

i think that regardless of enviormet naturaly we would like some aspects that we fined beutiful regardless of letsay big neck means better offspiring so i fined big necks beutiful

i thik there are some instances that we fine beuty for the sake of buty somthing is beutiful because it is beutiful nothing else

I think this is a great addition to the discussion, and for me almost completes the deal.

I do believe there is a pure beauty that exists objectively regardless of culture, and that this is something that can be found in every person. How I see it is that there is beauty and then there is beauty. My main point is that that objective beauty is not what people mean when they say beauty these days, and people are referring to mainly artificial, inaccurate and perhaps even cruel notions of beauty that are taught by media/capitalist Western culture.

How beauty is defined is through understanding, and there is empirical support for this. People find people who they understand to be attractive, but they think it is the looks of that person, not the understanding of that person, which has made them attracted. If you've heard of heuristics which there is like an infinate amount of evidence for, this mistake falls nicely into the heuristics evidence as well. It also works well with the observation that people find media representations as attractive, as media representations come with clarity and confidence that assist the understanding of that type of person, even assist in a person understanding themself and presenting him/herself more confidently and clearly.

There are evolutionary reasons for why understanding someone should be a source of attraction. If you don't understand someone, they pose a threat as their relation to you and seeing them as less attractive would signal that threat perfectly.

[mike435]

I think this is a great addition to the discussion, and for me almost completes the deal.

I do believe there is a pure beauty that exists objectively regardless of culture. How I see it is that there is beauty and then there is beauty. My main point is that that objective beauty is not what people mean when they say beauty these days, and people are referring to mainly artificial, inaccurate and perhaps even cruel notions of beauty that are taught by media/capitalist Western culture.


you have some points but not totaly
their are still many buties that arnt fake

[zubin]

you have some points but not totaly
their are still many buties that arnt fake

Mike, please pay just a little more attention to our posts. Honestly about half the time you misinterpret them, and I think that is one reason why abadani69 has complained against us on these forums. I never said all beauties are fake, and in fact I acknowledged that there is such a thing as "objective beauty that everyone has". My main point is that when regular people as well as today's psychologists talk about beauty, they are behind on the times and are referring to an erroneuous conception of beauty not the objective beauty that really exists.

I also edited post #33 to include a fuller explanation. Its really simple. You find what you understand attractive. Everyone can be understood but some more easily than others due to the cruel social darwinism that is enforced through Western media/culture.

Please try to respond to this without reading too much into it or misinterpreting it unless you think quantity is more important than quality.

[mike435]

cool
so i no longer have any objections or buts to it
so does this mean we are agreeing



wow is this what it feels like to be in agreement a feeling i havnt felt in a long time with joubin

intresting

[zubin]

Mike chakereem. But we are missing the other part of our bermuda triangle here. If we come to agreement on the topic with golgol as well, we should have like some kind of party or something! I'm sure abadani69 and everyone else will be happy as well. We'll invite them and have a big bash. (but no pressure Nilofar) :D

[mike435]

oh yea offcourse :)
cant wait for golgol to come and respond

[golgol85]

Dear Arman,
Mike and I are not arguing, we are exchanging ideas and we are keeping with the topics of each thread. Ramin is right, the three of us like to sit and talk about different things, its fun i suggest you join too, the more the merrier!:)

The way i interpret what Ramin is saying is that beauty has to do more with understanding the person rather than the physical outer appearance. Someone that we know better is better looking or more attractive than someone we dont know. I agree with you here. We all tend to make monsters out of those we dont like, and our interactions with them is what leads to our initial judgement that we dont like them. The people we dont like are never seen as "attractive" or beautiful in our eyes.

This goes along with heros and villains in stories: we usually bond more and know more about the hero and the villian is left to be more mysterious. The appearance of the hero is better than the villian in that there is something comfortable about the hero that makes most of us side with and empathize with the hero.

khob pesara, party key hastesh?;)

[zubin]

i think this is scrap..total nonsense. human race will be exterminated by themselves in the near future...thats sure.

interesting prediction. have you ever heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy? this means that when you make a prediction it actually comes true and my honest estimate is that about half of human behavior is influenced by SFP. Like you tell someone is a criminal and they become one. You tell someone they are not good in math they become bad in math and so on. That's why, even there is a chance of the world destructing itself, saying it is dangerous. Although, ignoring the danger is also dangerous, but there is no need to ignore the danger and acknowledging dangers while not making SFP's solves the problem.

