Mutant Gene Responsible for Speech?

An anonymous submitter writes: "A new study published in Nature reports that humans developed speech and language 200,000 years ago as a result of gene mutation. Washington Post story with more background. The mutation in the FOXP2 gene allowed humans greater control over their mouth and throat muscles, and gave them the ability to produce new sounds. It was apparently such an advantageous mutation that it quickly swept through the human population (10,000 - 20,000 years) almost entirely wiping out earlier versions. This development seems to also match up closely with the time period humans began developing culture. Researchers next want to try altering the gene in mice to see what happens, although they suspect there are many other genes involved. So, how long until I can get a talking dog?"

Comments

Beating the Slashdot Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

A. Purpose of this guide.

Firstly, this isn't a joke guide. All the methods described here are working, and with not too much difficulties.

Don't expect that you will be able to lay a girl in one week. Not with this guide anyway. If you have the time, patience, and some manners, you will succeed.

I don't pretend to be a big expert in girls; I'm not. But after some experience with them, I can provide you some information that can help you, with the first moves between he's and her's business.

I will happily update this guide and improve it, with your help, of course. Please send me comments and please help to make it better.

B. The first meets

I believe you have a girlfriend you can experiment with. If you don't, find one. For those purposes, every mid looking girl will suit. Every one can owe a girlfriend, and it's not the time and place to explain how to reach one. (maybe in the next "completed guide of...").

If you don't have a girlfriend yet, at least try to achieve a meet with one.

If you want to continue seeing this girl you have to remember the following:

* Don't make a physical connection on the first dates (don't kiss her goodbye and don't hug her )

* Let her talk. If she has a lot to say - just listen. A node with the head and some leading questions will do.

* If she is permanently silent you can always ask her about:
- herself (hobbies ext.)
- school (although it seems to be boring, you can talk hours on this subject)
- her musical prefers (If she mentions an artist that you dislike, don't show it to her. Just hide it.
- tell her about yourself.
- ask her if she knows x & y from her school.
- and the most important: don't answer with yes or no. those above are chat-stoppers. Expand you speech.
- tell her jokes
- remember to have a lot of humour - they like it.
- very important : don't be serious.
- Mind your manners: don't talk rudely nor curse.
- smile : release the tense.

If all the above fail, and you can't find common language with her, you Probably won't keep with her long time.

* Where to go at the first time:

- movie (let her choose, but don't insist on doing so) You can talk about the movie latter. Pay for you both. (as it's obvious). If she's ok, she will insist on paying on herself.
- go for a walk
- meet at one of your homes. (It's better on her home - she'll feel more relaxed and free)
- party : if available
- School - only if you learn in the same school

* If you enjoyed her company, tell her so. Tell her that you enjoyed, and you want to see her again. Before the end of the meet, fix yourselves a new date (fix it on the same evening)exchange telephones, ofcourse.

* Flatter her, but know your limits. Flatter to her nice sides. (Every one has some). Tell her how nice she is. Flatter to her looks (If you at least find her attractive). Don't say to her "You are the most beautiful girl I ever so"- It sounds non-natural.(She's Probably not.)

* If she plays (love-games) a little - please understand. we'll close the bills later...

* Don't bother her with too much telephone calls. Be cool at the first meets, or she'll take advantage over you. Show her you interested, but not desperate.

How will you know if you are friends or not? here are some ways:

- Hear what her girlfriend thinks about your connection.(For instance: If she meets her girlfriend in the street, and the above askes if she is your girlfriend - hear what she says (it's an embarrassing moment - from experience...)
- Enter phrases that assume that she is you girlfriend in your talkes to her. (not infront of her and your friends) See how she react to those statements.

The first physical connection. There are two ways establishing it:

* The spontaneous way: Kiss her goodbye (not in the first date - she'll appreciate it if you'll have patience.) In the following date take you hands together. It's very romantic. Dance with her in one of your homes. Dance is a kind of hug, and it the middle of this slow song - kiss here. (she might be shy in public, so understand her, and do this critical steps in public garden or other quiet place.)

* The non-spontaneous way: Lead her to non-public and quiet place (i.e. garden) look in her eyes and silent for a moment or so. She, understanding the moment, will silent too. Approach her head with yours, and gently kiss her a few times on her mouth. Hug her. (BTW, this the recommended way).

By this time, if she is with you, you'll understand that she likes your company. If she didn't, you won't reach that stage. If she likes you (or love you - in the better case), she would more then hugs and kisses -- but don't hurry. You should have patience. You should reach the bed only by small steps.

C. Phase I - "I like you"

You (both) will start to say compliments to each other. Don't say you love her if you don't feel anything to her. Choose the right moment of doing so.

Imagine the situation: You tell her "I Love you.". She, likes you very much, but the way to love is still long. She will be in shocking situation. If she'll say "I love you too" and she doens't mean it - you will both leave in lie. If she'll be silent, you will Probably have bad feelings -- "She doesn't love me at all.."

You can say to her "I like you/your looks/your style." This isn't strong as "love". Love is very strong word. Don't use it when not needed.

Some guys say to their girls that they love them - They think she will jump to the bed right a way. Although she will try to show you her greetings, don't expect to much. She's just a girl, and if she is between younger then 16. she's Probably virgin.

Bring her flowers & presents some time - it will mean very much to her. If you like to write, write her love letters. Bring her audio cassette with love songs - she'll remember you and connect you to them.

D. Phase II The body language

You are now on the kings way.

You should talk about sex by this time. Ask her what she thinks about it. (Don't involve doing sex with YOU). Ask her about sex generally. Ask her what is the appropriate age for doing it.

Start investigating her body - only in one of your homes. After you kiss her you should get to a situation where you are laying one infront of another (on the bed)

Let your hand travel over her body Don't touch between her legs - do the things in the order below.

Sneak you hand under her skirt and pat her back. If she wears a bra put you hand under the stripe (the one above her back - but don't open it - let your hand travel under the bra surface and forward to her tits. Don't touch hard there - it hurts. If she resists get you hand out of there quickly. We will continue later with this. Give her 10 minutes of rest from the last event. Talk about something else. (Remember - Don't ask her why she resists. Just ignore.)

Another area you should quest is her ass. Pat it gently - Stack you hand gently under her trousers and move your hand more deeply every time. She'll Probably resist or do sounds of disagreement. Remember - Even if she says she's not - She like your touches there. By this time you should be friends for 1-2 months or so - you know each other enough for those games.

After few meets doing the above, you can try removing her bra. The fastest you do it-the better she won't say anything. Don't ask her too remove it by herself - You're on you own now. after you opened it, don't ask her to totally remove it (not at the first time, at least).

Now it's a very important moment. Remember to close the lights, and get blanket from somewhere. Move you hand down to the area of her cunt. (all with clothes, of course). Pat her near it - but don't touch it directly. She'll bag in her mind from you to do it. After a few minutes of doing so, (Don't forget to kiss her all the times...she's not a sex machine)

Move your hand directly to there. You might feel some bones there (and by this time you are wondering where the hall is)

Don't ask her if it's good to her. It is. Your touch there is just like an electrical shock - it's very pleasuring.

If she's OK, she will do the same to you, so you will both feel perfect understand of each other. She might resist to your touch, but -believe me- if you'll stop toucing there for a meet or so, she will curse herself. The next time you'll try - you won't hear a hiss.

Now...open her trousers. If she'll resist ask her what she afraids from. What can possibly happen? Start patting her cunt harder and with circulating movements. (she is still with her underwear -- don't remove it!)Have patience and control yourself. If she'll like what you are doing there, and she's OK, she will do the same to you. Don't hide your erect penis. You can't. But she'll will be amazed from the quick reaction...

Now your hand is there - circulating over her underwear. The best way of directly touching it is to "accidently" insert a finger under her underwear. (Do it from her legs side) She want resist...don't insert a finger in the hole - It can hurt even if she isn't virgin. Remove you fingers from there and insert full hand from her stomach side. Lay your forehand on her hair, and let the fingers play a little down there. Try to locate her clitoris - this is the mega power station of emotions... (Open the little lips of her cunt and travel up until they meet (the lips) there should be there an small organ (About 2-3 cm) - remember:Don't touch there to long - it is the most enjoying organ there, but it's not the only.

Don't forget to kiss her all the times. You can lick her tits nipples (not all the girls will let you doing so in that stage)Kiss her under her neck and lick her hear.

Continue touching her there. The lights are off, but try to look if her eyes are closed. If they are - she's enjoying. If not, continue patting her there - her eyes will be closed immediately.

Try to concentrate on her (girls like attention) but if she wants to pleasure you let her doing so. Remember - don't expect to much from her. You are the leader in the bed.

Try to give her an orgasm. A few minutes of direct squeezes at her clitoris will do. If it doesn't - ask her what will make her good there. Let her instruct you, but don't insist on it. If she has a serial of convulsions - she reached it (with your help of course). After that she will feel free to do it to you...

After the next meet she will take a talk with you. She'll say that she don't like what you've reached ("..I think we are getting to much close to it..."). Ask her "What do you afraid of?? You had fun didn't you? Look. I don't rowing anywhere. I don't know if I want to it yet (I mean full sex)". She'll be convinced. She won't start with it when you are doing so- she have to much pleasure...

You are both naked now, beside of your underwear (I hope). Now - lay on her. Curse the existence of your lower underwear - Loudly. Lay her on her back. Massage her for 10 minutes. Kiss her back. Now - Remove her underwear completely - she'll fill safe because she is on her stomach. (No danger of actual intercourse). Remove your pants. Lay on her (She still upside down -remember?) She will Probably feel great and hot. Rub your penis against her ass chicks. Say to her "would you like me to take some safety percations?". She'll say "What do you mean?" answer her: "I almost finished...". Pull a condom from somewhere (I bet it waited a long time...)and put it. Lay again over her and make some moves. Now - Rotate her so she'll lay on her back again. Lay over her. Fiddle with her cunt a little and try to insert your penis. If she'll say "don't insert" - say "ok", wait and retry.

If it doesn't enter, open her lips with your two hands and try again. If she is virgin, it will Probably hurt her a little so please be patient and if you are powerful, wait for the next meet. (In the next meet throw your parents of your house for the day). If it still hurts her, try to expend her virgin membrane with your fingers. (There IS a hole there - even if she is totally virgin. All you have to do is expend it a little).

What if it doesn't work - There are few possibilities:
- You tried to move too forward with not too much time.
- She's totally cold (Frigid). Find someone else.
- She isn't ready yet. Convince her. "What do you have to loose?" remember that you must make yourself credit from hers side
- She is afraid of pregnancy : Wait, or convince her that you will take a reliable anti-pregnancy device. (Tell her that you'll take condoms; If she's virgin, this is the only possibility).

If she is totally afraid, but want to try sexual intercourse, convince her to take anti-pregnancy pills. It is vey hard for anyone to admit befor a strange person that you're making sexual intercoures; try to understand. BTW, the doctors usually don't "insert hands" today. (They just test blood pressure and heart beat rate)

She will give you examples of girls that she READ about that used anti-pregnancy devices that failed; tell her "Did you hear about all the intercourses which didn't end with pregnancy ?" and "Why are you so negative about it? it's positive thing!"

- If all above fails and she still don't want it, wait. or....merry her...

All the procedure described here (From totally start) Should Take about 3 months. If you're thinking that you are moving to quick, slow the rate.

Re:Beating the Slashdot Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

It's trolls like this that make me proud to be a slashdot reader.

Keep on trollin'!

Re:Beating the Slashdot Effect

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

But you forget, this is slashdot, most of the dorks here dont even know where to find a girl. Hopefully this will help.

1. INTRO
In this report I will attempt to quantify the personality traits of the troubled teen with the intent of creating a psychological profile (or signature). The techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are the same used by the FBI to profile unknown serial killers to facilitate their capture. All the conclusions are based on real-life interviews, long exposure to several people possessing the target personality, as well as some behavioral psychology. This report is divided into a theory and a practice section as well as a small section on exploitation. At the end of this report you should have all the information you need to identify the personality type defined in this report and with practice should be able to exploit the female for your enjoyment.

2. THEORY

The personality we are defining is that of a troubled teen. Specifically, we seek female teens from 12 to 18 years of age (possibly older) with severe unipolar depression. The reason for this will become evident later. We also seek a highly extroverted personality with little or no inhibitions. A side effect of this will be mild to severe hyperactivity, which we must also look for. So, we desire a depressed, extroverted, hyperactive female. Luckily, these traits go hand in hand. Additionally, the behavior associated with them is easy to identify, even from a distance. In the next section, a behavioral profile will be provided that can be used a template for this personality.

3. PRACTICE

We begin our profile with an examination of the subject. This can be broken into several pieces. As with any profile, not everything will be the same for every subject. The more parts that fit, the better the chance of a match.

HEAD: Examine the subjects head. Is her hair dyed? Does it show evidence of being dyed multiple times? The more times the better. Next look at her ears. Multiple self-inflicted piercings with strange studs should be evident. Also look for make-up. We want a purple color scheme, though this may, or may not be evident. Also look for scarring, (white or red lines). The more scarring the better.

ARMS and LEGS: Look closely at the subjects wrists and forearms. Search for evidence of scarring in these locations. Heavy scarring on the wrists is an indication of attempted suicide (a plus for us). Also look for names that have been carved into her skin. She may chose to hide her names by carving them in hard to see places, so don't be discouraged just yet. Another good sign is burn marks. Be careful though, severe physical or sexual abuse will produce the wrong type of personality, we want all the damage to be self-inflicted.

BODY: The overall female should be very thin most of the time, although obesity is a possibility too. She will have used starvation as a means to attempt suicide in the past. We seek a physically attractive female, so feel free to discard females that are disturbing to look at.

Now that we have screened for a female with the above physical characteristics we have to take a look at her mind. Even here, observation is key. It will be easier to inventory her mind if you try to start a conversation. The proper type will undoubtedly start the conversation for you, and begin telling her life story, given a little prodding. Watch her body language as she talks. She will subconsciously emphasize certain points, which we want to know about. Here is what we are looking for:

BEHAVIOR: The female will try to always be at the center of attention. Given the proper setting (a house party, for instance) she will not hesitate to run around completely naked. This is a very good sign as it requires a VERY uninhibited personality (even with large amounts of alcohol). She will begin to talk to whoever is near her, and will continually steer the conversation back to her. She will complain about her life, how bad her day was, and given enough time she will drop important details. This release of information will happen whether the subject is inebriated or not, the hallmark of this personality. Areas to question the subject on are as follows:

DRUG and ALCOHOL USE: The subject should use drugs heavily, if not now, in the past. She may have convictions and be on probation for use and sale of marijuana. Generally, she will not use harder drugs than pot, if anything else it will usually be "shrooms" or LSD. She will also use alcohol heavily, generally in a social setting. All this drug use will generally take place with her friends in a closed setting. Don't expect to see this at bar or other open gathering.

MEDICAL HISTORY: Here is the most important section. If you've gotten this far everything here should fit perfectly. She will have been treated for "depression" in the past, most likely with an in-patient stay at a mental facility. The reason for her stay will be attempted suicide or suicidal ideations (thinking about ending it). The methods she will use will not be effective (like a shotgun blast to the head) but will be designed to attract attention.

Horizontal wrist slashing will bleed a lot, but is generally not fatal and can be repaired. Overdosing on over the counter drugs, and consuming household cleaning products are also popular. While these methods can work, the subject will call her friend and tell the friend that she just tried to commit suicide. This leads to the hospital, a suicide watch, and in-patient commitment. The subject will also be seeing a therapist. The reason for this is that the medication she is taking requires monitoring by a psychiatrist. Popular brand names are Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, but they all are anti-depressants. Specifically they are selective seritonin reuptake inhibitors, in other words they work by increasing the pool of serotonin in the brain, thus reducing depression. She will most likely not be taking the old school anti-depressants. These so called MAO inhibitors have so many side effects that is usually prescribed when nothing else will work. She will also need something for that hyperactivity, Ritalin being the drug of choice. To summarize: she is currently on anti-depressants and is seeing a therapist due to depression and attempted suicide. If you can come to this conclusion from your conversation, then you are in good shape. :)

FAMILY HISTORY and CHILDHOOD: The subject will have had a relatively sheltered childhood with in a small town. This can vary actually, she may in fact live in a city and may have one or both parents, who can have a varying amount of financial security. Obviously, you want to find a female with rich parents. Something goes horribly wrong. The female will be rejected by her mother, who will continually disapprove of everything she does. This will lead to continuos feelings of rejection and anxiety. In an attempt to get attention she will latch on to anyone who approves of her and soothes the pain in her mind. This is where the promiscuous sex comes in. She uses sex as a tool to ease her mental pain, but this will not work. No matter how much sex she has, how many boyfriends she gets, no matter how much she drinks, or smokes, the underlying pain always comes back. She will do a good job covering it up, but she overcompensates, leading to exaggerated reactions. If you spend enough time with the female you will see that she does not deal well with change. Her personality will "break" for awhile, during which you will be treated to fits of screaming and crying. During these episodes the female will be feeling completely alone. If the episode last long enough she will try to commit suicide. To her, physical pain is nothing compared to the mental torture she has to endure. This also explains the need to carve her body, and do her own piercings.

The control she exerts on her body, and the pain she inflicts, gives her an escape. To find out how closely the female fits in here requires good conversation skills. Watch her body language and try to see what you can pick up. Chances are, all this will hit dead on.

FRIENDS: She will have many friends and acquaintances. Her best friend will usually be fairly normal, so it would be good for you to question her alone. Not to much in this area, take mental notes about who she likes and dislikes, it will be useful in the future if you try to start any sort of "relationship".

SEXUAL ORIENTATION: The subject will almost always be bi-sexual. Depending on how much she likes you, she will be willing to have a sex with you and two or more girls. In fact, your best bet for group sex is with this personality type. The other partners will usually be her friends, or someone she feels comfortable with. Due to the sensitive nature of this topic, you should find a way to figure it out without direct questioning or until you've known the subject for awhile.

After you've done a satisfactory interview you will know whether you have found the right person or not. If you are sure you have a proper personality fix you can move on to the next section. Otherwise, try somebody else, in the next section we talk about ways to increase your success.

3. EXPLOITATION

To actually exploit this type of personality you must first find some candidate girls. Here are some excellent locations:

Boarding Schools for Girls: Basically these are psychiatric facilities for rich girls. Try and find a party near the school, chances are some of the most lucrative finds will show up. If possible, through your own party (this is kind of extreme though).

Rural High Schools: Everyone knows people out in a rural setting have nothing to do. Use this to your advantage by infiltrating the party scene. You will undoubtedly find several targets.

Colleges: Less likely, due to the fact that someone as mentally disturbed as we want would most likely not make it to college (though there are exceptions). Worth a try any ways. Get into the party scene, go to bars around the college, frat parties are great, IF you can get in.

Clubs and Bars: Everyone who goes to these are underage. Use this to your advantage. Profiling is harder in this setting, but if your good you should have no problem.

What you do once you have found your target? Well, I'm sure you can figure it out. Capitalize on the person for sex, money and drugs. The more involved you get with the one girl, chances are you can get her friends too. One thing to keep in mind though, you will either get a positive or negative reaction. Discard the person if she responds negatively. If you really want a particular girl, you can try, but with this personality, there is an immediate reaction. If the reaction is positive, your in with about 5 minutes effort. Otherwise, it will take much, much longer. Don't bother, find another one.

4. CONCLUSION

If you have completed this report you have all the necessary information to identify this personality. Now all you need is practice, and lots of it. A total jolly spamhead disregard for ethics is also helpful. In no time you should be getting more sex than you know what to do with.

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

first post

i want

[NateSac]

Wow, I want a talking dog too!

Re:i want

[EvlPenguin]

I'd be happy with just Family Guy back on the air.

Re:i want

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine what an average dog thinks.

Could be worse though it might be a talking cat.

Re:i want

[BobMcGrae]

I can just imagine it;

Me: "Fetch"
Dog: "What did your last slave die off"

Me: "Roll Over"
Dog: "Hey, I'm not into that kind of thing"

Re:i want

[morgajel]

that explains scooby.

Re:i want

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I want a talking dog too!

"Would you like to sniff my arse ?"
-"NO !"
"Are you SURE you wouldn't like to sniff my arse ? "
-"NO !"
"Mmmm..... these balls are tasty. Would you like to lick them ?"
-"NO !"

And so forth, and so forth, and so forth...

Re:i want

[Sarcasm_Orgasm]

Scrobby is a Frickn` carrotoon mane, grit a frickN` LIFFE. Now a tockiN` frickN` Groldfish, would FrickN` Rulle mane. Mey Frickn` Goldfrish would frickN` be like FrickN` heppy I got him sooo FrickN` Stoned like eveary Frickn` nite mane. Then weed frickN` eat Frickn` frish food together mane, and frickn` smoke more of the good frickN` green reaf mane.

Re:i want

[John Biggabooty]

I already have a talking dog, but I took him to a talent agent, and he wasn't impressed. I said "Spot, what do you call the top of a house?" He said "Roof." I said,"Spot, who was the greatest home run hitter?" He said "Ruth." The talent agent declared us a fraud, and had us trown out. Spot turned to me and said, "Gee John, do you think I should have said Hank Aaron?"

Re:i want

[valkenar]

But do you really think the dog would've said no to your invitations?

Re:i want

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a human that can wag their tail? Now THAT would be an interesting mutation!

Re:i want

[1nhuman]

I've learned to wag my tail when I was about 8 years old.

Re:i want

[N3WBI3]

Kina like that farside with the dog translater..

Dog: Bark Bark Bark BAAAARRRKKKK
Trans: Hey Hey Hey HEEEEEEYYYYY

Re:i want

[varith]

Hey, you forget to ask him what sandpaper feels like: "Rough!"

Re:i want

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Think about it. If we got talking dogs and someone kill it. Would someone get life prison or death sentence? Or the laws applied to "human" only?

Fritos

Re:i want

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called evolution of human kind. Don't they have anything better to do.
Like researech for cancer, aids....cure...
Sombody plese cut the funding to this shitsplats.
These so called sientists are waisting our hard earned money

Re:i want

[falzer]

That reminded me of the Homer food critic Simpsons episode...

Homer: I don't need Lisa to write a good review. The food at the Gilded Truffle really... what's a good word?
Maggie: *suck*
Homer: Sucks! That's great! And the bread was really...come on, help me out here!
Santa's little helper: Ruff!
Homer: Rough? I don't know, you've been pitching that all night.
SLH: Chewy?
Homer: Chewy! That's inspired!

Re:i want

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a human that can wag their tail? Now THAT would be an interesting mutation!

Actually, ALL vertabrates have a tail at some point in their development. Humans develop a tail, but it's absorbed before birth.

