Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
If you search on for Michelle Obama in Google Image Search you will see a image a chimpanzee. Google removed the image but not its back. This time, Google bought a search ad explaining why the result is there and why Google cannot remove it:
Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.
Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.
The Google Team
Michelle Obama Monkey Faces Nearly 99 percent alike in genetic makeup, chimpanzees and humans might be even more similar were it not for what researchers call “lifestyle” changes in the 6 million years that separate us from a common ancestor. Specifically, two key differences are how humans and chimps perceive smells and what we eat.
A massive gene-comparison project involving two Cornell scientists, and reported in the journal Science (Dec. 12, 2003), found these and many other differences in a search for evidence of accelerated evolution and positive selection in the genetic history of humans and chimps.
In the most comprehensive comparison to date of the genetic differences between two primates, the genomic analysts found evidence of positive selection in genes involved in olfaction, or the ability to sense and process information about odors. “Human and chimpanzee sequences are so similar, we were not sure that this kind of analysis would be informative,” said evolutionary geneticist Andrew G. Clark, Cornell professor of molecular biology and genetics. “But we found hundreds of genes showing a pattern of sequence change consistent with adaptive evolution occurring in human ancestors.” Those genes are involved in the sense of smell, in digestion, in long-bone growth, in hairiness and in hearing. “It is a treasure-trove of ideas to test by more careful comparison of human and chimpanzee development and physiology,” Clark said.
The DNA sequencing of the chimpanzee was performed by Celera Genomics, in Rockville, Md., as part of a larger study of human variation headed by company researchers Michele Cargill and Mark Adams.
Celera generated some 18 million DNA sequence “reads,” or about two-thirds as many as were required for the first sequencing of the human genome. Statistical modeling and computation was done by Clark and by Rasmus Nielsen, a Cornell assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology. Some of the analysis, which also compared the mouse genome, used the supercomputer cluster at the Cornell Theory Center.
Clark explained: “By lining up the human and chimpanzee gene sequences with those of the mouse, we thought we might be able to find genes that are evolving especially quickly in humans. In a sense, this method asks: What are the genes that make us human? Or rather, what genes were selected by natural selection to result in differences between humans and chimps?”
The study started with almost 23,000 genes, but this number fell to 7,645 because of the need to be sure that the right human, chimp and mouse genes were aligned.
“The signature of positive selection is very strong in both humans and chimps for tuning the sense of smell, probably because of its importance in finding food and perhaps mates,” said Clark. In addition to the great departure in smell perception, differences in amino acid metabolism also seem to affect chimps’ and humans’ abilities to digest dietary protein and could date back to the time when early humans began eating more meat, Clark speculated. Anthropologists believe that this occurred around 2 million years ago, in concert with a major climate change.
“This study also gives tantalizing clues to an even more complex difference — the ability to speak and understand language,” Clark said. “Perhaps some of the genes that enable humans to understand speech work not only in the brain, but also are involved in hearing.”
Evidence for this came from a particularly strong sign of selection acting on the gene that codes for an obscure protein in the tectorial membrane of the inner ear. One form of congenital deafness in humans is caused by mutations to this gene, called alpha tectorin.
Mutations in alpha tectorin result in poor frequency response of the ear, making it hard to understand speech. “It’s something like replacing the soundboard of a Stradivarius violin with a piece of plywood,” Clark noted. The large divergence between humans and chimps in alpha tectorin, he said, could imply that humans needed to tune the protein for specific attributes of their sense of hearing. This leads Clark to wonder whether one of the difficulties in training chimpanzees to understand human speech is that their hearing is not quite up to the task. Although studies of chimpanzee hearing have been done, detailed tests of their transient response have not been carried out.
Clark emphasized that a study like this cannot prove that the biology of humans and chimps differ because of this or that particular gene. “But it generates many hypotheses that can be tested to yield insight into exactly why only 1 percent in DNA sequence difference makes us such different beasts,” he said.
Also collaborating in the study were researchers at Applied Biosystems (Foster City, Calif.), Celera Diagnostics (Alameda, Calif.) and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. The Science report is titled “Inferring non-neutral evolution from human-chimp-mouse orthologous gene trios.”
What do you think about a Chimpanzee representing Michelle Obama on search engines? Don’t bring in your racist opinions George Bush has the same images floating around search engines also. Why do we suppress creative art related to the OBAMAS.
Join On Twitter
Click On Links:
Michelle Obama’s Face Lift/Bleached Skin
Michelle Obama Announces Childhood Obesity Guidelines
Obama’s Misress Vera Baker
Michelle Obama Monkey Faces
Michelle Obama Looks Like Cheeta
Did Michelle Obama Trigger Wave Of Eating Disorders?
Michelle Obamas Pot Belly
Michelle Obama On Hawaii Beach For Christmas
Michelle Obama Barbara Walters Most Fascinating Person Of 2009
Michelle Obama Sliding In The Polls
Michelle Obama Called Ghetto Girl
Michelle Obamas Weight Problem
Scott Baio Michelle Obama Joke
Michelle Obama’s Arms
Michelle Obama’s Short-Shorts
Michelle Obama’s New Hair Style
Michelle Obama Wax figure
Michelle Obama’s Fashion
Michelle Obama Touches Queen Elizabeth
Michelle Obama On The Cover Of Glamour Magazine