Although, ofcourse, I don't know the source of your statement.

[zubin]

Dear Arman,
Mike and I are not arguing, we are exchanging ideas and we are keeping with the topics of each thread. Ramin is right, the three of us like to sit and talk about different things, its fun i suggest you join too, the more the merrier!:)

The way i interpret what Ramin is saying is that beauty has to do more with understanding the person rather than the physical outer appearance. Someone that we know better is better looking or more attractive than someone we dont know. I agree with you here. We all tend to make monsters out of those we dont like, and our interactions with them is what leads to our initial judgement that we dont like them. The people we dont like are never seen as "attractive" or beautiful in our eyes.

This goes along with heros and villains in stories: we usually bond more and know more about the hero and the villian is left to be more mysterious. The appearance of the hero is better than the villian in that there is something comfortable about the hero that makes most of us side with and empathize with the hero.

khob pesara, party key hastesh?;)

hahaha. Kheyli khub shod. eeshala bezudi ye partye hesabi meezaneem. any suggestions?

[abadani69]

man zang mizanam monkerat biyan shoma ro begiran ke mikhaid party begirid :D

[golgol85]

im openminded when it comes to partying:)

[zubin]

ok, great, then can I expect you and Mike to come to Vancouver for the holidays? I'll promise you guys a very, very mashti party on top of Grouse Mountain with music and Kabab :D

also, I just had to get this out. That's a big milkshake you have there. The question is, will it ever end? :D

[golgol85]

haha, i cant speak for mike, but i wont be doing much traveling since the MCATS have been calling me for sometime. they left their calling card;)
Mike might be able to join, and then you can put me on the line and we can 3 way about any topic you guys feel like discussing. your invitation is so beautiful though, yade iran mano mindazeh.

about the milkshake, its was a gift and since i am a sharing person, you are more than welcome to have some too.:D

[zubin]

if Mike is down I'm down. and thank you for the bottomless milkshake offer.

[mike435]

i am down i just cant come over their
if i come can i bring my hooka

[zubin]

definately!

[golgol85]

mike tamoome moshkelet bordane hooka hastesh? lord, you two are too funny:D Ramin, since mike and i are both here you should come down to cali and see us. mike and i would have to decide whether you would meet us in LA or OC, but i say we meet half way (since i like to be fair) and have you meet us there:) what do you say mike?

[indian_blues]

interesting prediction. have you ever heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy? this means that when you make a prediction it actually comes true and my honest estimate is that about half of human behavior is influenced by SFP. Like you tell someone is a criminal and they become one. You tell someone they are not good in math they become bad in math and so on. That's why, even there is a chance of the world destructing itself, saying it is dangerous. Although, ignoring the danger is also dangerous, but there is no need to ignore the danger and acknowledging dangers while not making SFP's solves the problem.

Although, ofcourse, I don't know the source of your statement.

u mean "Attraction"? ive seen a great video called "Secrets of Attraction". SFP concepts sounds similar to it. u r attracted to the things which u feel and believe strongly in the inner mind. ur words, feelings and beliefs are heard by the universe and responds according to it. we call the universe as God. we have a saying in tamil "theethum nanrum peerar thara vaara" it means good and bad are not got from others. oops i think im offtopic... :D

[mike435]

mike tamoome moshkelet bordane hooka hastesh? lord, you two are too funny:D Ramin, since mike and i are both here you should come down to cali and see us. mike and i would have to decide whether you would meet us in LA or OC, but i say we meet half way (since i like to be fair) and have you meet us there:) what do you say mike?


i hafve friends who go to oc
i come their once in a while

[golgol85]

khob pas, it looks like mike dareh ba zabooneh bi zabooni migeh miyad Ramin.:D Now all we need is for you to say you will try to come down, and we have a party, although Irvine isnt very alive, if you really want to party I am sure mike knows some good places in LA with lots of iroonis.

[mike435]

khob pas, it looks like mike dareh ba zabooneh bi zabooni migeh miyad Ramin.:D Now all we need is for you to say you will try to come down, and we have a party, although Irvine isnt very alive, if you really want to party I am sure mike knows some good places in LA with lots of iroonis.


tell you the truth i dont know anyplaces with iroonies in la
maybe except the hooa shops in westwood
i just hangout with a group of close friends
and parties and bigger events are ussualy just perty much the same crowed. life for me its like being in a small town that has a lot of people but everyone knows everone else

sadly the only persian culture i get is persian music and persian food ans somtimes my relatives rants about how good they had it in iran.
i dono i think the iranian community in la is very to khodeshoon
thats why i like this forum so much it fills that void

[RedWine]

BLOOMINGTON, IN, United States (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests the genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans might be much more substantial than has been thought.