Re:i want

[Wobbly Bob]

Wow! Think about it. If we got talking dogs and someone kill it. Would someone get life prison or death sentence? Or the laws applied to "human" only?

From Deep Thoughts With Jack Handy:

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? Probably, if they screamed all of the time, and for no good reason."

Sensational...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now those "Would you eat me if I talked?" Greenpeace ads will actually be reality. Goodbye Big Mac :( - s200.org

Re:Sensational...

[Webmonger]

Sounds like they never read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Re:Sensational...

[gl4ss]

yep, actually, a cow that said "i'm happy for you paying for my food and dope, so you can eat me!" could be really nifty. not that this would allow them to make intelligent conclusions any better, but who knows..

Re:Sensational...

[yatest5]

Now those "Would you eat me if I talked?

Hey, you stole my best chat-up line!

Re:Sensational...

[sharkey]

Now those "Would you eat me if I talked?" Greenpeace ads will actually be reality. Goodbye Big Mac

Huh? Big Macs don't talk. They are made from dead cows, which would no longer be talking by the time it was made into a Big Mac. Yes, I would eat it.

Re:Sensational...

[PsiPsiStar]

I want to go up to someone carrying one of those ads and say 'sure, I'd eat you'.

Re:Sensational...

[Taliban Lecher]

No, actually if You, Mic Bag, had such a fine control over Your mouth by that altered gene, we would make pr0n vids with You rather than food ads.

Slaughter...

[BeyondALL]

Of cource people who could speak had an advance over people who did not.. so they Slaughtered them down..

an we lived happily ever after :)

Re:Slaughter...

[whimdot]

The next wave of genes to sweep across the globe will be from those people who don't mind arguing with their food before they eat it.

Re:Slaughter...

[KUHurdler]

I get a kick out of the way that scientists can say anything they want as long as they qualify it with:

... over thousands of years

my ancestors will be able to shoot lightning bolts out of their arse... over thousands of years from now.

Re:Slaughter...

[BeyondALL]

Hey, men to - who needs drugs to get a kick... just listen to all the scientists :)

Re:Slaughter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not mean decendants? :)

Re:Slaughter...

[KUHurdler]

Yes, Descendants, that was the word I could not think of...

Re:Slaughter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, do us all a favor and don't have any. Defective genes like yours shouldn't be passed on. Remember, chlorinating the gene pool is everyone's responsibility: kill yourself today.

last post

[jpsst34]

woohoo

"Oh Great!...

[bucklesl]

...A talking dog..." - Gecko

Re:"Oh Great!...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know, Davey..."

Re:"Oh Great!...

[banda]

You know, Sam Carr, David Berkowitz's neighbor had a "talking dog"
It didn't do him much good.

the first sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

These new genes taught us the sounds 'ah', 'tee', 'see' and 'gee'.

Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Neuronerd]

The worrying thing is that geneticists seem to believe that genes define what we are. They search for genes for intelligence - and for preference for red whine.

My bet is that they will soon realize that speech underlying human culture is due to networks of thousands of genes and also due to advances in human culture and technology.

There can not possibly be a gene making a human out of a monkey.

RE: Next they find the gene for understanding math

[roadkill999]

Hopefully one day they will find the gene responsible
for poor spelling and terrible grammar. Thats one
type of gene therapy you should be first in line for.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if I was luddite scum I'd want to believe the same as you do.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[character sequence]

I've been reading (slowly) the book "The Symbolic Species" by Terrence W. Deacon, which covers the evolution of language in humans. It goes into the selective pressures that could have worked in favour of language development. Without these, any single mutation would not have gone very far towards our current language abilities. You can check out a summary of the book here.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[tjamme]

>Next they find the gene for understanding math
Well they might.

If your assumption were true, it would be possible, with enough patience and care, to teach a chimp to talk and be just like us, so the chimp could go to school, get a job, and say, run slashdot. This is clearly not the case despite more and more findings that chimps have really advanced mental capabilities.

Of course we could not have gone from mischevious banana eaters to programmers just like that. Chimps have nearly all the abilities. But they are lacking some crucial genes. Even if those only are regulatory genes.
And those genes are to be found, logically, within the fraction of a 100th percent that separates us from them.

However the recently discovered genes don't account for speech. You can use sign language!
Being able to produce sounds is not enough, otherwise parrots, as clever as they may be, could also go to school and get a job.
So the gene(s) that have just been found are not the whole story. Plenty of genes are sure required for speech, including chimp legacy ones.

As far as culture is concerned, it's the other way round. You can't retain culture if you haven't got the intellectual mechanisms to understand / store / re-phrase. So we have culture because we have speech. No the other way round.

-T

PS. Sign me up for a talking dog too.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Trichrome]

Oh, that is so lame. You will pay for your use of inappropriate diologue! ~Mojo Jojo

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Corporate Troll]

red wHine

Isn't that a certain period in the month where your girlfriend whines about abdominal pains. And you *like* that? Freak!

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[swaic]

to teach a chimp to talk and be just like us, so the chimp could go to school, get a job, and say, run slashdot

Hahahahaha!!! Nice!

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[knovis]

Evolutionary biology suggests that the original claim in the article is not unfounded...

Look at Susan Blackmore's _The_Meme_Machine_, or _The_Mating_Mind_ by Geoffrey Miller for instance. Essentially, the claim is that higher vocal capacity would allow higher communication abilities. That is a major advantage, which would explain killing off/out-reproducing the non-mutants. But then, over the course of the next say...10k years, the advantages of being able to communicate more clearly become more and more pronounced...hence an arms race for clarity of communication--once the mouth works well enough, then the brain evolution towards language (Pinker's stuff is interesting here) has a reasonable chance of following.

Vocal cords + Big brains drive evolution of culture, and of the mental capability to run slashdot.

--K

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[uncoveror]

If we found the gene for understanding math, we could turn it on in everyone, then nobody would waste their money paying the tax on people who don't understand math, the lottery, which , by the way, is rigged. The various states and the Mafia would want to supress such a discovery, or find a way, such as through "vaccines" to turn the gene off in everyone, creating even more suckers that the ones born every minute.

Re: Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You need a comma after "Hopefully" 2) "Thats" is not a word 3) Sentences should not end with a preposition. 4) Don't write with your head in your ass. 5) Fuck off.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean chimps aren't running slashdot?

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[PsiPsiStar]

But they have taught chimps sign language. They can even do basic syntax. One called a cucumber a 'green bananna'.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Dannon]

otherwise parrots, as clever as they may be, could also go to school and get a job.
I've known students to get through philosophy classes just by parrotting the professor, does this count?

Sign me up for a talking dog too.
As long as it's not a labrador. It would inevitably turn out like that episode of Dexter's Laboratory. Hey, look! It's a thing! Look at the thing, Look! It's a thing, look at the thing!

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to tell you this-but your genes DO define who you are-just look at twin studies that indicate how genes influence even the most minute personal idiosyncracies.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Anonymous Coward]

If your assumption were true, it would be possible, with enough patience and care, to teach a chimp to talk and be just like us, so the chimp could go to school, get a job, and say, run slashdot. This is clearly not the case despite more and more findings that chimps have really advanced mental capabilities.

There are others who suggest this has already happened.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Trogre]

"And those genes are to be found, logically, within the fraction of a 100th percent that separates us from them."

Do not make the mistake of thinking that that is all that separates us from them.

Recall that 50% of our genes are identical to bananas, but that doesn't make me half banana, either from the waist up or the waist down.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[Kalani]

What are you talking about? If you were genetically identical to a banana, you'd be a banana. If you had some extra genes you'd likely be something else, and if they were the right ones then you could look and behave completely differently (to superficial observations). The different genes we have relative to, say, chimps might manipulate ancient structures in different ways and so you could say that the new gene doesn't do X but the capacity for X is inherent in some old gene. However, without the new gene X wouldn't be realized anyway (except for another gene that effectively realizes X). So it's obvious to look for those things that differentiate us from other apes in the places where our genes are different. The crux of it is that we probably need to understand everything else first if we want an exact knowledge of how we differ.

Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math

[sita]

As far as culture is concerned, it's the other way round. You can't retain culture if you haven't got the intellectual mechanisms to understand / store / re-phrase. So we have culture because we have speech. No the other way round. Depends on what constitutes "culture". If speech radio is culture, then, yes speech is a pre-requisite. However, if passing acquired knowledge on to your tribe mates is culture, then there are animals capable of this. Certain crow bird populations have learnt to manafacture and use tools for catching insects and have passed this knowledge on to through the generations. (Other populations of the same species have not developped this tool) Similar stuff has been observed for other animals. Granted, speech radio is more abstract than biting at a twig until it works for catching flies, but still...

Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Kaeru the Frog]

...isn't evolution based on genes mutating? Why is this such a surprise?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Dr.Potato]

Actually its not that this is a new principle in evolution, but that many people thought that language developed not necessarily by mutation. But to training of specific areas already developed in the brain. These news relates development in language due to a mutation in a gene.

And instead of having talking dogs, what about talking dolphins? :-)

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[plaa]

...isn't evolution based on genes mutating? Why is this such a surprise?

Not necessarily. Most evolution happens by survival of the strongest (or fittest). The best individuals survive and pass on their genes.

Gene mutations are random events. They add something new, something unexpected to the gene pool. Most of the time, the mutation is harmful, the individual dies, and the mutation is not handed on to the next generation. But sometimes, something good will result, making the gene pool stronger.

Humans might have developed their speech skills just by slow development (the ape that grunts loudest gets to pick its mate or something). This study suggests that there was a great leap in evolution, due to the mutation, and that relatively few genes control a major part of the throat muscles.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[cyborch]

You beat me to it. This is like studies proving that looking away from the road while driving is a bad thing (I think that was from a 60 minutes show some time ago). The scary part is that somebody is is actually funding these studies!

Why do people insist on being so incredibly stupid that they need scientific studies to proove the obvious?

Aside from that, knowing which gene enables us to speak will allow for some fun with genetic engineering...

Which brings on the next question: why would I want my pet to be able to speak? Given that it is a cat with a cat's somewhat limited intelligence what could a cat possibly say to me? "I'm hungry" in stead of "meeow"? Why would I want this?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[maxwell demon]

And instead of having talking dogs, what about talking dolphins?

Or talking parrots... oh wait, we already have them! :-)

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Feh. Dolphins already talk. Robert Anton Wilson and Douglas Adams have known that for years.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[robbway]

Most evolution happens by survival, period. If I have a genetic mutation that makes me immune to the effects of virus X or bacteria Y, but also makes me a physical weakling, I'm not the fittest nor the strongest. Yet an outbreak of virus X or bacteria Y wipes the stongest and fittest off the face of the earth. Yes, the survivors were stronger against the single factor, but overall, evolution caused survival of the weakest.

It's a dangerous thing to give evolution a consciousness, and not at all what Darwin had in mind.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[psxndc]

"Survival of the fittest" is generally accepted in Biology to mean "fittest to reproduce". I may be only able to lift 50 pounds, but if I can produce 10 offspring instead of the muscle guy that can only produce one, I am genetically more fit. People tend to equate that since I can only lift 50 pounds, I'll be killed off sooner, but i is more about one's ability to procreate. Of course this assuming that I make it to the age of sexual maturation. Unlikely if I am a weaking.

-psxndc

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[GigsVT]

It's not obvious to some people. I bought a "Science for Christian Students" book at the thrift store for laughs.

The book claims that evolution is bogus, and presents evidence that things do not evolve, only devolve. They argue that mutations never are beneficial, only detrimental to the survival of the animal.

As long as we have an ignorant mass of religious people that believes books like this, we will continue to need studies to prove the obvious.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you read your sci-fi? We've already had talking dolphins for a while now.

Quoth Adams:

"The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backward somersault through a hoop while whistling the 'Star-Spangled Banner,' but in fact the message was this: So long and thanks for all the fish."

Confirmation is provided by Shea and Wilson in "The Eye in the Pyramid," part of the Illuminatus! trilogy:

"Who the hell is Howard?" said George.
"It's me. Out here. Hello, Mr. Human," said the voice. "I'm Howard."
Unbelieving, yet knowing quite well what was happening, George slowly turned his head. The dolphin appeared to be looking at him.
"How does he talk to us?" said Hagbard.
"He's swimming alongside the prow of the submarine, which is where we pick up his voice. My computer translates from Delphine to English..."

So, you see, the talking dolphins of the future are here today!

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[WhiteWolf666]

There are many animals which are unlikely to make it to the age of sexual maturation. Most aquatic life I believe.

Of course, when they procreate, they have 100 billion children each, so the individual survial rate is not that important.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

The mutation in the FOXP2 gene allowed humans greater control over their mouth and throat muscles, and gave them the ability to produce new sounds. It was apparently such an advantageous mutation that it quickly swept through the human population (10,000 - 20,000 years) almost entirely wiping out earlier versions.

Can't see how talking would be a great benefit when it comes to ... erm ... reproduction. Then again, I'm male, so what do I know?

Now kissing, that is a completely different matter. I suppose some where suckers for great kissers (sorry about the pun).

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you must have a dumb cat. Mine does tons of cool stuff. When I get up form the computer he is eager to jump up on the keyboard and start pounding out what I think is perl code. I don't really know though because perl is so fucking ugly and shit...but he seems to enjoy it.

Get a smarter cat.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Hektor_Troy]

The problem with "Christian Scientists" is, that they can't even imagine a God, so powerfull, so almighty, the He/She/It could have started the "Big Bang" 15+ billion years ago, let it run for what seemed like an eternity, saw an interesting phenomena (humans), endowed them with intelligence and speech, told them how to live and behave, and then receeded again.

Nope. He can't do that. He is such a wuss, that he could only have created earth and the universe 6,000 years ago, and He's such a blabbering idiot, that almost all of His ramblings are incoherrent and contradicts itself.

Yup. He sure is almighty.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[operagost]

So you think the book is laughable because you don't agree with it? You said evidence was presented to back up its claims, so it's not based merely on conjecture.

If you gave specific examples of erroneous data or conclusions, I'd be interested. Instead, you decided to take the low road of intellectual elitism, and managed to be modded up for it.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Grax]

Call me crazy but

1. he could have started it with a big bang,
2. there is no way of guaranteeing that our measurements of historical time are accurate, 6000 years, a billion years (I can accept you telling me this thing happened before or after this other thing but I can't accept that you can tell me exactly how long ago it happened when we're talking about something that long ago.),
3. and this article could be related to the Biblically documented mutation from the tower of Babel (of course then you'd have to accept the existence and interference of God)

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[psxndc]

But the original species probably had members that could only produce a hundred offspring, or a thousand. Only the ones that could produce "100 billion" or X number to escape total offspring annihilation, survived.

-psxndc

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[TamMan2000]

One Ape being able to grunt louder would likely be caused by a mutation, what other GENETIC cause could there be?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[GigsVT]

If you gave specific examples of erroneous data or conclusions, I'd be interested

The whole book is erroneous. It's blantly obvious that evolution happens, no intelligent creationist denies that. To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.

They don't argue that spontaneous speciation doesn't happen, they deny evolution in general.

To satisy your Christian mind, however, I will quote parts of the book and make my arguement more specific.

The book is "Earth Science for Christian Schools"

The theme basically is to discredit science. It was written in 1979.

Quotes

"Erosion is wearing away the continents -- an example of degeneration in nature"

"Even the most powerful electron microscope are unable to let us see the inside of an atom. What scientist would pass up an opportunity to look inside a neutron or electron? However there is presently no way to see these things, and many doubt there ever will be"

"Through a rapid series of miracles, God created a mature, fully-functioning earth ready for man's use."

"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"

"Evolution did not develop from modern science. Evolutionary philosophy can be traced back to the Greeks of the Sixth Century"

"Comets break up to form meteors, an example of degeneration in nature"

"A store that loses money to some of it's customers and breaks even on the rest can never nake a profit. Similarly natural processes of conservation and degeneration cannot combine to produce an improvement"

The next interesting section is on Geology.

They basically attempt to assert that the Creation, the Curse, and the Flood happened, and provide "evidence" as such. They point to the existance of "Fossil Graveyards" as proof of the Flood. They also attempt to discredit all methods of dating ancient materials. They admit their science isn't science with one like that sums up the whole book:

"The Bible is the source of truth for Christians"

They start with what the Bible says and then they shape their "science" to fit it. This is not science.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[psxndc]

Maybe ealry men/women that could speak were seen as more attractive, thus more reproduction friendly. It depends on what early members of the opposite sex found important when choosing a mate (or mates).

-psxndc

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

OK, I'll call you crazy.

Your three hypotheses have *nothing* to recommend them except to deny that apparently factual statements in Hebrew scriptures are contradicted by historical or scientific fact.

How about an alternative explanation: the scriptures were not made accurate and infallible by divine power, but rather were the product of multiple Hebrew scribes recording and shaping oral traditions for various purposes. Therefore, any apparent disagreements with modern historical or scientific discoveries has to do with the lack of such knowledge at the time they were written?

If I hear one more moron talking about how the time scales in the Bible might simply be the truth multiplied by some scalar factor, I'm going to have to choke him or her.

I'm not arguing that religious belief is false, just that it doesn't admit to the same sort of tests for truth that historic or scientific hypotheses do. Feel free to BELIEVE something that you can't KNOW, but don't claim to know it, and don't try to come up with scientific- or historical-sounding arguments to try to persuade me.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Hektor_Troy]

he could have started it with a big bang

He could; if he's almighty it wouldn't be a problem.

there is no way of guaranteeing that our measurements of historical time are accurate, 6000 years, a billion years (I can accept you telling me this thing happened before or after this other thing but I can't accept that you can tell me exactly how long ago it happened when we're talking about something that long ago.),

If the only evidence of the age of the universe we have is scientific readings or 6,000 year old stories, I'm sticking with science. At least science is willing to accept the fact that it is wrong from time to time, and I know how a feather can turn into a universe over time.

and this article could be related to the Biblically documented mutation from the tower of Babel (of course then you'd have to accept the existence and interference of God)

Sure, the mutation could be an interference from God, but not according to Christian Scientists, because genes doesn't matter. God created us in His image and nothing has changed since then.

I'm not the one who's unwilling to accept the possibility of an almighty god, who likes to intervene from time to time. They are the ones who are unwilling to accept an almighty god.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[mriker]

The theme basically is to discredit science.

Which is quite bizarre; science is the study of what is and was and will be. From a Christian perspective, God has created all that there is and was and will be. So for a Christian to attempt to explain away our observation of God's creation seems awfully backwards to me.

As a Christian, I'm frequently annoyed at what lengths some other Christians will go in an attempt to artificially substantiate what they believe. I believe what I believe as a result of what I see and know; not as a result of what I'd like to see or have been told to believe. A Christian who fears science is a Christian who is unable to trust God.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see evidence of new information introduce as a result of 'evolution', etc. Most stuff that has been labelled as living, breathing, examples of evolution is the result of a loss of information. Thus, if there is no new information, pray tell how you go from single-cell organisms to humans?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[pmz]

"Erosion is wearing away the continents -- an example of degeneration in nature"

It seems the author of your book has forgotten about the Sun, a star that the Earth seems to be revolving about.

Degeneration in nature--entropy and the laws of thermodynamics--is a fundamental aspect of all systems. However, this degeneration occurs on so many scales, that one system's degeneration can actually lead to another system's regeneration.

The sunlight we see every day (or every year for those at the poles), is due to the Sun gradually burning a finite supply of nuclear fuel. This sunlight energizes the Earth causing all sorts of interesting stuff to happen. Weather, life cycles, and even evolution are triggered ultimately from energy from the Sun (and certainly some from the Earth's core, too).

This process won't last but another few billion years (oh my!), but it has been long enough to allow life to occur, to mature, and eventually die off when the Sun goes nova.

"The Bible is the source of truth for Christians"

Sure, any source of information that has been edited by a self-appointed intellectual elite (the Church), translated by a severely biased culture into English, and using an incomplete collection of the original works is guaranteed to be the one and only story of the Truth.

The author of your book, I bet, also owns a chain of "family friendly" video stores, which rent out ten-minute versions of A Clockwork Orange and Apocolypse Now (mainly just the credits and a few pictures of the actors). Good for him or her or whatever. I'm glad there are people out there who stand up for my right to be an ignorant fool.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[AresTheImpaler]

A Christian who fears science is a Christian who is unable to trust God.

Nice.. that will go with some of my favorite Einstein's quotes:

"I want to know God's thoughts,..... the rest are details.."

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[RevAaron]

We already have talking dolphins. They may speak in frequencies that we can't hear, but that's our deficiency, not theirs.

Dolphins have reportedly been able to learn some English, and use it in the right contexts, but again, speaking it in frequencies we don't natively hear. Incredible stuff.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Black Parrot]

> 3. and this article could be related to the Biblically documented mutation from the tower of Babel (of course then you'd have to accept the existence and interference of God)

Except that the bible story doesn't call it a mutation, and the people already spoke in the bible story, and if the bible story is true then your god is an incompetent twit, since people still learn each other's languages easily enough to cooperate on large construction projects.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[RevAaron]

Nope. He can't do that. He is such a wuss, that he could only have created earth and the universe 6,000 years ago, and He's such a blabbering idiot, that almost all of His ramblings are incoherrent and contradicts itself.

That's exactly what the gnostics said. They were one of the earlier secs of Christianity, actually listening to the words of the person people mistakenly call Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef), unlike modern "Christians." Gnosticism has roots in other religions and philosophies before it, like any other belief system.

That blabbering idiot truly is the YHVH of the Jews and the "God" of the Christians. The True Creator lies beyond that, and the real salvation is ascending YHVH. The book of Genesis never states that the serpend in the garden was Satan, like many modern Christians like to believe. The Gnostics believe that the serpent was in fact Yeshua (Jesus), freeing Adam and Eve from the prison that the God of the Hebrews put them in, giving them the knowledge to transcend his lame trickery. And lame it was- all they had to do was eat some fruit. Incompetence, indeed.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Marc2k]

nah, i bet it's Lisp. most perl code requires you to hold down the shift key a lot..have you tried pressing two buttons as a quadraped with no movable digits lately?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[RevAaron]

Which is quite bizarre; science is the study of what is and was and will be. From a Christian perspective, God has created all that there is and was and will be. So for a Christian to attempt to explain away our observation of God's creation seems awfully backwards to me.

In any of my attempts to get references to or explanations of evidence from creationists about the "science" behind creationism, that is about the best they've given me.

Science isn't infallible nor is it all knowing. Any one who claims it is isn't doing science, creationists base their entire debunkage of science on the claim that science pretends to know everything. If we don't know how eyes work, god must have created it!
If there are zany creationists reading this out there, please do feel free to email me links or give me better arguments via email. I've had this invitation open for years, but no one has given me anything other than b.s. so far.

