ScienceAndHumanOrigins-S

19 / 85

19
2. The tree was recently redrawn—and the terminology changed—to accommodate
sequence data that (mostly) places us in our own group with chimps. Previously the
same group was called the hominids, but that term now covers all great apes and us.
Some articles still use the older terminology. See
3. For more details on the subject, see chapter 3 on “Human Origins and the
Fossil Record” by Casey Luskin later in this volume.
4. Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique? (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 198.
5. For a discussion of one kind of rearrangement that is often used as
evidence for common descent, see chapter 4 by Casey Luskin on “Francis Collins,
Junk DNA, and Chromosomal Fusion.”
6. T. C. Wood, “The chimpanzee genome and the problem of biological
similarity,” Occas Papers of the BSG 7 (2006): 1–18; G. Glazko, et. al., “ Eighty
percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees,” Gene 346 (2005):
215–219; J. Cohen, “Relative differences: The myth of 1%,” Science 316 (2007):
1836.
7. A. K. Gauger and D. D. Axe, “ The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme
functions: A case study from the biotin pathway,” BIO-Complexity 2, no. 1 (2011):
1 – 17.
8. Ibid.
9. Douglas Axe amplifies this story to underscore the insufficiency of the
neo-Darwinian engine to drive evolutionary change in the next chapter.
10. D. M. Bramble and D. E. Lieberman, “Endurance running and the evolution of
Homo,” Nature 432 (2004): 345–352.
11. “Lucy” is 40% complete as a skeleton, with only a thigh bone and partial
pelvis to reconstruct her lower limbs, while “Turkana boy” is missing only the
hands and feet.