Scientists at Indiana University-Bloomington have determined approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to each species, taking into account a fact other genetic studies do not -- the genes that aren`t there.

Indiana University computational biologist Matthew Hahn, who led the study with researcher Jeffery Demuth, said the study does not dispute the commonly reported 1.5 percent nucleotide-by-nucleotide difference between humans and chimps.

'Both estimates are correct in their own way,' Hahn said. 'It depends on what you`re asking. There isn`t a single, standard estimate of variation that incorporates all the ways humans, chimps and other animals can be genetically different from each other.'

The scientists also surveyed gene families common to both humans and chimps and observed in the human genome a significant increase in the duplication of genes that influence brain functions.

That, said Hahn, suggests duplication and loss of genes plays a bigger role in human evolution than changes within single genes.

The study appears in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE.

[RedWine]

A Western Lowland gorilla cradles her newborn baby, who was conceived with fertility treatment normally used on women.

The birth is believed to be the first fertility treatment for gorillas of its kind.

However, the baby is yet to be named or sexed because her mother Salome, 30, has so far held her new-born so close to her body.

Though this is Salome's second baby, it has been nearly 20 years since her first was born. It is suckling after being born on Dec 15.

The treatment was developed and administered by Sharon Redrobe, Head of Veterinary Services, at Bristol Zoo Gardens, and heralds a new advance in the understanding of captive breeding for the species.

Dr Bryan Carroll, deputy director, said that for the first time, the condition known as diminished ovarian reserve – a premature menopause condition also affecting fertility in humans – has been diagnosed and treated in gorillas, using methods and medicine that still allowed for natural mating. However, he said it is a critical time for mother and baby. "We are concerned that the baby looks a bit small so may be premature. The mother seems to be taking a bit longer than normal to recover from the birth, so we are monitoring things closely."

Although Salome was appearing to mate successfully vets found that she had not been ovulating.

Redrobe consulted gynaecologist David Cahill, Senior Consultant Lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Bristol.

Following discussions it was decided to lace her yoghurt with crushed up pills containing clomifene, a common fertility drug used by women to kick-start ovulation by blocking the action of the hormone oestrogen.

Mel Gage, Senior Overseer of Primates at Bristol Zoo Gardens, said: "This is such a great end to the year. To have a second successful gorilla birth at the Zoo and to know that clomifene can be used in the fertility treatment of gorillas is a major boost to the international breeding programme for these magnificent animals.

"The new baby is incredibly cute and Salome is being a very attentive mum while father Jock is being very protective of his family troop. We couldn't have hoped for more."

The gorillas at Bristol are part of the European breeding programme for this threatened species.

Dr Jo Gipps, Director of Bristol Zoo Gardens, said: "Salome's baby represents an important contribution to the next generation of gorillas and hope for the long-term conservation of these incredible creatures.

"Sadly Western Lowland Gorillas are facing serious losses in the wild caused by a number of issues including forest destruction for logging, diseases such as the recent outbreak of ebola and the terrible slaughter of primates for the illegal bush meat trade. The Zoo's conservation efforts are mirrored by our support of and work with the Cameroon Wildlife Aid Fund, which cares for gorillas and chimpanzees orphaned by the illegal trade in bush meat. "

Visitors will - if they are fortunate - be able to see Salome and her new baby on Bristol Zoo Gardens' Gorilla Island, where they can also learn about the Zoo's conservation work.

Bristol Zoo also does extensive conservation work in Cameroon, at the zoo in the capital, Yaoundé, at a sanctuary for young gorillas and chimpanzees orphaned by the illegal trade in bush meat, and in a communication education programme in villages in South East Cameroon where gorillas in the wild coexist with humans.

Bristol Zoo Gardens is also home to Salome's companion, Romina, famous for undergoing the first ever cataract operation performed in Europe on an adult gorilla. This enabled her to interact more effectively with the other gorillas and resulted in the birth of Namoki in 2005 following her mating successfully with the 24-year-old silverback male Jock who is now proud father of two.