I mean, shit- even the Pope hisself and heads of various Jewish sects have declared that evolution can't be bunk, following this logic:

Fact: There is a mountain of evidence for evolution.

Conclusions:
Either
1. God is doing an enormous mount of work trying to trick us into believing the lies of Satan, and is planting evidence; or
2. Evolution happens.

From Conclusion 1, we can further reason that if God is going to such lengths to trick humans into buying into evolution, nothing in nature or human culture (including the Bible, and other prophecy) can be trusted as any sort of sign, signal, or communication from God.
The Christian and Jewish religions believe the Bible to be the word of god, and not a trick. Generally, to be trusted. If god isn't out to get us and is setting traps in her free time, then we should just get over it and trust what he shows us. E.g., all the evidence for evolution.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is in complete contradiction to God's nature. The problem isn't with the "Christian Scientists" but with people like yourself who don't understand the nature of God. I suggest you seek him and he will reveal himself.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

The ability to speak is far more important than just attracting a mate. Groups of early people who could communicate would be much more successful in hunting to feed the family, in combat with neighboring tribes, in almost every aspect of life. Thus, they'd be much more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the first man who could sing like Barry White probably had a huge reproductive advantage over his fellow men. ;)

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

"The whole book is erroneous. It's blantly obvious that evolution happens, no intelligent creationist denies that. To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational."

Do you even understand what the concept of evolution is? 2000 years of selective breeding creating livestock that are better suited for our consumption is not evolution. All the genes necessary for the birth of those critters were -already in their genetic code-. All we did was make sure the most benificial (To us) traits were perpetuated. Now if said cow were to suddenly develop a second head, which allowed it to see danger sooner than the rest, (And I am assuming that is not in their genetic code) -that- would be evolution.

You also have to separate "Survival of the Fittest" from evolution. Oftentimes they are bundled together, with SotF used to prove evolution. SotF is almost certainly true. Creatures that are best suited to survive, will survive.

"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"

Have you recently thought about what the world would have had to go through in order to have life spontaneously generate?

Here's how the evolution story goes. There is an object in space (Where did it come from? Who knows.) BOOM there is a huge explosion. Stuff goes flying everywhere. Eventually the dust settles and there is a pile of goop. It is on a barren planet. Suddenly, something happens, and the goop comes to life! (We mock B horror movies when something like this happens, but we just accept it when people pass it off as evolution). And what is hilarious is that there are all sorts of these things throughout "History". A rat becomes a bat. Missing link? Still missing. (Not to mention, a half-rat half-bat would not be very well designed to survive).

"They start with what the Bible says and then they shape their "science" to fit it. This is not science"

They start with a firmly held belief and try to shape their science to fit it. Science itself is guilty of this. Evolutionists are just as guilty of this as creationist. It doesn't fit the evolutionary profile? It must be an outlier. The fact is, there is no such thing as a truly objective observer. Everyone projects their own beliefs and ideas onto things around them. That is why you have to take everything everyone says with a grain of salt.

Oh, and by the way, before you start questioning other's beliefs... you should check the validity of your own. It just makes you look like an ass when you froth at the mouth while uttering nonsense.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[JWW]

What I find funny is that Jesus used parables loaded with symbolism to get his points across. They aren't meant to be seen as true stories, they are emphasize how Christians should act.

Why is it never thought that much of the Old Testament could in fact be parable like tales to describe the concepts of creation, instead of the actual fact of it?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Peyna]

Doesn't Lisp have a crapload of stuff that requires the shift key as well? Like ((((foo))))) And all that crap. I think some variations allow you to use [] now, but I'm not sure.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ldopa1]

Actually, fittest to reproduce includes your ability to attract a mate.

Guess what? Beating off invaders is a positive survival trait. You're kids are most likely to survive.

So, lifting 50 pounds may not increase your chance of having the MOST offspring, but it increases your chances of having the most SURVIVING offspring.

You need to have mega-sperm AND a kick ass physique.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[topham]

So, your saying, that out of all that selective breeding there is no chance that any of the genes which were intentionally kept were perhaps mutations at some point in the process? (Perhaps the colour was a mutation and somebody liked it.).

And that, if this mutation was kept that it isn't evolution because it isn't complicated enough?

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

if the bible story is true then your god is an incompetent twit, since people still learn each other's languages easily enough to cooperate on large construction projects.

Heh heh. Let's look at Genesis 11:1-9

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Okay, the Lord came down to see the tower. Um, I thought he was omniscient, couldn't he see it from heaven? Anyway, he actually seems concerned that these people might succeed in building a tower to heaven. Now, if modern humans can put objects in orbit, on the moon, even to the edges of the solar system, and still haven't reached heaven - why did God think that the primitive tribes could build a tower to get there? And furthermore, even if the people did reach heaven, how would that be a threat to God?

It's hard for me to imagine how a fundamentalist Christian can read this passage and accept that it is literally true, right down to God visiting Babel in person (and talking to himself). It would strongly indicate that God is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, that heaven is something we should be able to find just a couple hundred feet in the air, and that God needs some therapy for his multiple-personality disorder. Perhaps they just don't follow the consequence of that belief to its logical conclusion - but a belief that you don't analyze to understand what it really means seems a bit pointless.

It makes much more sense to think this is what the ancient Hebrews made up to tell their kids when they asked why people spoke so many languages. Or perhaps it's a subtle hint from God that if we could put our differences aside and work together, there's no limit to what we could accomplish.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Black Parrot]

[From Genesis:]

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

> It's hard for me to imagine how a fundamentalist Christian can read this passage and accept that it is literally true

The part about God using a GOTO is what tipped me off.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? Beating off invaders is a positive survival trait. You're kids are most likely to survive.

My kids are more likely to survive if I jack-off the enemy? Absolutely. Look at women. They have been fucking invading enemy soldiers for favors since the invention of war. Fucking whores. Fucking cunt-whores.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Grax]

What does it matter what the Bible calls it? It is pretty obviously a mutation if the entire human race suddenly gets has something change.
There is no scientific way of proving people did not speak in a different manner prior to the mutation. Scientists assume they didn't because prior to the mutation humans did not have the current speech patterns and after the mutation they did.

God doesn't belong to me. I haven't seen God and Biblical science sufficiently disproven to believe it to be false. I believe there was a big bang, some types of evolution, etc. But I haven't seen enough evidence to disprove creation, worldwide flood, Babel, etc.

But they still can't gain a cross-cultural understanding good enough to keep them from flying airplanes into those buildings.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

No, I'm saying that the parent believed that cows were some sort of stock brand. No variation. One set of genes. When, in reality, cows have a -huge- variance in what they can end up like, depending on their parentage. I'm not arguing that occasional mutations do not occur. They do (Most of them are -very- bad for the critter and result in its death). I do not, however, agree that all life branched from a single point creating all known critters. The chances of a "Missing link" surviving are astronomical. Not only that, but the "Missing link" would have to survive another million years or so before it developed into the next species capable of survival. That would mean it would have to be more capable of survival than the previous creature. Wouldn't that result in the wiping out of the previous creature? If bats are better suited than rats... why are there still rats?

I'm not saying evolution isn't evolution because it isn't complicated enough. I'm saying evolution doesn't occur because we have no evidence of it. We look at a little thing like a mutation and use it to attempt to prove that man evolve from glop. It is too much of a leap of the imagination. Perhaps evolution is true. (I hold that it is not) However, we don't have enough information to prove it at this point (In fact, many things detract from the probability of evolution)

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

The Gnostics believe that the serpent was in fact Yeshua (Jesus), freeing Adam and Eve from the prison that the God of the Hebrews put them in, giving them the knowledge to transcend his lame trickery.

Kind of like the ST:TNG Episode "Devil's Due", where Picard frees the people of Ventax Two from the trickery of Ardra?

Strangely enough, Jesus refers to himself as the "Morning Star" in Revelation. In Isaiah, Lucifer is called the Morning Star. But... Isaiah was actually talking about a Babylonian king who was referred to as the "Son of Dawn". Then in the 4th Century St. Jerome translated this as "lucifer", Latin for "Bearer of Light". The scholars creating the KJV made Lucifer into a proper name, and Isaiah's prophecy of the ancient king's downfall has gotten mixed up with Satan's fall from heaven.

To take the Gnostic view to an interesting conclusion, look at the punishments YHVH metes out on the humans: Pain in childbirth - caused by the infant's skull being a bit big in the birth canal, the result of our brain development (the tree of knowledge, eh). Enmity between us and the serpent - humans crucified Yeshua on his return. One might even argue that modern Christianity continuing to believe so strongly in YHVH (eye for an eye? six-day creationism?) and rejecting the really hard teachings of Yeshua (love your enemy? judge not? give up all you own and follow me?) is a continuation of that enmity. Oh, and subjection of women to men (YHVH tells Eve "he shall rule over thee"), which St. Paul even supports in the New Testament.

Quite a bit of food for thought there.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Mr.Intel]

Why is it never thought that much of the Old Testament could in fact be parable like tales to describe the concepts of creation, instead of the actual fact of it?

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone who could speak with God to clarify this? Like a prophet or something. IIRC, Moses spoke with God "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." I wonder if he asked Him about things like this. Too bad there is no one alive today that can speak with God...

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

Here's how the evolution story goes. There is an object in space (Where did it come from? Who knows.) BOOM there is a huge explosion. Stuff goes flying everywhere.

That's not the evolution story. Evolution is a theory in biology. You're talking about the Big Bang theory, in cosmology.

Suddenly, something happens, and the goop comes to life!

Again, this is not really part of the theory of evolution. But you can be forgiven for that misstep, since you're at least somewhere between organic chemistry and biology here. You do realize that modern abiogenesis (life from non-life) theories speculate that the first "living" things were very simple self-replicating peptides, chains of maybe a dozen amino acids, and amino acids are known to form spontaneously under varied conditions?

A rat becomes a bat. Missing link? Still missing. (Not to mention, a half-rat half-bat would not be very well designed to survive).

No, Evolution states that a rat and a bat have a common ancestor, not that one turned into the other. And if you really believe that a creature with rudimentary wings would be ill-equipped to survive, I suppose you've never seen a flying squirrel or any species of gliding lizard.

Oh, and by the way, before you start questioning other's beliefs... you should check the validity of your own. It just makes you look like an ass when you froth at the mouth while uttering nonsense.

Judging by your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I think Jesus might be telling you something about a plank and a splinter right about now.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[RevAaron]

Never thought about that TNG episode parrallel, but I've seen it.

Good stuff in the world's modern religions if you dig past the surface. Unfortunately, most adherents are interesting only in the surface.

Paul is bullshit. If I were Christian, I would definately not be buying into his BS. Nothing but human prejudices there.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ldopa1]

So you're like, what, 15?

Someone PLEASE mod this guy down!

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

The entire fossil record shows the evidence of new information introduced as a result of evolution. The deeper you dig, the further back you go (unless you totally distrust all the modern methods of dating, in which case I'm wasting my time), and the simpler the life forms you find fossilized.

If you're asking why we don't see it happening around us now, it's because we've only been looking at it for a few hundred years, and differentiation takes thousands to millions of years. Also, we don't know of every species on earth. We discover new ones all the time, and for all we know, some of them may have undergone major changes fairly recently.

Incidentally, strains of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics might be an example of this happening, although it's also quite possible that the genes for resistance were already there and only now have they become an advantage.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? People use scientific and historical sounding arguments to try and persuade me that it is false. The "the world is billions of year's old" science has nothing to recommend it other than the musings of some modern scientists. There is evidence to support it but there is also evidence to support alternate theories.

I never claimed that the "scriptures" were 100% accurate and infallible. You have me confused with someone else. I just haven't found the evidence to be convinced that they're wrong. Perhaps someday I'll be persuaded to believe your "facts" if I find sufficient evidence.

I don't believe in a simple time modifier. I believe all time measurements prior to about 5000 years ago or so are possibly completely wrong.

If you want to believe the earth is millions or billions of years old, that is fine. But don't tell me that you KNOW it to be true because you don't. For all you know the world we live in today is a computer simulation built yesterday.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jafac]

depends on what sect of Christianity. But true, the non bible-believing sects are getting rarer and rarer.

It takes a strong will to believe without that book to "back it up". What exactly does one believe in then? WIth no firm guidance?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

"That's not the evolution story. Evolution is a theory in biology. You're talking about the Big Bang theory, in cosmology."

A valid point. However, almost always evolution is tied into several other theories. Survival of the fittest and the Big Bang theory are two of them. I started with the Big Bang to emphasize the utter "Randomness" of the event. You'll have to let me have a bit of literary license.

"Again, this is not really part of the theory of evolution. But you can be forgiven for that misstep, since you're at least somewhere between organic chemistry and biology here. You do realize that modern abiogenesis (life from non-life) theories speculate that the first "living" things were very simple self-replicating peptides, chains of maybe a dozen amino acids, and amino acids are known to form spontaneously under varied conditions?"

Once again, I do understand that this is not, precisely, the theory of evolution. However, it can be stated that this is the -basis- of the theory of evolution, or perhaps just the beginnings.

If I remember correctly, amino-acid chains cannot exist in the current atmosphere (I don't know that for sure). If that is the case, then at some point along the way the atmosphere changed, and at this moment life would have had to change with it. The chances of this happening are extroirdinary (Explosion in a print-shop extroirdinary: See Parent).

"No, Evolution states that a rat and a bat have a common ancestor, not that one turned into the other. And if you really believe that a creature with rudimentary wings would be ill-equipped to survive, I suppose you've never seen a flying squirrel or any species of gliding lizard."

Very well, let us assume that the gliding pre-bat was equipped to survive. Why isn't it still around? Why isn't there any fossil record of it? If they were a viable species why didn't they continue to live? And if they didn't continue to live, how did they live for long enough to mutate into something else?

"Judging by your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I think Jesus might be telling you something about a plank and a splinter right about now"

I am aware of my faults. I use information I've gathered second- and third-hand, just like you. I've even forgotten most of it. However, if you'll read the original parent, you have to admit that he wasn't exactly the best representative for the evolution viewpoint. I was merely pointing out some of his more obvious fallacies, just as you pointed out mine (Thanks by the way).

To accept anything without question is dangerous. Dissenting opinions clarify your own ideas.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[tauntalum]

Yeah right, if they're so smart then why do they live in igloos?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[theBraindonor]

This patent bread of Creationism is a riot.

Leave it to people to take their "all powerfull, all knowing" God, and place all kinds of restictions on what God is capable.

It's a "What If..."

What if God, when he created the earth, created not only most of what we see now, but all the evidence of the evolutionary process.

What if He created all sorts of things to through off the use of carbon dating?

What if He created all the dinosaur bones--already fossilized and all?

What if He has a sense of humor, and is laughing his ass off at us right now?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[MillionthMonkey]

As long as we're trading Einstein quotes...

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

This is not to suggest that Einstein's opinion on something as subjective as religion should be taken more seriously than anyone else's. All religious opinions are equally worthless.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Jagasian]

Paul hijacked early Christianity... most every significant thing Paul says contradicts the teachings of Jesus. The reason people go with the sayings of Paul as opposed to Jesus is because the stuff that Jesus taught is very difficult. Turn the cheek, love your enemy, help those in need, etc... I mean, you would have to live the life of Mother Teresa for godsakes!

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[overunderunderdone]

It sounds like that book has a lot of stupid arguments. But don't make the same mistake or a smarter creationist will come along and make you look as foolish.

You said: To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.

This is a silly statement since the last two thousand years of selective breeding is all about variation *within* a species. A Creationist can bring it up as ably as a proof against the larger claims of Darwinian evolution as you can make for it. Such variations within species are possible because of the variety of genetic combinations that are possible with EXISTING genes. A chihuaua (sp?) and a saint bernard are both still Canines and all the genes required to produce either was present within the "generic" dogs you started breeding from. In selective breeding you are starting with a lot of information and getting a very small subset, the very opposite of macroevolution. While such variation within species when it occurs naturally provides ample proofs for the mechanism of natural selection in selecting which variations will prosper it is no proof of Darwinian evolution (and certainly selective breeding isn't). I know of no creationists of any stripe (from Fundamentalist short creation day to the most broad minded [in comparison] intelligent design theorist) that has a problem with variation within species or even with the role of natural selection in shaping such variations.

Macroevolution requires NEW information through mutation or gene transference to be added as grist to the natrual selection mill. This is where creationists have a problem either because of religious belief in the case of Fundamentalists or from a professed scientific objection in the case of Intelligent design theorists (to give them the benefit of the doubt that their scientific objections aren't just masks over religious objections - perhaps they are, but even so to dismiss their theories on that account only is an ad hominim fallacy).

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jamesmrankinjr]

How can you KNOW something through scientific inquiry?

Best,
-jimbo

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

i love the sound of a creationist backpedaling in the morning!

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you cannot even figure out the difference between morning and afternoon.

You see the thing with afternoon... it is after noon. Amazing isn't it?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

Science is not just "musings" of scientists.

The idea is to come up with expectations of what you should see in the world if your ideas are right, and then go looking for those things in the manner of *critical* inquiry. You have an idea, you ask "what would that look like?" and then you go out and *look*, not knowing if you are going to see it or not.

Science is not just about evidence, it is about critical testing of that evidence.

The "big bang" theory, for instance, attributes the microwave background radiation as the remnant of radiation in the universe when matter first decoupled from radiation. You can use thermodynamic arguments, along with telescope observations of the current Hubble expansion, and sensitive measurements of the background to verify that the temperature of the radiation you observe today can be mathematically extrapolated back to the time when the universe should have been young, compact, and hot according to the theory of gravity, the current observed size of the universe, and the density of matter in the universe.

Many scientists make many observations of many of these phenomena, and they all seem to indicate that the universe is about 15 billion years old. Do scientists just pull this out of their ass and feel satisfied? NO. People look at very old stars and try to estimate their ages, using totally different methods, to see if they agree. There was some recent controversy when some stars in globular clusters appeared to possibly be older than the age of the universe indicated by the Hubble constant. Last I heard, that controversy had been resolved by further investigation.

What does your investigation of scriptures say about the spectral distribution of microwave radiation from deep space, or the Hubble expansion? Last time I read Genesis, it didn't say *squat*.

All knowledge is subject to the possibility that our senses (including their extension using scientific instruments) are being deceived by a simulation or fakery by a omnipotent force. On the other hand, the simulation appears to be damn consistent and *predictive* compared to the vague accounts given in creation myths.

Consider that quantum mechanics derived from observing black body radiation (such as a wire in an electric heater, and specific heats of solids), eventually allows us to produce laser diodes that *work.* Every time you press play on a CD player, you are testing quantum mechanics. And guess what: the laser emits light, just like quantum mechanics says, EVERY TIME YOU TRY IT. Science WORKS. When I press the button and the CD player doesn't work, I know it is because the battery is dead, and not because I didn't pray properly to the gods.

The fact that I typed my last message and you responded provides more evidence about the TRUTH of electromagnetic and quantum theories than you can ever hope to muster in support of a young Earth.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, this is God. I'm afraid those over-religious fanboy nutjobs have it a bit wrong. I'm afraid the entire world was created when I took a REALLY big dump. They're actually right, it did take six days, but that's just because I was really constipated at the time. You were made in my image, but I look like Rosie O'Donnell, so you've sacreligiously chosen to breed yourselves to look like something else. Ungrateful bastards. At least Rosie's going to heaven, the rest of you are screwed. What else? Oh yeah, love one another (and I mean carnally, I only made humans because I was running out of whack-off material, and I need some more entertainment), and smoke lots of pot. I put it there for you to enjoy, after all. Now shut up and go away, there's a threesome in Idaho I need to go beat off to.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Jagasian]

"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"

Have you recently thought about what the world would have had to go through in order to have life spontaneously generate?

Here's how the evolution story goes. There is an object in space (Where did it come from? Who knows.) BOOM there is a huge explosion. Stuff goes flying everywhere. Eventually the dust settles and there is a pile of goop. It is on a barren planet. Suddenly, something happens, and the goop comes to life! (We mock B horror movies when something like this happens, but we just accept it when people pass it off as evolution). And what is hilarious is that there are all sorts of these things throughout "History". A rat becomes a bat. Missing link? Still missing. (Not to mention, a half-rat half-bat would not be very well designed to survive).

Current estimates of the size of the universe state that you have neglected to consider one of the most important things. The law of large numbers. If there is a probability greater than zero that something could happen, and you make enough attempts at that "something", then that "something" will happen!

Basically, to us it seems like really good luck that, by chance, our planet formed and gave forth life, but why don't you tell that to the billions of trillions of other planets that formed, by chance, unable to give birth to life? The universe is so large that the actual probability of "the world happening by chance" is almost 100%. That is it is just about necessary.

So yes, you are right, the probability of such a thing happening for any one planet is extremely low, but what is that probability for it happening for at least 1 in a million planets? At least 1 in a billion? A trillion? Oh, you can bet there are more!

For example, I could write a very small program, wouldn't take but a few minutes, that would create every text file possible. Given enough time it would create every book ever written in addition to your bible and your Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Not only that, but it would create the text of every email in your inbox. Are you starting to understand the power of large numbers?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[edremy]

If I remember correctly, amino-acid chains cannot exist in the current atmosphere (I don't know that for sure). If that is the case, then at some point along the way the atmosphere changed, and at this moment life would have had to change with it. The chances of this happening are extroirdinary

Hardly: life itself did the change. The atmosphere and life on earth co-evolved.

Very well, let us assume that the gliding pre-bat was equipped to survive. Why isn't it still around?

It was outcompeted by "better" mammals (their children), better meaning that they were better adapted to the changing enviroment.

Why isn't there any fossil record of it?

Not everything fossilizes: the fossil record is not perfect. (And I'm making an assumption just because I haven't heard of this particular transitional form.) Perhaps you'd be willing to settle for the whale linage instead, where we have a set of really nice intermediates ranging from legged land dwellers to current whales? (Although the exact relationship between them is still a subject of debate.) Or the transition from dinosaurs to birds?

If they were a viable species why didn't they continue to live?

Again, outcompeted. You seem to be under the impression that once a species forms it never changes again and is perfectly optimal. This isn't the case: even the best optimized species may not survive if the environmental niche it occupies changes enough: it may either go extinct or evolve into something better suited for its new environment.

And if they didn't continue to live, how did they live for long enough to mutate into something else?

They did: that's what bats are.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Jagasian]

No, its:
"I love the smell of creationists backpedaling in the morning."

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[GlassHeart]

let us assume that the gliding pre-bat was equipped to survive. Why isn't it still around?

Many possible reasons. It may eat the same thing as a bat or a rat, and cannot gather food as efficiently as either. It may require a habitat (temperature, etc) that is no longer around.

Why isn't there any fossil record of it?

Maybe there aren't too many of them, so the odds of finding one are low. Maybe they're small, and easy to miss when digging. Maybe they look a lot like a rat or a bat, and were actually found but ignored.

How many dinosaurs have lived, over a period of over 100 million years? How many have we found?

If they were a viable species why didn't they continue to live?

Uh, because things change? Humans are a very viable species today, numbering in the billions. What if a sufficiently large asteriod hits tomorrow?

Your main problem is that you are trying to draw a conclusion out of ignorance, not out of knowledge. We don't know why the pre-bat isn't around, therefore. We don't know why we haven't found any fossils, therefore. Science doesn't work that way.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

What kind of approach is this? "I'll believe anything I read in the Bible, unless you explicitly disprove it." I can see why you don't understand the scientific method.

When you talk about disproving "worldwide flood" what kind of worldwide flood are you talking about? One occuring after humans were civilized enough to have agriculture and build arks? What evidence do you have that indicates anything of the kind ever happened? What is there to disprove?

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[pboulang]

By your statement, are you trying to indicate that the word "Know" is somehow a flaw in his argument? How do you KNOW that you are even alive? GOD didn't tell you, and it certainly doesn't say so in the Bible or any other writings of significance. Disregarding the human ability to gain knowledge by looking at their surroundings denies them the right to be human...

That said, you are an idiot, and this I KNOW.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[pboulang]

and this article could be related to the Biblically documented mutation from the tower of Babel (of course then you'd have to accept the existence and interference of God)

Sure, the mutation could be an interference from God, but not according to Christian Scientists, because genes doesn't matter. God created us in His image and nothing has changed since then.

Why is the Babel story being considered a mutation? Does that mean that I need some kind of special genes to speak different languages? Or are you both simply clueless and want to argue theology instead of reality?

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[pboulang]

Here Here! Good response. Except for the last sentence regarding a subtle hint from God. Better to have stuck with the Hebrews.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Maybe, maybe, maybe...

You accuse me of drawing to a conclusion out of ignorance, yet you fully support the idea that a creature once existed that -no one has ever found any evidence of- solely because the theory of evolution claims it should be there.

Science is the study of things that are occuring. It involves testing and observing. How can you call evolution science when no one has ever observed it? No one has ever tested it? The core of science is true; observe, record, test. The problem is when the field is squeezed into a certain viewpoint.

I believe that that starting with the Bible as a basis for science is as bad as starting with evolution as the basis. Either way, the results will be skewed. Personally, I believe that the results will back up the Biblical account, so science from a Biblical standpoint is unnecessary.

However, beginning research, any kind of research, with a built in bias will color the results.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[pboulang]

I can't speak to God, but I did have lunch with Jesus last Friday.

Seriously though, everyone can speak to God except you, he says that you smell weird.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

How do I KNOW anything? Good question. I know I left my cell phone in my car because when I went to my car to look for it, I found it there. If I hadn't found it, I would have decided my theory on cell phone misplacement had been mistaken, and try to think of what other theories are plausible, then go look for the cell phone there.

How do I KNOW every electron has spin-1/2? Because every atom of a given metal looks the same, and electrons in those atoms are what gives them their electrical and optical properties. If some electrons didn't have spin-1/2, you'd expect to see atoms with wildly different properties, but you don't. We're up to over 100 atoms in the periodic table, and in all that chemistry work, nobody has found anything that doesn't fit. Sure, tomorrow, there might be an article on slashdot about electrons being observed with integer spin, but I won't stay up late checking the headlines for it.

Sure, all knowledge is tentative. But some knowledge is less tentative than other knowledge.

Maybe I'm being followed by a little green troll who disappears every time I turn my head. Of course, he would also have to disappear when I walk by a large glass building, because I never see his reflection there. And nobody else sees him, or else I'm the subject of a worldwide conspiracy: everyone else sees the troll, but knows that I'm the guy with the troll, so they'd better not mention it, because it would be rude. All in all, I think my little green troll theory isn't too compelling, so I don't go around claiming I am followed by such a troll.

Now, faith is the opposite. If my religious beliefs include a little green troll, I believe it despite all the evidence. God must just be testing my faith, or has reasons beyond human comprehension, or some other rationalization. Even if some one appears in a cloud of smoke and says "I am that I am, father of Molok and Shamu, your ancestors, and Boz is my prophet. The little green troll you were taught about in Wednesday school doesn't exist. That is all." before vanishing with a flash of lightning, it must have been the devil, trying to deceive me, leading me away from the true green troll path.

Perhaps God exists, and people have eternal souls. That is a matter of faith. But don't ask me to accept that this God created Man out of dust a few hundred generations ago, and Woman out of his rib. My faith doesn't extend that far in the face of scientific knowledge.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

You make your assumptions and I'll make mine.
One occuring after humans were civilized enough to have agriculture and build arks? assumes an evolution from less civilized to more civilized. There is evidence out there of advanced prehistoric cultures, prehistoric airplanes, some even believe in prehistoric space flight. This doesn't jive with the standard assumptions so it is pretty much ignored.

Virtually every culture has a flood tale. That is what there is to disprove.

This doesn't apply just to the Bible. Any historical writings must be analyzed and not set aside without good reason. They were there at a time closer than when it happened so they are more likely to have knowledge of what happened. They might not communicate it in a way that satisfies you or in a way that appears ignorant but that doesn't prove it isn't true.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Black Parrot]

> Leave it to people to take their "all powerfull, all knowing" God, and place all kinds of restictions on what God is capable. ...

> What if God, when he created the earth, created not only most of what we see now, but all the evidence of the evolutionary process. ...

> What if He has a sense of humor, and is laughing his ass off at us right now?

Yeah, when creationists suggest that God faked the evidence for evolution, they should pause to wonder whether an even better joke might have occured to him.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Binome]

<I>Virtually every culture has a flood tale. That is what there is to disprove.</I>

Lots of cultures also have tales of extremely powerful and massive flying reptiles called dragons.

On another note, there are lots of TV shows with episodes where the characters are trapped in an elevator. You know why? Because it's a good plot for a sitcom. (Or at least it was before everyone got sick of it.) Just because a bunch of cultures made up stories about a whole bunch of water doesn't mean that there was a massive worldwide flood.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Black Parrot]

> In any of my attempts to get references to or explanations of evidence from creationists about the "science" behind creationism, that is about the best they've given me.

When I tried to get a creationist to spell out the key evidence for creation in another story here a couple of months ago, almost everything he listed was an attempt to refute the theory of evolution rather than an attempt to provide evidence for creation.

I think the vast majority of creationists have difficulties with the concept of evidence.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Binome]

Hrm... naturally, I have to discredit myself by screwing up the formatting so that I look totally inept and moronic.

I demand to be modded down! Beat me like a redheaded stepchild, it's the only way I'll learn.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

As far as bats are concerned, my quick searches of Google indicate that most biologists will admit that there's very little fossil evidence of the evolutionary development of bats. Which is to be expected: they're small and their bones are delicate. But you can't expect the lack of fossils to make a biologist say, "oh, well, in that case, God must have put them here exactly as they are." Especially when the fossil record shows no evidence of bats existing before about 55 mya - and of course, no evidence of God even existing, much less making bats from dust.

Do a quick Google search for "Bat Evolution" and there's plenty of interesting stuff. You won't find any biologists saying "evolution demands that such-and-such creature existed" - you'll mostly find frank admissions that we don't know that much about how bats came about.

The thing is, we'll learn a lot more about bats and their ancestry by studying those that exist, comparing their DNA to other mammals, continuing to look for what few fossils may exist - in other words, doing science - than we will by taking Genesis at face value and saying "that's that".

Also note that at some point, scientists did start from scratch, not using evolution or the Bible as the basis. Observed facts have strongly supported evolution, and typically creationists only point to lack of evidence in a few areas (like bats) as support for creation. There's very little scientific evidence for creation, and the root of the theory (the existence of God) doesn't lend itself to experimentation or observation. That is why scientists have a "bias" towards evolution, because the alternative theory can't be tested.

Incidentally, why is it so hard for some Christians to accept the early parts of Genesis as mostly being metaphor and parable? Jesus primarily used parables to teach, and Jesus is God, so why would it be so shocking to find that the account of the creation of the universe, which could only have come directly from God, is not exactly literal? Sometimes some of the Biblical literalists seem so caught up in it that if they ever did find convincing evidence that something in the Bible wasn't 100% accurate, they'd turn into atheists because they wouldn't be able to reconcile their faith with the facts.

And on a totally bizarre tangent, I'm wondering why we never hear of orthodox Jews fighting against the teaching of evolution - I mean, Genesis was their story a couple thousand years before it became part of a Christian Bible.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[GigsVT]

Yes, I sort of addressed that by saying that the book does not only deny speciation, but all of evolution, which is a much larger claim. It is a lot easier to argue that natural speciation has not occured, but there is mounting evidence of observed speciation.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[nobody69]

Evolution is in complete contradiction to God's nature.

In what way? Because evolution is a long, round-about way to get to human beings? God is not concerned with quick fixes, otherwise He would have made humans incorruptible rather than let them fall from grace. Or just made everyone fall in line with Him, rather than going through all the prophets and sacrificing His Son. Waiting several thousand years and letting billions of people suffer both active evil and the pain of not knowing Christ is hardly more efficient than waiting several billion years and letting billions of people suffer both active evil and the pain of not knowing Christ when you can take the big picture view the way God can.

Literalists say that evolution and the Big Bang limit God's powers, but God lets evil happen for reasons that are not knowable to mere humans. If God lets death camps and child molesters exist for reasons that we cannot understand, but that are correct in the long run, why can't he have used the Big Bang and evolution as the mechanisms for his grand design for reasons that we can't understand?

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

Virtually every culture has a flood tale. That is what there is to disprove.

There is no reason to doubt that many cultures have flood tales. That is hard to disprove, because it is probably true!!

On the other hand, what you seem to be claiming is that, because many cultures, based in relatively small regions, have legends describing large, destructive floods, that all of these cultures must be referring to a single (or, I suppose, you would also accept multiple) worldwide catastrophe(s). That's a huge leap. Such a world-wide catastrophe would almost certainly leave some detectable physical impact. Yet we see nothing of the sort.

I have a good reason for setting aside these pseudo-historical accounts.

1) You seem to be conflating "history" with "heroic fiction," "myth," and "legend."

2) Ancient civilizations had much less rigorous standards for accuracy than modern day archaeologists or historians. Because these writers lacked high-speed travel, and access to modern archaeological findings, they relied much more on oral traditions and vague reports from travellers, who were probably willing to tell tall tales.

3) We have only a very fragmentary knowledge of ancient writings---much of what we know is only second- or third-hand accounts of works no longer extant. Even the flood accounts that you refer to hardly claim to be contemporary journalistic accounts.

You seem to want to give these ancient stories more weight than present-day scientific observation. Why you would, I have no idea. I can only guess that you enjoy your fantasies about pre-historic space flight so much that you'd rather not question their basis. But you should recognize them for what they are.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

Evolution is a long, round-about way to get nothing in particular. If some freak accident hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs, there is practically zero probability that humans would have evolved. After all, mammals had been around for many millions of years alongside the dinosaurs, and showed no signs of being anything particularly promising, much less evolving into anything "intelligent" enough to post on Slashdot.

Now, of course, one can claim that a massive asteroid impact was part of God's "plan," but then we are back to a God who has to push rocks around to keep evolution from going "astray" from his plan. But, in the end, you are simply claiming whatever you need in order to support your belief that there is a God with a plan. That isn't very persuasive.

I think the far greater problem is that God could have done just as well at making humans with a nice small solar system, without making the universe so fucking HUGE. Sure, you can turn that around to say that humans must be supremely special to warrant God's attention while we are living on some insignificant speck on the edge of just one out of billions of galaxies. That only works if you assume that God exists and is indeed paying attention, so it is in the end a circular argument.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[jaoswald]

The real way to do this is to change your Emacs (you are using Emacs to program in Lisp, right) so that your [ and ] keys produce ( and ) without shifting.

But I am a Lisp programmer, and hardly notice shifting as very tiring. One rarely types more than one ( in a row, and when completing, you can just hold down the shift key and )))) until the parenthesis matching gets to the right place.

The real advantage to typing lisp is that you don't need all of the & ; -> . { } nonsense that you get in C or $ _ stuff you get in Perl.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Starcub]

If there are zany creationists reading this out there, please do feel free to email me links or give me better arguments via email. I've had this invitation open for years, but no one has given me anything other than b.s. so far.

Since you asked for a *zany* creationists reply...

For the same reason God can't be proven to exist, I don't think that creationism can be proven true; at least not through purely scientific means. Though I do believe that one can infer truth about creationism from scientific evidence stemming from the nature of evolution itself. Go here and look at the questions posed at the bottom of the page.

Over a historically very short period -- just 40 million years -- the basic forms of just about all of life in existence evolved. I think it is interesting to note that the first story of creation as told in the book of Genesis gives a fairly accurate account of the order in which life evolved as determined through science. Now I don't know how much people knew about the Cambrian period almost 2000 years ago, but the correlation is interesting. Genetically speaking, it's entirely possible that God had it all planned out before the Cambrian period even began, or even before the world was created. The triggers that have shaped and continue to shape our evolution could have been placed already and we just haven't discovered them yet. Ever see 2001: A Space Odyssey? Remember how each time the monolith is discovered, life evolves in some significant fashion? Isn't it funny how each generation tends to rediscover the monolith in its own way and time?

Scientists and computer programmer types generally have a hard time accepting the existence of God and thus creationism. I think this results from a tendency to develop knowledge from that which is directly observable. Taken to the extreme, as was the case for Einstein, they can come to knowledge of God as the force behind the design of the universe. This is a result of the fact that existence itself is so complex and yet there is order to it.

I believe that any and all possible paths we have or can travel have been plowed already. However, it is one thing to simply shine a light in front of yourself as you walk and completely another to look back over where you have traveled and think "why?" I think it is here that we can best determine where we might be going.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[RevAaron]

So very true. If the billion people who claim to be Christian actually attempted to imitate Christ, the world would be a much different place.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Creations who need to refute

Please read this--I tried to write it to be fun to read:x

I guess you're saying someone that somebody named God (who is, incidentally, responsible for all your actions and what happens to you), with whom you are trying to earn "brownie" points by posting the above, has this plan of events that we all follow. You said it, so it must be fact.

Or, maybe it's from the Bible, so it's fact. Actually, I think the "Chronicles of Narnia" series of books are fact. The Bible is your faith. Narnia is my faith (well, not really). Most religious faith is based on one book--the bible. Take that away, and what else do you have? Nothing.

But taking one discovery, one finding, one invention, one or multitude of anything of SCIENCE does not disprove it. There's this endless flow of information being researched every day. Science is a whole field of people that are searching for the truth instead of believing in a book of Narnia or Harry Potter or Bible stories or Mother Goose.

But millions believe in what the Bible says, and ONLY FEW believe in those other story books! -----OBVIOUSLY----- it's because the BIBLE is TRUTH!!

--Actually, no. It's because (supposedly) the Bible has been around for thousands of years. If I were to build hundreds of thousands of churches to preach Harry Potter for thousands of years, I would have millions of people (and descendants) running around believing in Harry Potter, too. (Well not everyone but JUST THE PEOPLE WHO ARE--a] the least educated OR b] people who have been told that Harry Potter is the truth so many times that they take Harry Potter to heart as absolute truth for the rest of their lives such that their lives would fall apart if they had to find out they've been mislead since birth.)

So the above is how people can be lead into believing in something that their parents/neighbor/a book tells them.

Why do some people grow up to refuse to consider the possibility of there not being a higher power? Here is one possibility (other slashdotters already mentioned other ideas):

1) "Firstly I believe in the stuff about being a good citizen that's in the Bible. (that gluttony-adultery thieving stuff.)"
2) "I accept and have faith in Bible and God."
3) "Those few things that I truly believe in my life, such as that stealing and hate are bad, serve to support that I made the right choice with having faith in the whole Bible."
4) "The parts about behaving in society I agree with so I have to agree with the whole book. I mean, the book does say that I'm made for life if I believe it and bad things won't happen."
5) "Someone disagrees with a part of the book. That CANNOT HAPPEN. You either accept it all or you don't."
6) "Someone doesn't accept a part so they dont accept the whole Bible. Therefore they are saying stealing is good and adultery is good."
7) "Because of that, everyone else must be evil."
8) "I am not evil I believe in the Bible."
9) "If I DO end up doing something not good:
a-God planned it
b-or God will forgive me
c-or God works in mysterious ways"
10) "Because without faith in God, people are evil, society cannot thrive. Therefore, Bible equals society greatness."
11) "I am a good person (and I know this is true because I believe in God.) Anyway, therefore I must do my duty as a good citizen and support my beliefs in Humanity"
12) "The way to do that is to refute every anti-god reteric I encounter. Otherwise, this will invalidate my beliefs."
13) "Invalidating my beliefs is bad because we know all of the following are true:
a--I am a good person (true because I believe in God)
b--I believe in the bible
c--and in turn I believe the bible is right
d--therefore, I'm not wrong since the bible is right and that's what I believe (..)

11) "And what are they? My beliefs are that
WHOLE THING must be true and fact. Yes, being nice and honest and not stealing is good. So the whole book is good! And hard-core Christians end up believing that by refuting religious beliefs, you are refuting EVERYTHING ELSE that's in the Bible--such as that stuff about being loyal to your wife and whatnot. That's CRAZY to have an all or nothing situation and it's no wonder some people are confused.

I believe in helping others, being honest, etc. However, the problem is that from my observations, (some) Christians act like having faith in God makes them holy. And people who don't believe in God are useless/have no purpose, ignorant, and are evil and satanic (I believe that the Bible actually says that last part.) I hate to break the news to you but I consider myself to be a very nice and kind person and I don't I need to have faith in a book to feel so. But sure, if believing that faith in God is the only way for one to feel a part of something and feel superior to "non-believers" and it helps one live, be my guest. But don't try to pretend science is incorrect. Do you people even know what sciene is? Look it up.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Hektor_Troy]

You owe me a keyboard! The old one died when I sprayed it with water from laughing.

Also, I want reperation from the tort of blowing water out my nose.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Before humans there was no right or wrong. Maybe to "god" there is no right or wrong, which is why pretty much anything goes on Earth... free will, and all that.

Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[overunderunderdone]

Yes, I sort of addressed that by saying that the book does not only deny speciation, but all of evolution

To be fair to them I would imagine when they deny evolution they are talking the theory of evolution as "The Origin of Species" in other words speciation. It's getting into semantics, variations within a species which you and I were calling "evolution" aren't really evolution - almost more like devolution, things aren't getting more complex and rich - the opposite is happening. There is less and less information in each succeeding generation of breeded animals until you get highly specialised but genetically identical population incapable of any further change.

I'm pretty familiar with creationists, and like I said I don't know any that deny variation within species (though they may make a point to not CALL it evolution, a semantic point that I think is actually pretty fair). Actually creationists tend to be make a great deal out of the genetic mechanism that causes variation within species BECAUSE it cannot explain specieation and yet many evolutionists simplisticly assert that it does and so set up a nice big straw man for creationsists to knock down. The various breeds of dogs and other domesticated animals appear at first glance to be a vindication of evolutionary theory - the creationists are right (in this instance) to point out that this mechanism cannot explain speciation.

Re: Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately

[ShavenYak]

Oh well, it just kinda struck me as an odd possibility. And, if it were the case, it would be one of the very few positive messages to humanity in the book of Genesis.

According to Discovery Channle

[bsDaemon]

They had a show on there about human evolution abouta month ago. The chick said that the reason humans can speak is because we can swim. Being ablt to hold our breath and control our breathing in gerneal allows us to controll the air over the vocal chords. She seems to believe that way back when we were semi-aquatic monkeys or something. Can't say I totaly disagree

Re:According to Discovery Channle

[k-0s]

Ummm can't ALOT of animals swim but can't speak? Like the entire fish family, amphibian and several reptile and mammal species?

Re:According to Discovery Channle

[Anonymous Coward]

Fish "breathe" water - they're not "holding their breath" when swimming!. Frogs usually have a large and varied vocabulary - they don't just go "croak" or "ribbit" or "qwak" or whatever. Crocs and turtles have a wierd array of grunts, chirps and squeaks. Elephants too. Dolphins and Whales? Ever hear them?

Humans are SO obviously semi-aquatic apes, specialised non-specialists cut out for shoreline living.

Evidence:

• Our nakedness. What other mammals are similarly hairless? That's right, the semi-aquatic ones
• Our unusual stance. What other mammals habitually walk like us? Wading primates in mangrove swamps
• Out water-inefficiency. Totally at-odds with the "savannah" theory, our bodies really don't worry about water conservation - suggesting a (fresh/low-salinity) watery environmental preferenc
• What was the rift valley right about when humanoid fossils start turning up. It was not savannah like it is now, it was wetlands.
• Where do humans STILL choose to live - by the water
• Where do humans STILL preferentiallyt go on holidays (and there indulge in mating rituals) - by the water.
• What other mammals control their breath and use large vocubalaries: Dolphins, whales, elephants, humans
• Why does the human population have short-sightedness? Surely it would be a major no-no? Actually no: short-sighted humans see better underwater (without goggles)

We didn't just once go through a semi-aquatic evolutionary stage. WE'RE STILL AT IT!

Re:According to Discovery Channle

[JimmyGulp]

The entire fish family essentially breathes water (the suck water in, take the oxygen, shove out water and co2). They aren't controlling their breathing like we can.

Re:According to Discovery Channle

[Dynedain]

Birds can sure control the air over their vocal chords.....they don't chirp with every breath

Any creature that can make a vocal noise can control it...otherwise predators/prey would be warned of its presence...an evolutionary necessetiy.

So mammals can hold their breath.......what about birds? Same evolutionary tree? Why then to reptiles have such limited capabilities (especially compared to birds, their closes relative)

Researchers next want to try altering the gene in

[Mike Connell]

Behold, the time has come for Dr Rat to lead the revolution.

(Dr Rat is a novel by William Kotzwinkle about a talking rat in a research lab. Well worth reading)

Evolution

[The Real Chrisjc]

Does this now prove that evolution exsists? Last I heard, theres no solid proof. It could be very interesting for animals to communicate more. I don't think you'll get a talking dog out of it! Atleast, not for a good thousand years or so, if it happens quickly.

Re:Evolution

[cat_jesus]

No, Evolution was observed long before this.

http://talkorigins.org

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No solid proof? lol

Re:Evolution

[The Real Chrisjc]

No solid proof? lol

I was speaking metaphorically! What did you want me to say?

:P

Re:Evolution

[Eric Smith]

Evolution has not been observed at all. Scientists have never seen one species evolve from another. While there is a lot of evidence to support evolution, it operates on timescales far too long for direct observation.

Does this mean ...

[Bake]

We're ALL X-Men?

Re:Does this mean ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I met an x-man once. She seemed nice, but... I thought something was strange, and then I felt what was wrong with him. :-)

Re:Does this mean ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what it means. According to modified theories of Evolution (and it's only a theory because not all the pieces have fallen into place yet), advancement arises through advantageous selection towards various mutations - the ability to see colour, for example, was advantageous (enables you to see red lights so you can stop), so those who didn't have it all died in horrible car crashes. Or something like that... So, we're all mutants.

NOTE: I said above "modified theories" - there are different opinions about the exact path taken and why, which is why it's still a theory. Some scientists point to "survival of the fittest", others to "survival of the luckiest" (never seen me in a casino, obviously). My personal theory - survival of the dumbest. Stupid people tend to breed more than smart people, thus dragging down the overall IQ of the general population. The smart ones develop ways to keep the stupid ones alive (i.e. new ways to re-attach severed limbs), thus ensuring the continuation of the species.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Biology teacher, and I don't play one on TV. I just find evolution much more fascinating than the alternative (and we won't discuss "Scientific Creationism", please and thank you).

Talking dog

[seen2much]

"So, how long until I can get a talking dog?" Oh dear God, soon Scooby Doo clones will be sold in the petshops. Right next to the Dogberts and Huckleberry Hounds.

Re:Talking dog

[Hott of the World]

Quiet, you.

Re:Talking dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Mr. Peabody.

Isn't that evolution?

[YellowSubRoutine]

Isn't that exactly evolution at work?
Aren't we all what we are because of a series of accidental gene mutations?

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[andhar]

No, actually, isn't that called 'Genetic Drift?'

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[GPPL]

yeah, but it is interesting to know when it developed

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[SL33Z3]

Sure. And along with that, the earth is flat, the atom is the smallest thing on the face of th earth, and moldy bread can cure disease. Oh wait, science got one of those right -- I guess accidents DO happen.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[Ed_Moyse]

(Moderators : how on earth is that parent insightful? And +5?!!!)

Of course it's bloody evolution! That's what the article is talking about!

It's newsworthy because - to quote Faraneh Vargha-Khadem from the Washington Post story - "... it's not too far a leap to be making to say that civilizations gradually emerged from this type of ability."

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Moderators : how on earth is that parent insightful? And +5?!!!)
Of course it's bloody evolution! That's what the article is talking about!"

No, its suggesting that this specifically is down to gene mutation. And the comment you are complaining about is asking - "isnt every change down to random gene mutation?" And the answer is: Yes. All of it is. So why pick on this as being a weird mutant gene, when theres no other way it could possibly have worked. So he has a point.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm...evolution is simply gene mutations that survive generations.

Asshat.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[RevAaron]

Kind of.

Mutation created the gene. Genetic drift saw to it's spread and dominance. Together, it is part of our evolution- genetic drift isn't outside of evolution, it's a mechanism for it. Chances are that this gene was advantageous, so natural selection was at work and not just genetic drift.

Genetic drift usually occurs in small populations. 200k years ago, there were more than a couple hundred humans. Genetic drift can occur in huge populations (even as large as we are now), but it's very improbable.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[danbeck]

No, we don't really know exactly how we got here. Many people think we were created by a higher power, many theorize that we have been created over a long period of time.

There simply is no proof that we have been created by accidental gene mutations any more than we were created by 1 part lemon, 2 parts sugar and 4 parts water.

It's a theory... just like this story. If you begin to automatically take theory for fact, you are a fool.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what i said, in #4076102. Theres nothing special about this language one. I mean, its important to humans, but the way it occured is exactly what evolution describes - a random mutation, surviving in subsequent generations because it confers an advantage over humans who dont have the gene.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[paiute]

If I have to carve the definitions of law, fact, hypothesis, and theory backwards on one more 2x4 and beat one more ignorant putz who was asleep in science 101 about the head and shoulders with it, I'm switching to PT 4x4s for durability.

Re: Isn't that evolution?

[Black Parrot]

> It's a theory... just like this story. If you begin to automatically take theory for fact, you are a fool.

Too bad the theory exists for the sole purpose of explaining the facts. Creationists like to sing the "It's Just A Theory" hymn, but it's the facts that disprove creationism. The theory replaced creationism because we needed something that actually fit the facts.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[Tenebrious1]

Isn't that exactly evolution at work? Aren't we all what we are because of a series of accidental gene mutations?

It's an example of "macro-evolution", which is significant because people still debate whether macro-evolution occurs. We can study fruit flies and see examples of "micro-evolution" in progress, how genetic traits are passed on. However, in the short time we've been doing this, we have not seen the fruit fly turn into a fruit bat, or any other significant changes where it would no longer be classified as a fruit bat.

The discovery of the gene mutation is extraordinary. We can point at the mutation which allowed humans to speak and say "there is an example of macro-evolution". The cause of the divergence of humans from the other great apes and becoming our own species.

I'm not a biologist, but I that's the general gist I get from my friends who are...

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[AlecC]

Exactly. What is interesting is that they have seen it at work, which is much less common. One of the common accusations of creationists is that you can't see evolution working, so it is only a plausible hypothesis to explain the facts we see - and that they have an equally plausible hypothesis to explain the same facts, with divine imprimatur. In fact, you can see it working - see for example The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time - but not very easily. So more examples tracing what has happened, and particularly examples relating to the most important animal in the universe(ourselves, in our own unbiased opinion) are devinoitely of interest.

Re: Isn't that evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well alrighty then. I would like you to present the facts. Please prove to me that evolution is true. You have obviously researched this subject and you must be educated enough to enlighten the rest of us. Or are you just regurgitating sound bites without anything to back it up.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[Philip Trent]

Please explain what a "higher power" is, and how there can possibly be empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing, and then you can talk about what is factual and what isn't.

Re:Isn't that evolution?

[No One]

Nope, it's still what creationists claim is "micro-evolution". Of course, macro- and micro-evolution are both pseudoscientific weasel words that the creationist nutjobs use to avoid having to admit that they're wrong, but that's pretty much beside the point. They've made up "micro-evolution" to describe the changes within species that they can no longer deny, and "macro-evolution" to describe speciation. 200 years ago, the creationist mantra was "everything that ever lived is alive today, unchanged." The mounting archaeological evidence forced them to change that to, "Species can become extinct, but they don't come about on their own, and they don't change." Today, the evidence has forced them to say "OK, we were wrong again, and species do change significantly in response to their environment, but these changes still don't cause speciation!"

Hmmm... The evolution of the creationist? :)

There's no debate among biologists over whether speciation happens. Creationists try to create the impression that it does in order to decieve the generally scientifically illiterate population into believing that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative to biological evolution. However, it's nothing but intellectual dishonesty. The debate among biologists is how it happens, not whether. The only people who claim it doesn't are religious zealots who insist on believing that their mythology constitutes scientific evidence and that it's a literal and accurate account of the "creation of the world." Now they do include scientists among them, but if you actually track down the "scientist" who made whatever quote they're quoting, you invariably find his credentials are in a completely different discipline than the one they're quoting him on.

This really isn't revolutionary evidence of anything, it's news because it fills out our understanding of how we evolved. It's interesting, and it does further our understanding of our history, but it's not really revolutionary.

Re: Isn't that evolution?

[Copid]

An excellent place to start would be here. There's plenty more in there if you want to browse a bit. If you have specific questions, their site is indexed by an internal Google appliance and they'll usually respond to feedback and questions through their site or the newsgroup talk.origins. Happy reading.

XP2 gene

[GibsonSundman]

The mutation in the XP2 gene allowed humans greater control over their mouth and throat muscles, and gave them the ability to produce new sounds.

..After they signed the EULA

Parrots?

[Quixote]

Parrots can make most of the sounds that humans can make ( and then some). Does that mean parrots can "speak" like humans, or develop a culture? I don't think the ability to make sounds has anything to do with culture.

Re:Parrots?

[shd99004]

Maybe it's forming a culture that needs speech, rather than the other way around?

Re:Parrots?

[aztektum]

It's also more difficult for parrots to build tools (although not so tough for crows! :), cars, houses, dishware, sew, and program computers; they can replicate our sounds but do they understand our language?

Humans had a decided advantage b/c of more obvious phsysiology (hands) as well, speech just made it easier to say "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!"

And who's to say they don't have a culture that's all their own, too.

But I don't blame anyone for anything.

Re:Parrots?

[tomstdenis]

This is by far the lamest post I have ever seen. Many animals in fact do have customs and cultures. They may not be as elaborate as the fake business-suit song and dance you are used to but by your logic a tribesman in Africa is not human because their culture is not like your own?

Tom

Re:Parrots?

[Pedrito]

Does that mean parrots can "speak" like humans, or develop a culture?

I have to agree with this. Culture and "language" were a development of the brain, not speech. After all, sign language provide more than adequate language skills to create and develop culture.

An interesting note of trivia has to do with the indigenous population of the Canary Islands. They lived on the string of islands, but never built boats and thus never actually met. They communicated between islands using whistles. In fact, their entire language was built on whistles. They are the only group of humans known to have a language built on whistles.

Unfortunately, upon colonization of the Canaries, the Spanish all but wiped them out. Supposedly there are still a few descendants of these indigenous people who still whistle the native tongue.

Re:Parrots?

[StrawberryFrog]

I don't think the ability to make sounds has anything to do with culture.

Sound (or some other means of communicaton.. I think of Octopi and thier colour changes here) is necessary but not suficient for culture, and has co-evoilved with the rest of the extraordinary human brain.

If you have a few days to kill, don't mind complexity and are really interested, go read 'The Symbolic Species' by Terrence deacon for more details.

Re:Parrots?

[dattaway]

No, this is what we are worried about. When your typewriters end up missing, you know something is wrong.

Re:Parrots?

[Wuhao]

Sure sounds are related to culture. We can't build a language without communication. Granted, there's writing -- But look at what we're writing now. We find it advantageous to make our written language parallel our spoken language. Every character reflects a different sound.

The reason the parrots -- and the mice, if the experiment works, -- won't develop culture is because of a lack of intelligence. It's like saying, "My friend has an oven, and so do I, but I'm a master chef. Since he's so unskilled, clearly ovens have nothing to do with cooking."

Re:Parrots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who saw this and thought:

Macaulay Culkin !

Re:Parrots?

[weylin]

The gene is only one key element. There are others. I think the ability to make sounds i.e. communication is crucial for culture.

Re:Parrots?

[bafreer]

I think the more important idea is the ability to communicate more intricately. Maybe if you live 10-20,000 years, you would see parrots develop a culture.

Re:Parrots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you ever get itchy stuffing all that straw into your straw-man arguments?

Re:Parrots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly...of course niggers aren't human.

Re:Parrots?

[tomstdenis]

Um ok. Thats right all other animals are just lame mindless creatures and us, the gift of god are the only ones capable of thought or organization.

How silly of me to forget how omnipotent we are.

All hail Jesus, for he is our saviour or some jazz like that.

People like you make me ashamed to be human.

Re:Parrots?

[tomstdenis]

You put the Coward in Anonymous Coward.

Tom

Re:Parrots?

[RevAaron]

The article doesn't purport that having the ability to create our human languages led to culture, but a combination of our traits. Without the ability to have complex languages, we wouldn't have ended up with "civilizations." This mutation opened something up for the rest of our population- for our thinking brains and our tool-making hands.

This gene, integrated into populations of bonobos could most definately lead to cities of humping primates. That talk.

Re:Parrots?

[Anonymous Coward]

You put the ass in asshat.

Re:Parrots?

[tomstdenis]

asshat? Man what are you? 10 years old?

Next you're gonna call me a poopy-head too right?

Re:Parrots?

[RevAaron]

W E R D.

Re:Parrots?

[zapfie]

With very few exceptions, unfortunately, I find most anonymous cowards are just bad trolls that try to get a rouse out of people.. for the most part, they are best left ignored.

Re: Parrots?

[Black Parrot]

> Many animals in fact do have customs and cultures. They may not be as elaborate as the fake business-suit song and dance you are used to but by your logic a tribesman in Africa is not human because their culture is not like your own?

In the future they'll argue whether PowerPoint was necessary for culture, or vice versa.

Re:Parrots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are You always thinking of little boys or something?

Stay away from my children.

Re:Parrots?

[hoggoth]

> ... the indigenous population of the Canary Islands. They lived on the string of islands, but never built boats and thus never actually met. They communicated between islands using whistles. In fact, their entire language was built on whistles. They are the only group of humans known to have a language built on whistles. Unfortunately, upon colonization of the Canaries, the Spanish all but wiped them out.

Close, but you got the details all wrong.
"Silbo Gomero", the whistling language of the Canary Islands is a whistled encoding of SPANISH. It would be hard for them to never have left their island and never have met strangers yet still speak a variation of Spanish. It would also be incorrect to say the Spanish colonized and wiped them out... they ARE Spanish.

You are also incorrect on two other points:
The language is spoken (whistled?) on only one of the Canary Islands, so it could not have created it in order to "communicate between islands". Instead it is theorized that it was created to facilitate communicating across the rugged and difficult to navigate terrain of the mountainous interior.
They are also NOT the only group of humans known to communicate using a whistled language. There are many examples in South America and some other locations.

Re:Parrots?

[5KVGhost]

Right. Though I think it's fair to say that speech facilitates communication, which in turn facilitates the development of culture. You can't have a viable culture without a reliable means of communicating, but there are other ways to communicate besides speech.

Re:Parrots?

[nizo]

I don't think the ability to make sounds has anything to do with culture.

I think country music proved that long, long ago.

Re:Parrots?

[M$ Mole]

You have a point with the parrots...simply the ability to make the appropriate souds is not sufficient to effect the creation of culture. However, the ability to make those sounds to communicate is important. What's missing from the formula is sybolic thought. That, coupled with an ability to speak, is what makes complex human communication possible. Without the "spoken word", spreading culture would have been much more difficult.

Wrong assumptions and wrong gene

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this article makes some wrong assumptions, such as that speech leads to language. In fact, we find that children born without the ability to speak and/or hear, when exposed to sign language, develop language skills in parellel and in the same stages and manner as people who speak. Language is clearly a skill seperate from speech.

Planet of the Apes?

[crosbie]

Truth stranger than fiction?

Shouldn't be too tricky to apply this to a chimpanzee and before you know it! Charlton Heston to the rescue...

Yeah. Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar research has isolated "Multi-variable Calculus" and "Printing Press" genes.

Penguin

[mrselfdestrukt]

Wow, can't believe nobosy said they wanted a talking Penguin. Just image a talking parrot! Oh, wait...

Re:Penguin

[Neon Spiral Injector]

"Slide."

Such perfect timing....

[shoemakc]

...when speech is about to be ruled a DRM circumvention device under the DCMA.

I mean....uh.....::grunt::::grunt:::

Re:Such perfect timing....

[tomstdenis]

imagine a beowolf of genes? whoa..

geez, does there have to be the pseudo-requisit-stupid-boilerplate-take-down-the-g overnment-that-we-elected-anyways-doh-we-should-fe el-stupid post?

Tom

Re:Such perfect timing....

[INT 21h]

> imagine a beowolf of genes? whoa..

That would be you.

2001 will have to be remade.

[Kredal]

Instead of the ancient ancestors hopping up and down looking at the slab, the slab will actually talk to them. "Go over there and pick up that bone. Very good. Now club that guy (you know, the one who called you a baboon) over the head with it. Very good. You see? Tools are useful."

And the monkey will respond, "Gee, wally, this is great! What else can I do with tools? I know, I'll make something round and call it a wheel! Won't this be fun!"

I get it now

[papasui]

The mutation in the FOXP2 gene allowed humans greater control over their mouth and throat muscles..

Mutation must be how porn stars can take down a 12 inch Kielbasa on Howard Stern. Do you think those researches doing the mice gene implant can take a porn star throat gene and place it in my wifes throat? :)

Re:I get it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think those researches doing the mice gene implant can take a porn star throat gene and place it in my wifes throat? :)

You're posting to Slashdot, so odds are, she doesn't need it.

Re:I get it now

[FreeUser]

Mutation must be how porn stars can take down a 12 inch Kielbasa on Howard Stern. Do you think those researches doing the mice gene implant can take a porn star throat gene and place it in my wifes throat? :)

Just make sure your wife doen't get the other porn star genes along with it ... you know, the genes that make them suddenly become obese astrologers when they get too old, or too ugly, to keep their day jobs.

Re:I get it now

[Peter Harris]

Do you think those researches doing the mice gene implant can take a porn star throat gene and place it in my wifes throat? :)

Hey if she reads slashdot maybe she'll post and tell us all how unnecessary that would be :)

Re:I get it now

[jea6]

And finally, are you sure you don't want to ask about the 12-inch kielbasa implant first?

No, that's not how it happened...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, God invented man...speech and all. Mutant genes...now that's funny.

Re:No, that's not how it happened...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that... it annoys me as well that there are people with the audacity to do "scientific" research on our heritage, while all they have to do is just ask their priest/rabbi/etc and they get all the answers they could possibly need.. what's with these infidels??

As a side note, I am still quite displeased with air planes. If man were made to fly, wouldn't God have given us wings???

Re:No, that's not how it happened...

[maxwell demon]

Actually, I've found an old changelog, which may shed some light on how this mutation happened:

Revision: 1024.25.41
Changed by: god
Hmmm... seems that I've still got to improve that program, the humans seem not to be able to communicate the way I intended.

Revision: 1024.25.42
Changed by: god
Found the bug, I made a slight typo in control_throat(). I'll immediatly spill out a new release with this bug fixed.

Re:No, that's not how it happened...

[Anonymous Coward]

go take a bath you fucking unwashed christian. take you dumb faith somewhere else before i make my little jesus christ knock on your back door.

Re:No, that's not how it happened...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, 'cause you're comment is smarter....yawn.

gene therapy

[Anonymous Coward]

...now if they could only get rid of the gene responsible for the voices in my head... /foo

Pinky and the Brain...

[MosesJones]

I knew it wasn't a cartoon, its actually the lab report after the genetic modification to enable them to speak.

Of course if you tried the same on Rabbits they'd only ever say one thing..... "grass".

Re:Pinky and the Brain...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of *people* who only talk about grass.

Admittedly, we may be talking about different types of grass here.

Re:Pinky and the Brain...

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Science Log 8/15/02
We've just finished hooking up the speech translater to subject A-1, a common brown lop-eared rabbit. Recorders are running.

"He's looking at me again. Why is he always looking at me. I swear, if he keeps it up I'm going to kill him in his sleep. Oh... damn... is this thing on? Only one thing to do. Destroy the evidence."
*SOUND OF SCREAMING*
*STATIC*

surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... the whole evolution is based on mutations. The mutations that are helpfull survive.
I hope this wasn't a surprise.

The silence of the lambs

[whimdot]

I'm not big into Macs, but those young sheep would have to hold pretty good conversation before it put me off eating them.

Re:The silence of the lambs

[Neon Spiral Injector]

Nooo, Lisa, noooo, don't eat me.

Re:The silence of the lambs

[PjotrP]

"Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he'd cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?" "Well, we'd have to be talkin' about one charming mother fucking pig. I mean, he'd have to be ten times more charming than that Arnold on Green Acres."

Re:The silence of the lambs

[Xaoswolf]

Talking sheep, shepards would love that.
Shepard, "Hey baby, what do you say we go behind the barn and fool around"
Sheep, "Not tonight Cletus, I have a head ache"
Of course, if they can be taught to talk dirty...

Interesting

[Kobal]

Anything that can help to understand how the forkhead genes work is worth exploring. FYI, they are genes coding for proteines that are supposed to regulate the expression of other genes during embryogenesis, so the value of studyning this mutation isn't only about language, imho.
And to give into the silliness of the first comments, a chimp with the ability to produce more sounds may be able to show rudimentary speech and would be a great test subject for animal "intelligence". And one day, maybe , we'll have those fabled eight-legged chicken...

True, but

[Goonie]

But it's hard to see how a complex culture could develop without speech.

However, some recent research has claimed that some of the great apes posess the rudiments of culture, in that genetically homogenous groups that are from different regions perform the same task (for instance gathering a particular type of food) in different ways. Another (artificial) example of a rudimentary "culture" was some monkeys (forget where) that were tempted into the water by food thrown into it, and subsequently learned to swim. In addition, they also grew to like the taste of the added salt from the water on their food, and started to take the food they gathered themselves and dip it in the salty water to flavour it - something not seen previously. They have continued to do so long after the original stimulus disappeared.

Now, I'm not claiming that this is anything remotely approaching the complexity of human cultures, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Re:True, but

[oyenstikker]

But it's hard to see how a complex culture could develop without speech.

Sign Language. Deaf communities often have cultures very different from the Hearing people in the same environment. Culture requires the ability to communicate; not necessarily audibly. Parots can talk. They cannon communicate.

I suspect that they would find that the ability to communicate, to solve more complex logical problems, to feel emotion, and a concept of right and wrong all started about the same time. The sixth day.

Re:True, but

[Mr Guy]

And thats ignoring a basic flaw in the monkey analogy. Monkeys learn by imitation. Salt was not a developed taste, but knowing that certain water had salt IN IT required being thrown into it by an outside source.

I don't know of the exact experiment, but it's clear that what happened is that HUMANS taught them to add salt by dipping it in the water, then they taught this to their infants who learned by imitation. Almost all wild mammals will consume as much salt as they can find.

Problem solving doesn't denote intelligence. Any creature will use methods that have worked before to achieve similiar results. Intelligence is coming up with methods it has never seen used before and knowing in advance whether or not they are likely to work. Even human children fail many tests of intelligence until they are older, until they learn to communicate.

Consider Hellen Keller or feral children. They act as beasts until taught to communicate, then they suddenly jump into society with little splash. It isn't just genetics at work here.

Re:True, but

[oyenstikker]

Sure, monkeys can be tought to do things. But the monkey isn't going to figure it out in the first place. Problem solving is coming up with a solution, not using a learned solution.

Re:True, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Hellen Keller? I'll give you that one. But most if not all feral chidren were unable to learn more than rudimentary speech, and never learned to fit into society. At worst they died mute and lonely, at best they were curiosities for their "rescuers" to show off with. I give this to you unsupported as I try not to google at work, but I'm sure the links exist and can be found with ease.

Re: True, but

[Black Parrot]

> But it's hard to see how a complex culture could develop without speech.

Long before this discovery, some people have speculated that the first 'speech' was sign language.

Also, I'm curious how necessary this mutation actually was. Sure, it made things more facile, but how many vowels and consonants are the absolute minimum for meaningful oral communication? IMO, this article is not actually an "origin of language" issue; it's a "recent improvement in the ability to speak" issue.

Re:True, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligence is coming up with methods it has never seen used before and knowing in advance whether or not they are likely to work.

Many animals have been seen to do this - for example, crows and several species of monkey. They are intelligent.

Re:True, but

[dvdeug]

But it's hard to see how a complex culture could develop without speech.
Sign Language.

You can't tell your daughter about the sky god while digging for roots using sign language, nor can you yell over distances with sign language, or talk to someone while you have a spear in your hand. Hands are excellent manipulators; it seems very unlikely that a primitive culture would develop using sign language, as the cost of losing the hands is more than the immediate value of speech.

Re:True, but

[oyenstikker]

Suppose that early humans had the mental abilites for communication, but not the physical abilites for speach. How do you suppose they would have communicated? Almost certainly with their hands. Sure, it isn't always convienient in the Hearing culture; that is probably a large reason why the Deaf culture is different.

Re:True, but

[dvdeug]

Monkeys learn by imitation.

The monkeys went into the water and noticed it was salty, so started eating stuff with salt. The humans noticed that penicillin killed bacteria by accident, and started eating penicillin.

Intelligence is coming up with methods it has never seen used before and knowing in advance whether or not they are likely to work.

Then not many humans are intelligent. Most ideas that come up fail, whether they be new mousetraps, new medical drugs or whatever. As Edison said, invention is 99% presperation.

Consider Hellen Keller or feral children. They act as beasts until taught to communicate, then they suddenly jump into society with little splash.

That doesn't match what I've read on feral children. Most of them have had strong permenant social problems that would keep them institionialized for the rest of their life. See http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics /LECTURE4/4feral.htm

Re:True, but

[dvdeug]

Suppose that early humans had the mental abilites for communication, but not the physical abilites for speach.

Whether or not that's true is still a open question.

it isn't always convienient in the Hearing culture;

It's not always convienient, period. The hands are manipulators; working people, especially in a preliterate culture, are always using their hands.

Re: True, but

[jafac]

even very primative animals communicate through body language, scents, things of that nature. There's no reason to believe that that was not the case for primative humans. (well, maybe not scents so much).

Body language still plays a very important role in human communication today.

Re:True, but

[oyenstikker]

Just a thought.

How much better would we communicate if we were forced to stop what we were doing with our hands? Trying to hold a conversation with someone who is cooking or using a computer is usually pretty pointless. Granted, with early humans, most communication was probably just quick warnings and requests, so while applicable to our culture, it really wasn't to theirs.

Although how many cavewomen do you suppose got frustrated with their mate for nodding and grunting noncommitally when she tried to communicate with him while he was sharpening his tools?

Can you hear me now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goooood!

Slashdot gene found!

[maxwell demon]

The geneticists U. N. Known and I. Maginary of the University of Nowhere have found a new gene, which appeared through a mutation in the 20th century, probably somewhere in USA.

As the scientists tell us, the gene has the following effects:

- affinity to penguins and gnus
- aversion against windows
- signs of paranoia
- a strong demand for news
- the impulse to comment everything

The gene is called "Slashdot gene", because carriers of that gene tend to gather on Slashdot. According to Maginary, it must be a very successful gene, given that it was able to spread that wide in such a short time frame.

There are rumors that Microsoft has hired geneticists to find a way of disabling that gene.

Re:Slashdot gene found!

[JimPooley]

Ahem. I refer you to this story at the BBC which proves that geeks should never interbreed...
Or breed at all, for that matter.

Re:Slashdot gene found!

[LarsG]

According to Maginary, it must be a very successful gene, given that it was able to spread that wide in such a short time frame. ..ignoring the fact that humans showing the strongest effects of the gene generally fail to reproduce.

Re:Slashdot gene found!

[dodald]

Here is an excellent article on the same subject, from wired mag.

Re:Slashdot gene found!

[SIGFPE]

Must be wrong. Anything called a "Slashdot gene" has about a zero chance of even having a next generation in which to spread.

Oh no!

[yeoua]

They had better not give this to an ape! Or he'll start talking and become super intelligent and start rallying the Earth's apes under his super power and then take over human kind only to establish a new ape government onto of a nuclear wasted planet so that some astronaut sent up and forgotten can wake up on this new Earth and find the broken statue and fall to his knees a scream...

Re:Oh no!

[forgoil]

We better destroy all records of those movies quickly then!!!

And even if the primates doesn't gain control, I am still winning, because I don't like the movies;)

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Been tried already. They call it Zimbabwe. Not too successful, tho, especially regarding the "super intelligent" part. But its bad enough as it is.

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, did you actually believe that this story vitally needed a 232nd "funny" comment about Planet of the Apes? If so, I'd suggest eating a gun. However, if you don't have one available, slitting your wrists would be a usefull alternative.

ReBorn does not exist anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

REBORN, Linux audio software is dead :( From ReBorn's website: It was fun while it lasted... I have today been instructed by Propellerhead Software to remove ReBorn from my Website. The ReBorn user interface falls foul of the copyright inherent in the ReBirth product and is consequently an infringement of Propellerhead Software's rights. Unfortunatley, this situation means I have had to reverse my position on releasing the ReBorn source code, which will now not be made publicly available. However, the effort in developing ReBorn will not go entirely to waste. I already have plans to integrate the core audio code into a new soft-synth application, with an all-new interface and 100% incompatibilty with all Propellerhead's products :-) Thankyou to all those people who contacted me to say nice things about ReBorn. I ask all of you to respect Propellerhead Software's wishes (as I have) and not to distribute the program on other websites. David J. Singer

Re:ReBorn does not exist anymore!

[DrunkenPenguin]

Yeah, that was important *NEWS*. Instead of posting news about *IMPORTANT* things, Slashdot editors choose to publish nonsense, non IT related shit! What a fucking lame website this has become! No wonder why hackers are leaving this sinking ship. Adios motherfuckers (Slashdot editors)!

Re:According to Discovery Channle (aquatic apes)

[gothmogged]

The "aquatic ape" theory is not well supported by evidence and has few adherents. Most mammals can hold their breath and swim.

Cecil has a good summary:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape. ht ml

screw the talking dog

[AnotherBrian]

"So, how long until I can get a talking dog?"

I don't want a talking dog, how about something cuter like a talking bird?

Re:screw the talking dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop drooling you pervered furry fanboy.

You don't really have a wife, do you? N/T

[Anonymous Coward]

N/T

Re:You don't really have a wife, do you? N/T

[Anonymous Coward]

The big question is, does he have a 12"? ;P

It woud NOT be desirable???

[H-1B_visas_suck]

From the article in question: "Researchers are likely to try to introduce the genetic mutations into mice as part of their work, but they said many other genetic changes would likely be necessary to produce a talking animal, and several said they doubted anything of the sort would ever be possible, let alone desirable."

Why would it NOT be desireable? Friggin' moronic sheeple.....

What about the parrots and other talking birds?

[dmouritsendk]

"emerges historically - it's a sociological product, not genetic".

I agree, try to teach a flock of Grey Jacko's (a great talking parrot), to say two or three worlds. 10-1 their offspring would be easier to teach the same words.

Not for certain yet

[MiTEG]

This gene:

may have played a central role in the development of modern humans' ability to speak
could have given them a critical advantage
may at least partly explain why humans can speak and animals cannot

The /. headline is misleading. It is suspected that this mutation in the FOXP2 gene is responsible for language development and not necessarily speech. Some birds can "speak" but they do not have language abilities.

The confusing part to me is the fact that gorillas obviously have language ability, as seen in Koko, a gorilla that is able sign. So the mutation in this gene does not determine whether a species has the capacity for language or not, perhaps it only determines the proficiency in language.

Re:Not for certain yet

[Tyreth]

I agree, this is not much of a surprise discovery. I mean, which of us didn't think there would be gene(s) that controlled our ability to talk? It wasn't a question of whether they exist, but where they are.

It seems that a lot of the problem with speech is also in the mind. Example, teaching an ape to talk or communicate - put it in the wild and it's friends do not start to learn to communicate in a more advanced form. The language is lost on that monkey. So even if they had the ability to speak, it is highly unlikely that they would develop a complex language. Their mind is not ready.

In the same train of thought, if humans were unable to speak, then given our current bodies we would find other ways to communicate - sign language, written words, etc. Having a mutation that enables speech does not guaruntee anything.

So I agree with the article, that "many other genetic changes would likely be necessary to produce a talking animal, and several said they doubted anything of the sort would ever be possible, let alone desirable."

Re:Not for certain yet

[Anonymous Coward]

From the sadistic joke list:

Cut off the hands of Koko the gorilla, the one who uses sign language to communicate.

Re:Not for certain yet

[div_2n]

"Example, teaching an ape to talk or communicate - put it in the wild and it's friends do not start to learn to communicate in a more advanced form. The language is lost on that monkey"

This does not mean gorillas are incapable of perpetuating sign language. Changes to society structure take time. Just because one gorilla learns to sign doesn't mean the others will just catch right on and start doing it themselves.

Humans aren't any different in this respect. The metric system has been around for some time. Most Americans are incapable of thinking in terms of metric because American society is accustomed to English units. Does this mean humans are incapable of thinking in metric?

The fact that one gorilla (and there have been more) has learned to sign is proof positive that they are capable of language. Perhaps this is a real-life example of nature vs. nurture.

It seems to me the true test would be to take a whole group of gorillas that have learned to sign and put them together and let them reproduce. Then see what happens.

Re:Not for certain yet

[Anonymous Coward]

The /. headline is misleading

No it's not. Learn about punctuation, and maybe you will understand why the headline ended with a question mark.

Yes, Actually

[Greyfox]

At least, according to this story. Talks about a crow that can use tools and (briefly) at the bottom about an african grey parrot that had a 100+ word vocabulary and was able to ask questions and make requests (I assume greater than "Polly wanna cracker.") There was also some discussion about replacing the actor who plays "Wil Riker" with an african grey as the bird would be able to deliver its lines with more conviction...

Perhaps in a few dozen millenia the giant mutant african greys will run the planet...

Re:Yes, Actually

[Cyno01]

get your hands off me you damn dirty.. uh, bird

Re:According to Discovery Channle (aquatic apes)

[Neon Spiral Injector]

...and many do it better. Where are my muscles to close my nostrils/ears?

Most geneticists don't really believe that...

[Apogee]

I wonder if you read the article?

No halfway modern geneticist nowadays believes that there is a single gene responsible for more than the most simple of traits. And I had the impression that the Nature article linked from this story expresses that view quite clearly with statements like:

Finding one gene is like finding one part of a car. It looks useful, as though it's part of a larger mechanism. But we don't know what it does, what other parts it interacts with, or what the whole vehicle looks like. "It's an unbelievably complex system, and we've got one tiny glimpse," says Michael Tomasello, a psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

A very nice explanation on the limited usefulness of trying to assign "the" function for a particular gene was proposed in the book The "Collapse of Chaos : Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World" by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, a molecular biologist and a mathematician, respectively.

In general, it is easy to remove one part from a network of interacting parts, and observe the mechanism breaking down. Naively, these parts are then called the "key regulators" of this or that phenomenon, be it speech or whatever. Only lengthy experiments will then reveal the whole underlying mechanism maybe.

The stance that you attribute to geneticists, that they expect simplistic, monogenetic solutions to complex problems is actually more caused by the press (not only laymen's journals, btw), which always go for a snappy headline without "maybe" or "can be a part of a complex mechanism".

just my 2 centimorgans :)

Re:Most geneticists don't really believe that...

[Milo Fungus]

I'm an undergraduate in biology who has taken quite a few genetics/microbiology courses. The parent is absolutely right (mod him up).

Genes do a number of things. Most genes that we understand fairly well function for coding proteins - the macromolecular machines that do almost everything in the cell (determine, maintain, and change structure of the cell; catalyse chemical reactions; regulate processes; etc...). Genes that do this are _relatively_ easy to understand, as we can usually observe where the protein is and what it interacts with. Quite a few genes serve as regulators for the transcription of protein-encoding genes. For each protein-encoding gene, there may be a dozen or more regulator genes. These regulators can have either a positive or negative effect on the transcription, so the rate at which the protein-coding gene is transcribed depends on the sum of the influences of the regulators (which themselves are also regulated). The vast mojority of mammalian genes that have been identified have unknown functions. The gene described here could be protein-encoding. It could be a regulator. It could be a developmental gene that starts a cascade of regulators during fetal development.

A genome is not analogous to a blueprint, as is comonly thought. That's actually quite a poor analogy. A better analogy is that individual genes are like congressman in the House of Representatives. They bicker and fight sometimes and work together other times. It is mainly the sum of their actions that we observe, not the idivudual debates and compromises. We can only conjecture about those.

Re:Most geneticists don't really believe that...

[Anonymous Coward]

was that page 92 or 93?

Re:Most geneticists don't really believe that...

[Saeger]

If you think of a blueprint like a seed instead of a bit-for-bit representation of the final product, then the analogy sticks. We unfold like a fractal... with most of our genes being leftover junk not expressing anything.

--

Re:Yeah. Right.

[thesadmac]

Perhaps they'll also be able to produce "how to program a VCR" gene?

Also,

[bsDaemon]

we talk upright. Whales don't walk at all. Dogs don't walk upright, either. And we all know Dolphins communicate telpathicaly w/ the aliens anyway and don't need to speak ;)

Oh good, enhanced mice

[way2trivial]

Ever heard of a little movie called "the secret of nimh" ?

on npr this morning

[squarefish]

I just heard it, it will probably be available in the archives later today.

The Missing Link

[CreatorOfSmallTruths]

There is that ancient mystery puzzling the science world many things.

What happened to neathadrals? Somehow we Humans managed to overthrow those big creatures who ruled the mammals world and became their successors.

Could that be the explanation?
I have no idea of human history but just imagine what speech could have done to our ancestors...

The question now is who made that mutation happen? could that be the core reactor of the space ship that came from the stars?

nope.. it probably been the experiments...

This is hillarious

[SL33Z3]

It is so funny to see "scientific guessing" so readily stated as absolute fact. I think more scientist should study history and learn just how many times they have been wrong before stating absolute fact -- unless of course you still contend that the world is flat?

Re:This is hillarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, those wacky scientists are so stupid. I'm mean all they have to do is get on their computers in their air conditioned houses and dig through the gobs of human history readily available to them and they'll see, maybe through contact lenses they're wearing, that they are totally worthless. They have done nothing for humanity.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to jump in my car and drive to the grocery store and pick up some food for tonight.

It most certainly would not be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider for a moment, a futuristic scenario where researchers were successful in accelerating the evolution of a species through genetic engineering. The result of this is an that is not only capable of speach, but can maintain a basic conversation. This would surely not be unreasonable, given that such an advance (can I call it that) would surely accelerate other 'learning' capabilities of the said animal. Care to consider the moral dilemas that this would introduce? Or to put it another way, how do you slaughter a pig for meat when it's looking back at you saying "Please don't kill me!".

Re:It most certainly would not be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bugger. Should have used the preview button. I'll try again

Consider for a moment, a futuristic scenario where researchers were successful in accelerating the evolution of a species through genetic engineering.

The result of this is an (insert favorite animal here) that is not only capable of speach, but can maintain a basic conversation. This would surely not be unreasonable, given that such an advance (can I call it that) would surely accelerate other 'learning' capabilities of the said animal. Care to consider the moral dilemas that this would introduce?

Or to put it another way, how do you slaughter a pig for meat when it's looking back at you saying "Please don't kill me!".

Re:It most certainly would not be.

[Peyna]

Or to put it another way, how do you slaughter a pig for meat when it's looking back at you saying "Please don't kill me!".

They already do that, they just don't use English to say it. Animals sent to slaughter exhibit fear and anxiety, and they know what is going to happen. If you really want to see this, just follow a truck to the slaughterhouse next time and see how the animals behave when it's their turn.

Dateline 200,000 BC: Man Invents the Pickup Line

[Elias Israel]

It was apparently such an advantageous mutation that it quickly swept through the human population (10,000 - 20,000 years) almost entirely wiping out earlier versions

Realize that what we're saying here is that the individuals who had this mutation had a reproductive advantage over others. Since making new sounds doesn't increase the number of live births per "litter", this finding inevitably means that smooth-talking cavemen got all the girls.

Clearly, it must be that this mutation allowed the creation of the earliest dating technology: the pick up line.

Doubtless, such old pick up lines as "Hey, baby! Want to come back to my cave and see my bison paintings?" date back to this early period and have been passed down to us through the ages.

Don't be surprised if it works

[Anonymous Coward]

If a goddamned bird can speak, you better believe a mouse can. How about a border collie?

Speech just the missing ingredient

[bill_mcgonigle]

Hypothetically:

if:
big brain + prehensile digits + warm blood + speech = culture

and speech is the only thing missing, then, once you get speech you get culture.

Parrots have pretty good brains, they can be taught basic arithmetic, and they can pick things up with their claws. However, they can't easily manipulate objects to make tools and they've not been shown capable of higher-order thought. Parrots are great mimicers, but I haven't seen anything to make me believe they understand grammars and syntax. So, probably their brains aren't quite big enough. [big == surface area, not volume]

Re:Speech just the missing ingredient

[RevAaron]

A couple years back, I read an interesting article about this parrot point. It can very well go beyond mimicry.

Couldn't find the original SciAm article, but this looks like an interview with the same researcher. read this.

Now, I believe this parrot is pretty old, and has been trained for years by Ms. Pepperberg. But Alex (the parrot) isn't just responding on cue, it is doing some abstract and symbolic thought.

Captain Kirk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Language problems run in the 'KE' family. Members of several generations speak "as if each sound is costing them their soul", one researcher has said.

Is... that... you... ?
Hurray it's William Shatner's lost family! I'm so glad. Maybe now they can fix 'em up.
You... keep... missing the... target... If... you want... me... you'll have to... come... ... down here... ... ...Kahn! KaAaAaAaAhn! KaAAAAaaaaaaHn!

Screw having a talking dog...

[sessamoid]

Screw having a talking dog, I want a superintelligent, telepathic dog that can help me get chicks...

EVOLUTION IS A MYTH

[Anonymous Coward]

God created us. Your so-called theory of evolution will lead you to hell. And long may you burn there, with your boyfriend Steve.

Re:EVOLUTION IS A MYTH

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!!

On second thoughts... I've been to Alabama. I've already seen plenty...

Re:EVOLUTION IS A MYTH

[dcstimm]

I dont know if you got the pun when you were writing this, but isnt "Beowulf" also the one of the first books ever found?

Re:EVOLUTION IS A MYTH

[Anonymous Coward]

First English book maybe.

Best Deep Thought Ever

[Washizu]

Now those "Would you eat me if I talked?" Greenpeace ads will actually be reality. Goodbye Big Mac :( - s200.org

Best Deep Thought Ever:
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." - Jack Handey

Re:Best Deep Thought Ever

[npsimons]

Best Deep Thought Ever:
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." - Jack Handey

And what about carrots? If they screamed, would you eat them? How do you know they're not screaming, and you just can't hear it?

Damn vegetarians; most of them don't have the guts to admit the real reason they are vegetarians: it's good for their health. Not that I really care, I just wish they'd stop trying to lay a guilt trip on everyone else. If Big Macs started being healthier than peas and broccoli, I'm pretty sure that vegetarians would change their tone real quick.

Talking dogs

[aldjiblah]

To quote the talking dog (which is ridiculous, because everybody knows dogs can't talk) Gaspode from Terry Pratchett's universe:

'Woof bloody woof'.

Snowcrash?

[mycroftx37]

Anyone else read Snowcrash? This is eerily similar to the explanation of the formation of language Neal Stephenson gives. A virus causes the genetic mutation, if i remember correctly.

because

[Zelet]

Sometimes what we think is going to be an obvious answer ends up being something completely different.

Long ago people thought that it was obvious that if you swing a ball at the end of a rope then release it, it would continue on in a curve... but a quick study showed that it consistently flew off in a tangential line. Obviously by today's standards that isn't a breakthrough, but pre-Newtonian physics sure didn't get it.

Re:You don't really have a wife, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf is this N/T nonsense? this isnt k5!

what does it stand for anyways? no tail?

Uplift War or Planet of the Apes ?

[slowtech]

So, what will the future be like - Planet of the Apes (pre simian evolution, when they are all domestic slaves) or Uplift war (a la David Brin)?

How long before they try to put the human version of this gene in a chimp to test this out?

Re:Uplift War or Planet of the Apes ?

[StefanJ]

I emailed the article to David Brin. Didn't get a rise out of him. Yet.

"How long before they try to put the human version of this gene in a chimp to test this out?"

Dude, that would be opening up a can of worms like you wouldn't believe.

Stefan

One word

[carlossch]

Monolith

Carlos

All you have to do

[Anonymous Coward]

To get a talking dog, is to marry one. Such technological incompetence!

Some of the posts remind me of a joke

[domselvon]

Three race horses are standing around in the stable talking. The first horse says to the others, "I've been in 10 races and won 6 of them." The other two horses said, "That's pretty good." The second horse says, "Well, I've been in 15 races and won 11 of them." The other two horses were impressed and said, "That's really good!" Then the third horse says, "Well, I've been in 20 races and won 16 of them!" The other horses were very impressed and said, "Wow! That's great!"

A greyhound dog walks up and says, "I couldn't help overhearing you guys and just wanted you to know I've been in 26 races and won 21 of them." The horses all look at each other and said, "Holy crap! A talking dog!"

Re:Some of the posts remind me of a joke

[Peyna]

And you just reminded me of another stupid Geiko commercial. Darn you!

No talking dogs soon

[(H)olyGeekboy]

So, how long until I can get a talking dog?

I know that comment submitters like to put "cute" things at the end of the comment, but this one is just inane.

First of all, the gene just adds the ability to make extra sounds. You have to be able to process language in the brain before you can speak, listen, comprehend, and respond.

So the answer to How long? is "Much longer than you have to wait."

Koko

[Ender Ryan]

I heard of some research done where a gorilla that had been taught to sign was reintroduced into a population of gorilla's to see what would happen. The other gorilla's caught on and started doing some signing as well, but never reached the same level as the original signing gorilla. So, while gorilla's can be taught to sign quite well, they cannot retain this ability through generations.

the obvious solution...

[GPPL]

don't send anyone into space

Re:the obvious solution...

[coastwalker]

Make sure that machine intelligence gets smarter than the monkeys first - and wipes out all other intelligent lifeforms Ha Ha Ha !!

Oh hang on a second....

On the other hand a talking monkey would be a wonderfull thing. If we can put Jellyfish genes into tomatoes to make the stretchy skins survive transport better - when is this talking gene going to get spliced into a monkey? After all once you had got them talking you could rent them out for MacJobs , cheaper than hiring people. I'm gonna be rich !! ha ha, lets find me a venture capitalist so I can build a talking monkey.....

best laid plans of mice...

[longduckdong]

Egads! The next thing you know, the mice will be doing sociological studies on man.

Talking Dogs

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be less advantageous for dogs to vocalize than you think. The basenji for example, while incredibly expressive, has suppressed the desire to bark like other dogs for over 6000 years. They can perform an amazing array of sounds, similar to a wolf, jackal, or heyena, but they rarely if ever will bark. Usually when they do let out their sad little bark, it is when they are sleeping soundly and dreaming. Yes, aminimals do dream. Just watch one "run", growl, and yelp in their sleep and you will und

Speech wasn't advantageous

[MatthewNewberg]

Ability to speak didn't wipe out the rest of the humans, those who couldn't speak were just nagged to death ;-)

Obviously there's much more to it than just sounds

[Ted_Green]

In fact speach isn't even required to have language and culture, as evidenced by the various deaf groups that have risen though out time.
Somthing else, much more important than the ability to make sounds, is required for human language.

That's Geico,

[quantum bit]

...not gecko!

Re:That's Geico,

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, you do realize that the original line was "Oh great, a talking gecko", spoken by a dog, don't you? Yes, it was from a Geico commercial, but the point is that he juxtaposed the speaker and subject. It's so depressing that I have to explain this.

Grasping intelligence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Animals are smarter than what people think. Humans are considerably more intelligent than the other animals but not exponentially. People automatically come to the conclusion that there is this tremendous gulf, an insurpassible distance between the intelligence of humans and the lower species. Is there really a way to test these assumptions in a accurate manner?

a Border Collie is very intelligent. Other animals are smart too. Given vocal chords, why shouldn't they be able to speak with us? Maybe it's just too uncomfortable to admit that you are only maybe 2 or 3 times smarter than your dog, rather than the 1000 times, you've always assumed.

I had a cat that would talk to himself. When he thought he was alone, he'd mutter to himself. No coherent words but it sure as hell sounded like information. And if you approached him when he was doing this and weren't careful, you'd surprise him, and he'd meow with the same stresses and intonations a person makes when they he says "You scared me!"

But the muttering was almost disturbing to hear. Often he'd do it when he was looking for someone in the house. He'd go from room to room, muttering to himself, sticking his head in each door to and do a questioning meow and then mutter unhappily if noone answered.
Hearing him do it was kind of like listening to someone talking in another room. You can hear what sounds like a voice but can't make out the words. Raise the hair on your neck to hear it.

Re:Grasping intelligence.

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

What you didn't realize is what he was saying was:

"If... if... I don't get some cat food... I'll... just have to burn down the building"

Uh, what are you reading?

[BlackMesaResearchFac]

If anyone is trying to hype anything as being fact or for certain it is the media. The scientists state over and over about more things being involved, them being many years away from fully understanding it, and there being disputes concerning theories, etc.

Even the poster has a question mark after the title.

At least science tries to support their theories with evidence as opposed to religion which has long been an oppressive force against the search for the truth (e.g. Socrates, Galileo, etc.).

Rodents

[suzander]

Dr. Rat!! Thanks for reminding me about that excellent book. (read it over 20 years ago.)
Flowers for Algernon is another good example of a story involving genetic research/experimentation gone awry.

And then there was Ben...

Re:Rodents

[2names]

What about "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH?"

"In today's news..."

[Gudlyf]

"...in a bizarre accident at a genetics lab this morning, hundreds of lab animals were set free when a mysterious explosion at an exterior wall occured without warning. When questioned about the explosion, lead scientist Dr. Doolitle had the following to say:

'*snicker*I have no idea how that could have happened...*snicker*.'"

Rediculous claim and theory

[akaina]

Evolution is a bunch of garbage. Where are they even getting their numbers? So much for scientific rigor. So much for "THEORIES" being treated as such.

Not to mention evolution by mutation is a theory on top of a theory. But I'm sure a reliable crew, one almost as reliable as Microsoft's internal auditors, have thoughtfully looked into this matter before posting their unproven ideas. How much more un-proven do we need to get??? Gimme a break. ...theoretically yours,
Akaina

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[mustangsal]

>Evolution is a bunch of garbage. Umm then how would you explain it? If you say divine intervention... how do you explain dinosaurs? An old girlfriend once told me that Dinosaur bones were "planted"... She was later deemed legally insane by the court system...

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[akaina]

Here's a good link.
If you get the money, can I PLEASE have half of it? I'm too poor for Outback... and that Microsoft subscription scheme too, while we're at it.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[SWerner]

Read "The Blind Watchmaker" By Richard Dawkins, if you still don't understand how evolution could possibly have happened. I'd like to see Dr. Hovind's scientific evidence that there even IS a God. Is it not hypocritical to believe in one theory that has no evidence while calling another theory that is backed up by fossil records, Darwin's actual experiments, other notable scientific experiments and countless other pieces of evidence?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Marc2k]

...WHAT money? And for the record..why do you keep bashing Microsoft (besides the fact that they're Microsoft)? Like it or not, they ARE profitable, the internal auditors of say WorldCom are who you should be directing your anger at. So please, when you're arguing a point that carries divine consequence: MAKE SENSE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[SWerner]

Haha, lost my train of thought there, last sentence is supposed to say "Is it not hypocritical to believe in one theory that has no evidence while calling another theory that is backed up by fossil records, Darwin's actual experiments, other notable scientific experiments and countless other pieces of evidence unbelievable?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[ShavenYak]

Oh boy, Kent Hovind's alleged prize for proof of evolution. Needless to say, finding evidence of evolution that is convincing enough for this nutcase would be next to impossible. You'd pretty much have to invent a time machine and carry him back millions of years, and then you'd have to convince him your time machine wasn't an elaborate hoax.

On the flip side, some other shmoe could offer a huge prize for "proof" that God created the world in seven days about 6,000 years ago. The prize would be just as unclaimed as Hovind's. Would that make you doubt the Bible? Of course, such a prize is not out there, because real scientists don't attempt to prove their theories by saying "nyah nyah, you can't prove yours."

Here's a link for you: The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[ShavenYak]

Oh, and by the way, it's spelled "ridiculous" as in "deserving of ridicule".

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, ass-fucking troll.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[andrew_0812]

Evolutionists conveniently ignore any evidence that could support biblical fact, as well as any "holes" it their theory. They make it seem as if it is scientific fact while the theory actually has facts contrary to it. The Bible, while some may disagree, has never been proven wrong. Even though throughout history, people have tried everything to disprove it, it has overcome.

If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn't each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn't at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don't apply, I am talking physical, not social development.

As you can plainly see, I don't believe in the evolutionary "work-around". I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.

As for the dinosaur bones, they weren't planted to confuse mankind. That is not God's way. Besides, that would border on the dishonest, and God cannot lie. And since (if you take into account Biblical and secular histories) the earth is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old, evolution and guided evolution doesn't work. Also there would not have been millions of years for dinosaurs to exist before man. So various day-age theories about the 7 days of creation don't fit. So what's left? Dinosaurs had to have co-existed with man. In the book of Job, two creatures are described that perfectly fit with a land-based dinosaur and a dragon-like, fire-breathing, sea monster (dinosaur). Plus, there are ancient drawings in caves in the Grand Canyon that depicts men and dinosaur-like beings together. As far as I know, these races of people did not draw things that they did not see. Where did they all go? Our scientists and archaeologists have claimed that only a global disaster could have wiped out so many of these creatures. Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?

Anyway, I could go on for hours, but since by now, most of you are flaming mad or getting bored with this post, I will stop. If you are interested in trying to find out more about any of this, then check out this site. Dr. Bert Thompson is a brilliant man who has devoted most of his life to the study of scientific "fact" versus Biblical "fact".

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[akaina]

Just for the record, I didn't send the previous profain message. That wasn't me.
-word

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[obotics]

I totally agree. I personally do not believe in evolution but I don't care about arguing about that right now because people who do believe in it just think us religious zealots of some sort and are rarely convinced. However, I find it humorous when these "scientists" pull these huge numbers out of thin air and expect us to believe them as fact. How the heck would they know the number of years ago that 'x' happened...

On a related note, I read somewhere that it would be impossible to write out the number googol because their aren't enough atoms in the universe (here). Uhuh. As if some crazy scientists started counting the atoms and figured out how many their were...

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[bigbadwlf]

I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.

I have no problem answering for my actions, and I stilll don't believe in god.

I think religion exists because some people need a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose and a sense that one day the wicked will be punished because they can't handle the fact that life isn't fair.

To me, Christianity is no different than Greek, Roman or Egyptian mythology - neat stories, but nothing more.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[invid]

I will proceed to write out the number google:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000

There.

Now, if I tried to do it in binary I might have trouble.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[faditara]

Yes you can go on for hours, thankfully you aren't. The Bible is nothing more than stories handed down. There are many items in the Bible that can be disproven, and have been disproven but the general society simply doesn't want to hear it. IE: Christmas. the churchs follow the general thought that Jesus was born on Dec 25. He wasn't. There is plenty of evidience that he was in fact born in the Spring time. Around 320AD the Roman Catholic church set that date to compete with the Pagans who were celebrating the Winter Solstice, and to lure them away and show them "the path". In fact most major religions can be debated over 1 thought: Free will. All major religions believe that 'God' is in control and our futures are already set. If our future is already set, then we have no free will. Open your mind, and think for yourself...

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[BitHive]

That's a nice start, Billy, but you forgot the most important part of being a successful slashdot troll--don't go over the top. You're trying so hard to push the collective buttons around here that you hurt your fingers.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Dave Bieler]

The webpage link you sent seems to do a lot of bashing concerning Hovind's credentials. However, his credentials mean absolutely nothing. Do you happen to remember Darwin's backround?! Attacking someone's credentials just shows that you can't argue against their viewpoints, so you try to make them look bad by attacking them as a person.
Also, like one previous person said...beneficial mutations are just a theory on top of a theory. And you call this science? And how bout the origin of time, space, and matter? (E = mc^2) And the origin of life? It seems this "scientific" theory is based on faith just as much if not more than any other religion.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[invid]

If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn?t each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn?t it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn?t at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don?t apply, I am talking physical, not social development.

Archaeopteryx is a bird with teeth and a lizard-like tail. That sounds like an intermediate between evolutionary stages to me. Also, a very small percentage of animals are fossilized, and a smaller percentage of that have been discovered so far. Intermediate stages are rarer still, considering Gould's punctuated equalibrium. So it isn't unusual that we don't have a complete record of every developmental stage of an animals evolutionary development.

As for humans being at different stages of evolution, until recently, (30,000 years ago) that was the case. But humans at our stage killed or out-competed the rest. Because that's the way evolution works. Survival of the fitest.

I'm not sure what you meant about each Entity being at its own stage of evolution. Evolution isn't like a pre-planned route with certain pre-planned stages to reach the "top stage" or anything like that. Essentially the rule is "Whatever survives survives." Simple as that. You need a population of a certain size with genes similar enough so that they can reproduce with each other. Scientist call them "species".

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention those of us who are rolling around on the ground laughing at your idiotic, superstitious, hyporcritical ass. I'd suspect that actually makes up the majority.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You creationists use the same arguments, that are all specious. You use verbal constructs that sound correct, but are false. Science does no prove things. Ever. It is based on the accumulation of a preponderance of evidence that shows that a theory is probably correct.

What evidence that the Bible is correct? that the authors actually used cities that existed to stage their fables? That there was a city called Jerusalem 3000 years ago? WOW! How could I ever doubt based on that huge pile of evidence!

You completely misunderstand natural selection. Each living thing is not its own "species" because its differences from every other member of its type are small enough to allow it to interbreed, and most mutations are not significant enough to create a massive selective advantage between the have and have not's. About the humans at different levels of "evolution" same deal, however notice that there are differences between many groups of people, or are you going to argue that people all look exactly alike, or perhaps that negroids and mongoloids aren't people?

People don't draw things that they don't see? What rock have YOU been living under?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[pboulang]

If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages?

What do you call fossils such as Neanderthal, Homo-habilis, homo-erectus, even Lucy? These are quite obviously the "missing" links that you quite explicitly state do not exist.

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn't at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don't apply, I am talking physical, not social development.

Why would you think that all cultures arise independantly? Isn't it most logical (and also biblical) that man spread across the planet? BUT, since you bring it up, why not take "primitive" peoples into account. Take the pygmy's or the fact that different cultures have different average heights (compare Norwegians and Mexicans, for instance)

I can't prove that you don't have a high IQ, but that doesn't mean you have one.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[obotics]

heh sorry i meant to say googolplex (10^googol) not googol. now try typing it :)

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[mwolff]

Uhuh. As if some crazy scientists started counting the atoms and figured out how many their were...
Scientists know how many atoms there are roughly by using estimation. PS Obotics you still owe me a dollar for that source code...... :

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[andrew_0812]

If you have ever bothered to actually read the Bible, then you would know that "Christmas" is never mentioned. Christmas is something that most Christians have adopted as a holiday over several generations. Jesus was not born on Dec 25? You are right. I never have claimed that he was. I have no doubt that many Christians think that he was, sadly because people don't take the time to understand what they claim to "believe". I also don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. Yes I sing the songs, and all that, but not in celebration of the Birth of Jesus. Christmas is a time to be with family and friends, and buy lots and lots of stuff. :) Now a note on Free will. I believe 100% in free will. We are "free moral agents" who chose our own path. That is the purpose of life. I do not hold to the Calvinistic view that we are predestined to either be in heaven or hell. This is determined by 2 things: the grace of God, and our actions. Grace alone cannot get us there. And we cannot "earn" our way by just our actions. You are incorrect when you say that "All" major religions believe in predestination. They do not. Many do, but not all. God, being omnipotent, knows our futures, but he doesn't determine them. The Bible is not just a bunch of stories handed down. People say that who haven't read and do not believe the Bible. That makes sense. By your comment on Christmas, I know that you have not read the Bible, or if you have, you didn't pay much attention to its content. If you wish to tell me of a case where the Bible has been proven wrong, go ahead, and I will comment on that. But Christmas, not being in the Bible at all, is not proof of a fallicy. I think for myself all the time, thank you. And I do have an open mind. Unlike many others, I do not believe just what my parents told me or my preacher told me. I believe what I have studied and found to be true. My mind is open. Yours is not.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[obotics]

OK then. How many atoms are in a square mile? How many miles wide is the universe? How many miles high? How many miles deep? It is just ridiculous to think that you have any clue of these dimensions and can therefore make a good estimate. The fact that some morons have PHDs from Harvard, MIT, etc. and then think they miraculously know these things causes many people to believe them - but not me!

This exact same thing applies to evolutionary concepts. Some scientists finds a bone, uses carbon dating, and then magically reports that this was an ape-man whoe evolved from a lizard-cat and began using iron tools to grind gecko meat. Bleh!

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Deimosuva]

Even if there are holes in macro-evolution, you can't ignore micro-evolution. That has been clearly documented. I will give you two popular examples right now: the finches on the Galopagos (sp) Islands, and those moths in England that were primarily white and became primarily black. Microevolution is very stong evidence for the possibility of macroevolution. Now I believe in God, but the bible does not say how old the Earth is. And don't you find it interesting that in Genesis, the Bible describes the Earth being created exactly the same way that scientists believe it to have been created? First the heavens and the earth. Then the water and the land. Then the sea animals. Then the land animals. Then the sky animals. Then man. There are also connotations that cannot be understood by us today. Perhaps the word for "day" actually was understood as "period of time" or "eon" or something like that. Who's to say that God didn't use evolution? While it is true that evolution is a theory, your views are also theory. This means that neither one can be proven, and for all anyone knows both could be wrong.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Deimosuva]

A historical note on Christmas is that it was originally the holiday Saturnalia celebrated in Rome. Then Constantine made the official religion to be Christianity, and remade all of the pagan holidays into Christian ones. Jesus would not have been born in the winter, due to the fact the Bible states that there were shepherds out. Easter is also named after a pagan god. Something else you may find interesting is that the Wise Men did not visit Jesus in the manger as is popular belief, but actually when he was about 2 or 3.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[optikSmoke]

Needless to say, finding evidence of evolution that is convincing enough for this nutcase would be next to impossible.

This fact is made even funnier by the fact that the guy doesn't even seem to know what evolution is. After reading his "contest", it is obvious that he is using "evolution" as a blanket-word for any "major" theories (evolution, Big Bang, or whatever other scientific theory of the creation of our universe you may aspire to) that contradict his beliefs (like many other uninformed people do). So the question begs: What did this crackpot get a doctorate in? Iridology?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolutionists conveniently ignore any evidence that could support biblical fact, as well as any "holes" it their theory

Christians Conveniently ignore any evidence that could refute biblical mythology, as well as any contradictions and ridiculous claims in their bible.

As you can see your rhetoric is meaningless and can be easily turned against you.

Creationists, are constantly trying to depict scientists as closed minded and narrowly set in their ways. That may be true of some individual scientists, but not of the scientific community as a whole. Einstein's Theory of Relativity turned Centuries worth of Newtonian physics on it's head, but scientists accepted it, because the arguments were sound and could be proven thoroughly.
If you (or anyone else) could similarly offer significant evidence against evolution (as you claim to be able to) scientists would (perhaps reluctantly) consider it, and perhaps accept it. However all of the claims against evolution are shallow and weak. Yes it's true that evolution is "only a theory", but so is all of science. Scientists have never claimed to possess absolute knowledge (as Religious persons seem to do), They merely claim to have the best of all competing explanations. As it stands, Evolution is the best scientific explanation of the origin of species we have. And yes there are questions that remain unanswered, but when using science (or just good reasoning capabilities, or that matter) to explain, you cannot simply claim that given certain unanswered questions and supposed "holes" we can suddenly declare that god must be the explanation. I don't buy the God "work-around" (I like to call it the theological cop-out).

Properly phrased: "We lack sufficient evidence to determine exactly how we got here, therefore it must be god"

Imagine if the law operated in this way

"We lack sufficient evidence to determine exactly who committed the crime, so it must be god"

The hole process is unscientific and irrational. The way scientists vs. creationists handle the situation shows this. Scientists are constructive: Any scientist will agree that evolutionary theory is far from perfect. However, There are many scientists who are hard at work perfecting the theory; trying to answer those questions and fill in the "holes" that you speak of. Creationists however, are destructive. They are quick to use the tiniest uncertainty in a feeble attempt to bring down the whole foundation of science, in favor of Mythology. Creationist thinking is reminiscent of the same medieval thinking that had people imprisoned or put to death for being audacious enough to claim that the earth was not the center of the universe. BTW, do you still believe that?
Finally (yes finally) let me point out that although evolutionary theory isn't perfect, that is no argument against it. All of science is a work in progress and no scientist claims to hold the key to absolute knowledge (as religious people do). However, in case you didn't realize this "imperfect" work in progress powers all of our modern technology, from the medicine that keeps you alive (a lot longer than you should be), to the technology which allows you to read this message. Do you deny that this is real? Evolution is a part of science, and it doesn't use any trickery or deception, just the same techniques that brought you the aforementioned technology. To turn your back on evolution in the manner in which you do is to turn your back on science as a whole, and our modern society with it. If you wish to do so, I can't stop you. Science is, after all, based on empiricism. And if you want to question that, it's a whole different ball game (and a different post).
And one last thing (OK so I lied).There's a big difference between a theory being incomplete (yes evolution may be incomplete), and a theory being wrong (there are facts which contradict it). In the former, you can continue to complete and perfect the theory, in the latter, the theory is simply wrong. There are (poor) arguments which attempt to show that evolution contradicts some fact or another, and all of them (that I have seen so far) are refutable:

argument 1: The probability of us evolving out of inorganic matter is the same as say, a rocket ship being created from a junk yard explosion

This argument may sound nice, but if you read the mathematics behind it, it's clear that whoever wrote it doesn't understand the first thing about statistics or evolution. Evolution doesn't happen in a day, its not as if one second you have non-organic matter, and the next you have organic. There are thousands of steps which have to occur in the process. In order to access the probability of organic matter evolving from non organic, we would have to know the probability of every step along the way in the process, given the conditions of the earth at the time. These are facts that we simply do not know. No one can even begin to describe the process which led to the evolution of DNA, let alone anything else. Of course no human beings were around to observe it, so you'd have to invent a time machine. But, of course, we lack not only the evidence, but the means to obtain that evidence, so it must be god.
There's more, but I'm getting bored and this post is way too long! If you have other week arguments you'd like me to counter (such as say the argument using the second law of thermodynamics, very bad argument, maybe I'll write about it later), I'll gladly do so. But I'm sure that no one is reading this anymore, So I'll end it.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

whole process weak arguments yes I need to proof read before i submit

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[ShavenYak]

I agree the bashing is a bit much, really what I should have linked to was the article about the researchers who attempted to claim the alleged prize money, and Hovind's responses which indicated that any attempt to claim the prize would probably be a fruitless endeavor. Still, the fact that Hovind's "degree" in science comes from a university that is housed in what looks like a suburban family home is quite interesting.

Oh, and there are a bunch of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or at least, there were who can attest that E=mc^2 is based on a lot more than faith. Of course, that's hardly a fair comparison to evolution - Einstein's equations are mathematical derivations based on the observed fact that the speed of light in vacuo is measured to be the same by all ovservers in an inertial frame of reference. That's about as hard science as science gets - questions on origins of life, the universe, and everything (42?) can never be as cut-and-dried.

To say that evolution is based on faith, though, ignores the amount of circumstantial evidence in the fossil record, in genetics, in geology, in astronomy/cosmology, et cetera. All these scientific disciplines have differing evidences that indicate an age of the earth and the universe far in excess of the 6,000 years or so indicated in the Bible. And to anyone who believes they all got together and conspired against Christianity, I've got some real estate near Roswell you might be interested in. ;)

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trolling, or too stupid to know that the word you want is "there"?

Oh, and the fact that you have vertebra is also due to mutations, as is all of evolution.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[AntonL]

It's amazing to me to see how many christians truly believe that god working like a magaician is somehow more interesting, beautiful, or more godly than a god working with evolution. To be more clear, god working within evoulution is far more convincing, beautiful, and thought provoking than a cop out of creationist rheotirc.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Temsi]

How the heck would they know the number of years ago that 'x' happened...
Simple: Study archeological finds.
Ever heard of carbon dating? No, it's not a new dating show on Fox. It's the method used to determine the age of archeological finds.
Look here for more info: The OCR Carbon Dating home page
In case you didn't understand what they said there, it basically means they have a constant (the rate of decay during a specific amount of time) which they can apply to a variable (current state of decay) to find out how long it took for the variable to get that way.

Numbers as large as the ones quoted by scientists are never 'absolute facts' nor should they be taken as such. They are simply the closest estimates based on the information they have.

Remember, there are always three sides to every story: what you say, what I say, and then there's the truth.
I say evolution, you say no evolution, but we're probably both wrong. But right now, those are the only two options we have, and to me evolution makes more sense.

But, back to the topic at hand. Personally I don't think any of us will live to see talking animals, but who knows what might happen 500 generations from now?

oh, and it's rIdiculous...

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[susano_otter]

Look, I'm not a creationist or anything, but your logic is unbelievably retarded. You do realize that, don't you?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[susano_otter]

Your criteria for judging these alternatives ("convincing", "beautiful", and "thought-provoking") are all subjective. This makes your argument extremely strong. Oh, wait... no it doesn't.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[rumba]

Fossil-formation is actually a rare process. Every critter that dies is not going to leave a fossil, far from it. It takes a particular set of circumstances to produce a fossil-- such as quick and complete burying under sediments or igneous flow. Evolution theory itself is evolving to explain the processes as they are better understood.

Currently, Gould's Punctuated evolution is given greater credence than pure Darwinism. That means that changes occur very rapidly leaving the chance that the fossil record will reveal every gradation of change between species much smaller. The chance that a fossil in one of the stable periods of speciation to be higher.

As for your question on why there aren't individuals in different states of evolution. Human beings are not microbes. We have this function called sex which recombines genes and traits, local variations persist but because of this amazing sex thing you see fuzzy areas between the local variations. This is called genetic drift. With modern conveyances of travel, these variations are getting less and less significant. All told, though, human beings show a wide diversity of traits from those diminishing isolations.

The Bible may contain some encoded historical facts (a massive flood), but it is a far from accurate historical document. For instance, there is very little archeological evidence to support the jewish enslavement in egypt and the subsequent journey from bondage. Do you stop believing in that? There is much more evidence to support evolution than the historical bible. If you choose to ignore that, then you are responsible for your own continuities.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[f97tosc]

>Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil?
Yes. For example, in the dinosaur era, we have found say a dozen each of the most common species, which existed in large numbers for millions of years. It is quite unlikely that we will ever find every intermediate variation that existed for say hundreds or thousands of years in small numbers.
Tor - did evolutionary research at Caltech

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[SWerner]

The book I recommended answers all of your arguments. The reason that there are not fossils from all "missing links" is because we have not searched everywhere, and because fossilization is very rare. I could quote "The Blind Watchmaker" to disprove every one of your arguments you just made against evolution, but that would take the fun out of you reading it, wouldn't it?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Where did the water go?
2. The bible is not a historical record. It was written by men in power, and heavily edited several times both in context and translation since its inception.
3. Dinosaurs didn't breathe fire.
4. The fossil "record" is not a record, it is a convenient fluke that the bones and imprints survive to this day. It's not a roadmap of all who have walked on this planet.
5. The earth is much much older than 10 thousand years, even the most retarded tree hugger can tell you this and back it up with fact.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephen Hawking has found himself in hot water many times over how he treats this very issue. Which is even worse than you or me, he can't swim!

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationists, are constantly trying to depict scientists as closed minded and narrowly set in their ways. That may be true of some individual scientists, but not of the scientific community as a whole. Einstein's Theory of Relativity turned Centuries worth of Newtonian physics on it's head, but scientists accepted it, because the arguments were sound and could be proven thoroughly.


But not before scientists were excommunicated and imprisoned FOR LIFE for these very views that we all now know to be true.

God bless the child molesters.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[MillionthMonkey]

The webpage link you sent seems to do a lot of bashing concerning Hovind's credentials. However, his credentials mean absolutely nothing. Do you happen to remember Darwin's backround?! Attacking someone's credentials just shows that you can't argue against their viewpoints, so you try to make them look bad by attacking them as a person.

True. However a lot of creationists are sporting PhDs from what look like "prestigious nonaccredited universities". Having a diploma from Inkjet University says something about your credibility.

Re: Rediculous claim and theory

[Black Parrot]

> So the question begs: What did this crackpot get a doctorate in?

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].

More goodies are available on the same page.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Black Parrot]

> Evolutionists conveniently ignore any evidence that could support biblical fact, as well as any "holes" it their theory.

Actually, scientists are generally quite well informed about the problems with their theories, and quite concerned to correct them.

But I've never met a creationist who even knew what the theory of evolution actually says, let alone knew what the problem areas are.

For example:

> If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages?

It may come as a big surprise to you, but the ToE doesn't predict that every last species will be preserved in the fossil record - let alone found. We simply have to work with the evidence that's available.

> I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.

That's the drill: when you can't win on the evidence, impugn the competition with bad motives.

> Besides, that would border on the dishonest, and God cannot lie.

"On that day you shall surely die."

Got any more easily falsifiable claims you'd like to try on us?

> Our scientists and archaeologists have claimed that only a global disaster could have wiped out so many of these creatures.

No, most scientists say that a global disaster did wipe out the dinosaurs, but none have ever said that only a global disaster could wipe them out. I would hazard a guess that most species have gone extinct due to regional or even local causes.

> Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?

And only real disasters can wipe stuff out anyway.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[faditara]

I haven't read the bible cover to cover, nor will I admit to knowing everything, nor will I admit to believing it. You are correct that christmas was never mentioned in the bible. I was trying to use that as an example of the general populace being set in their way.

If God knows our future, and he is omnipotent, then that means that we are on a set course. If we had free will and were able to do what we wanted, then God wouldn't know what was going to happen next.

I don't have the bible memorized, but A couple of points-
Genesis 1:1 If God had to creat the heavens, where was he before? Biblical scholars determined that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C. thereby making the earth about six thousand years old.
Genesis 1:16 there are not 2 great lights. The light coming from the moon is a reflection of the light coming from the sun.
Genesis 1:29 God gave us all the plants on the Earth to eat. So why are there poisonous plants that will kill us?
Genesis 2:17 Adam ate from the tree and did not die.
Genesis 7:11-12 Noah was 600 years old?!?! What ever. And are we to believe that the world was popluated from only Noah, his wife and his sons and their wives? geneticly impossible to stem out into asian, blacks, whites, hispanic etc from just the original 'arabic' race in the last 4000 years(the floods are to believed to have happened aroung 2007 B.C.)(arabic term used because this all happened in the middle east).
Genesis 6:15 There would have been about only 1.5 cubic feet of space for every pair of animals on the Ark for the estimated 4 million+ different species of animals. Since you don't believe in evolution, that would mean everything(and everyday we are finding different species)(hmm, what about the fish? If God wanted to kill all the animals of the world, why would he leave the fish 7:14 no metion of fish, there is only mention of animals that walk the ground, and the birds in the air.)
Genesis 7:19-20 It would have to rain more than 750 feet per day for 40 days/night to cover the world so that the mountains would be covered by a depth of 15 cubits (about 20 feet) There is no evidence of such a massive flood. Wouldn't there be evidence if the whole world was covered in water for 150 days?
Genesis 32:25-30 If God was so powerful why could he not win in a wrestling match with Jacob, a mortal?
Exodus 12:37 There was 600,000 men on foot, not including women, children, and the elderly. Round up to 1.5 million total. The total population for Egypt at the time was estimated at less than 2 million. Doesn't add up.
Leviticus 14:49-53 Sounds like witch craft.
1 Timothy 6:10 Money is not the root of all evil. Lots of poor people do evil things. Lots of rich people do good things.
Matthew 26:52 says all who take the sword, perish by the sword. But Jesus took a sword in Matthew 10:34
MK 11:12-14, 20-21 Wouldn't it have been better to make the fig tree produce, than to curse it and kill it?

And many more. I will admit that not all of these points are proving the Bible wrong(as per my original post), but major inconsistencies in a faith that is perfect and has all the answers. Now there might be a point, or 2 that might have been translated slightly off, but a minorority of these inconsistencies fall under that. Some of the points I threw in for fun. But a vast majority of inconsistencies are in Genesis. A perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which he had inspired.

The bible is a book of stories handed down. There was never written documentation from the time Adam and Eve were created. So how did it all get in the Bible? Stories handed down from generation to generation.

Just to let you know, I am not an Athiest. More along the lines of an Agnostic. I believe that all the major religions stemed from the same thought, but then Man started messing it up to suit his own needs. And to get back on topic, I don't believe in evolution. That also has too many holes in it's theory.
Since this is a technology based site/forum/board, I will resign from this religious discussion.

I am thinking with my mind wide open, that's why I can type this.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Wobbly Bob]

Jesus would not have been born in the winter, due to the fact the Bible states that there were shepherds out.

As far as I know, there isn't a whole lot of snow in Isreal in December.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Bible, while some may disagree, has never been proven wrong.

Are you nuts? The genesis account of Creation for one (creating the earth at the same time as the rest of the universe, light before the sun etc).

The many similarities between bits of the Bible and earlier myths from different religions, demonstrating at least some of the Bible was cribbed from other traditions (much like Roman deities were cribbed from Greek ones).

The torture of Job so God could get his kicks (certainly immoral).

The (and I repeat) lack of mention of Dinosaurs. A couple of mentions buried in a paragraph somewhere doesn't cut it - these were creatures that ruled every nook and cranny of the planet for a couple hundred million years.

I could go on but I have a job to do...

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[andrew_0812]

After this post, I will also resign from this discussion, but I feel that your points should be addressed. I appreciate that you did not resort to futile name calling like many of the anti-creationists do.

Being a Christian, and choosing to find my own answers to what is truth and what is not, I have studied and thought on many of your points. Here I will address the points that you have made.

If God knows our future, and he is omnipotent, then that means that we are on a set course. If we had free will and were able to do what we wanted, then God wouldn't know what was going to happen next.

Not necessarily. God created space and time. Therefore he exists outside of conventional space and time. If you will try to think 4 dimensionally for a minute: A being existing outside of the bounds of our timeline could potentially see all points in that line simultaneously. I know that it is hard for us (being inside the bounds of this line) to comprehend that, but I think that it stands to reason that many things concerning a supreme being are going to be hard, if not impossible for us to visualize or comprehend. We have no way of knowing what would and wouldn't be possible if we were outside of the boundaries of time. Therefore, I believe that it is possible that God can know our futures without taking a direct hand in forcing the outcome. Does that mean that our futures are set and we can't control our own lives? I don't think so. We control our destiny, we make the choices, and we perform our own actions. God just has a knowledge of what the end result will be. This topic is one of the things that we Christians have to eventually admit that only Faith in the truth of the Bible can resolve at this time. Just like other incomprehensible subjects such as the Godhead, Infinity, Perfect Justice, and Providence.

Genesis 1:1 If God had to creat the heavens, where was he before? Biblical scholars determined that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C. thereby making the earth about six thousand years old.

I believe that I answered this point in my previous paragraph. God exists outside conventional space and time.

Genesis 1:16 there are not 2 great lights. The light coming from the moon is a reflection of the light coming from the sun.

There is a lot that literary tools used in Genesis. I believe this to be one of them. From an observation point of view, it is two great lights.

Genesis 1:29 God gave us all the plants on the Earth to eat. So why are there poisonous plants that will kill us?

I don't think that this passage says that we are to eat every plant on earth. It says that we are given every "herb bearing seed." He also gave us all of the animals to have dominion over, but then Jewish law specifies which animals not to touch because they are "unclean."

Genesis 2:17 Adam ate from the tree and did not die.

When Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he did die. It was not an instantaneous death, but he died spiritually at that point, and I think that it can be argued that he began to die physically. Before this act, he was able to eat of the tree of Life. There was no indication that Adam or Eve were ever aging or going to die. After this act, they were banished from the garden, and the presence of the Tree of Life. After this, they began to grow old and die.

Genesis 7:11-12 Noah was 600 years old?!?! What ever. And are we to believe that the world was popluated from only Noah, his wife and his sons and their wives? geneticly impossible to stem out into asian, blacks, whites, hispanic etc from just the original 'arabic' race in the last 4000 years(the floods are to believed to have happened aroung 2007 B.C.)(arabic term used because this all happened in the middle east).

Yes he was. And there were older. Methuselah lived to be 969 years old. That is almost 1000 years! By a interesting coincidence, by my observations, that would mean he died in the year of the flood, so he must not have been faithful. Or he died before the flood. Anyway, at that time, people could live that long. After the flood, the average lifespan of man was shortened. I believe that it was shortened again at the tower of Babel. This also ties in with the physics behind the flood. When God created the earth, it says that he separated the waters, and the space between he called the heavens. One body of water above, and one below. So apparently there was a sphere of water surrounding the earth. It has been speculated that this body of water would act as a barrier to harmful radiation from the sun and other cosmic bodies. It is safe to assume that with Adam and Eve, the genetic structure was perfect. No mutations. This is why it was possible for there to be inbreeding at the beginning without adverse effects. Remember, Cain and Seth had to have wives too. Stands to reason that it was their sister. Who else? Anyway, after the flood, this protective barrier would be eliminated, allowing harmful radiation to affect us. Remember this is just speculation. I don't know if God took a direct hand in limiting the lifespan of man, or if he allowed nature to do it for him. But I think that either is plausible.

Genesis 6:15 There would have been about only 1.5 cubic feet of space for every pair of animals on the Ark for the estimated 4 million+ different species of animals. Since you don't believe in evolution, that would mean everything(and everyday we are finding different species)(hmm, what about the fish? If God wanted to kill all the animals of the world, why would he leave the fish 7:14 no metion of fish, there is only mention of animals that walk the ground, and the birds in the air.)

It wasn't God's purpose to kill all the animals. He wanted to wipe Man from the face of the earth. The animals had done nothing wrong, not being able to sin or know right from wrong. Man was the problem. So he would have no reason to kill the fish or sea mammals. And it would have been silly to put them in the ark. Now about the animals. You are probably overestimating the space if your calculations are correct. (I am assuming that they may be, and not checking) Noah only took some animals in pairs. Some of the animals, I believe the ones at the time deemed "unclean," were taken in groups of 7. So they probably had much less space. I don't know how they fit. And if you take into account that Noah may have had some dinosaurs on board, this might further complicate matters. But remember that Noah did not have to take fully grown animals into the ark. They could have been babies, or even eggs at the time. God could have made sure (through divine intervention) that no eggs would break and that all animals would survive the journey. Maybe they didn't even have to eat during that time. I can see how this could have been plausible, so chalk another one up to Faith.

Genesis 7:19-20 It would have to rain more than 750 feet per day for 40 days/night to cover the world so that the mountains would be covered by a depth of 15 cubits (about 20 feet) There is no evidence of such a massive flood. Wouldn't there be evidence if the whole world was covered in water for 150 days?

Two things here. One is my comment from above. The water sphere around the earth. This was the time that God collapsed that sphere. This would account for quite a bit of water. Also, it says that water came from within the ground. So all of the water did not have to come from above. Was all of the water there before the flood? Maybe not. God could have intervened and added plenty of water. He could also have taken it away after the flood. So the flood is possible. Plus I have seen lots of scientific evidence that points to a global flood. Fossilized remains of fish on the tops of mountains and the like. So the flood was definitely possible.

Genesis 32:25-30 If God was so powerful why could he not win in a wrestling match with Jacob, a mortal?

Well he could have. That must not have been what he was trying to do.

Exodus 12:37 There was 600,000 men on foot, not including women, children, and the elderly. Round up to 1.5 million total. The total population for Egypt at the time was estimated at less than 2 million. Doesn't add up.

I disagree. I think that it does add up. Joseph died, and the Pharaoh, who had liked him and given the land of Goshen (the most fertile land around) to his family, had died. The new Pharaoh had no reason to sustain these people in his country. So he enslaved them. They grew and multiplied while they were enslaved. They were abused and ruled with iron fists. The Egyptians made sure that they would not rise up. Maybe God had a hand in their complacency as well. The Pharaoh was afraid of the Israelites. God could have influenced this nation to grow and multiply quickly.

Leviticus 14:49-53 Sounds like witch craft.

So? Lots of the laws back then were similar. What about spreading lambs blood on the door posts to avoid the angel of death in Exodus. No matter what it sounds like. This was God's law at the time.

1 Timothy 6:10 Money is not the root of all evil. Lots of poor people do evil things. Lots of rich people do good things.

Yes they do, but this verse is pointing out that human greed is the root of all evil. Not necessarily that every evil action is caused directly by greed.

Matthew 26:52 says all who take the sword, perish by the sword. But Jesus took a sword in Matthew 10:34

No he didn't. He is speaking metaphorically of a sword. Not taking one up to use in battle. However, he did, in essence "Die by the sword", which I take to mean die by violence.

MK 11:12-14, 20-21 Wouldn't it have been better to make the fig tree produce, than to curse it and kill it?

It depends greatly on what is trying to be accomplished. Jesus cursed the tree as another proof of who he was and the power of God (Verse 22).



One final note. The Bible cannot be logically explained without including the divine power of God and the supernatural. Everything in the Bible may not be physically possible today. I have yet to discover a fallacy that cannot be explained with thorough study. This fact, as well as my observations of the world around me, make me positive that there is a God. And the Bible is his message to us. This helps me to have Faith in both him and his word. What inspires the Faith of the evolutionist?

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[andrew_0812]

I know that micro-evolution is a proven fact, and have no problem with it. That is why I specifically addressed macro-evolution. The day-age theory of the creation is fairly popular. I don't believe that. I believe that the world was created in 7 actual days. And I think that you can discern the age of the earth, and therefore the universe, via secular and biblical histories.

You are right. My belief is a theory. I personally see it as a fact, but would not try and force this belief on anyone else. My belief is commonly viewed as a theory. Evolution is given lip service as being a theory, then convieniently portrayed as a fact in schools and media. I object to that.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[andrew_0812]

i disagree. I choose to read the Bible, which I believe is infallable, and to discern what I believe as truth from there. I agree that it would have been equally possible for God to have used evolution, because I believe that he is all powerful. I don't think that either one is more bueatiful, interesting, or godly than the other. I simply believe what I believe because that is what the Bible says.

To be more clear, God could have created the universe however he saw fit, whether it was 7 days, evolution over millenia, or a big sneeze. But God cannot lie, God inspired Genesis, and Genesis does not agree with directed evolution.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like all of the Scientists knew that the earth was the center of the universe and imprisoned Gallilao for saying otherwise.

whew, I feel safe now.

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Anonymous Coward]

1. God put it there, he could take it away. 2. You don't know the history of the bible very well. It was never written by anyone with power. 3. How do you know? 4. Fine. 5. This is not a fact. It is a THEORY

Re:Rediculous claim and theory

[Jagasian]

With the whole sphere of water thing, you are wrong. The old belief was that beyond the sky was water, and the stars were holes in the protective bubble that let water leak through causing rain. The flood wasn't the collapse of all of the water through the protective dome above the earth. You or someone fairly recent is making that up. With time, science shows the bible to be wrong, so people change the bible through transliteration, interpretation, and flat out cut and pasting.

Also there are herbs that bear seeds that are poisionous. So yeah, thats a mistake too. Now, please tell me what the new interpretation/translation/edit is which explains that.

Learn some history yourself

[edremy]

I think more scientist should study history and learn just how many times they have been wrong before stating absolute fact -- unless of course you still contend that the world is flat?

Umm, scientists have known the world is round since at least the Greeks and probably long before that. The even knew the Earth's diameter to within 5%. The idea that scientists didn't know this until recently is laughable

Re:Learn some history yourself

[SL33Z3]

Actually, you've supported my thoughts. I never mentioned "recently" in my post. The thought in my original post was that science has been wrong for ages and they never seem to learn that statements should not be made as fact until proven as such. It seems like there are too many scientist out there that feel the first thought they have that might be remotely correct should be announced to the world. One other replying poster made a horrid attempt at sarcasm -- as thought my post was anti-science. I love science. That is the reason that I dislike poor science. Hope that clears the air.

Re:Learn some history yourself

[Stonehand]

In most domains, science does not /prove/; absolute proof is mostly left to mathematicians in their abstract domain -- and it's perfectly reasonable for even a consistent, correct system of well-defined axioms to have clearly-defined logical propositions whose correctness CANNOT be determined.

It can /disprove/ by showing evidence inconsistent with a hypothesis. It can /support/ a hypothesis by finding a large body of confirmatory evidence in the absence of exceptions, and preferably with a plausible explanatory mechanism. Unlike many other dogmas, such as the Aristotelian school, science prefers to work with testable hypotheses and to seek evidence to shed light on the truth.

Something like the FOXP2 gene, for instance, lends itself to some testing; one should eventually be able to determine both what protein it corresponds to, and whether or not it's unique to but ubiquitous among people. And if anybody is ever born with a defective copy of FOXP2 (which could be induced, if it weren't for the ethical considerations), that would be a data point. However, even if such a mutant

a) existed,
b) were found (e.g. genetic screening after noticing inability of person to comprehend language)
c) did indeed have a defective copy,

it wouldn't be proof.

Faulty logic

[Anonymous Coward]

So those who are mute can't communicate? Hasn't anyone thought of signing?! It's just as effective as speech, and you can be sure our anciestors did it before they could speak.

Blogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Which mutant gene is repsonisble for blogs?

Forgive my stupidity, but how do they know...

[two-bookoo!]

What the gene was like 200,000 years ago, compaired to say 220,000 years ago, if the differance/mutation is only THREE molcules, of 715?

Please somsone that REALLY knows something about this reply. Thanks - Matt

Rats of NIMH

[lardcanoe]

Yeah, and if one of those mice escapes, we either have the precursor to rats of NIMH or a real life Pinky and the Brain... wahoo for science!

Hmm, well...

[bandit450]

I don't know about you guys, but a lot of the people I hear speaking now adays sound like a bunch of mutants, anyways.

*cough*georgebush*cough*

You mean that slashdot ISN'T run by chimps???

[two-bookoo!]

If your assumption were true, it would be possible, with enough patience and care, to teach a chimp to talk and be just like us, so the chimp could go to school, get a job, and say, run slashdot. This is clearly not the case despite more and more findings that chimps have really advanced mental capabilities. Well Shit, wow, I guess, I should be giving less credit to Micheal, considering he is not a chimp, and is a part of the "human" (smart quote) race.....

In other news...

[Pig Hogger]

In other news, researchers from the Bethesda Institute for Genetic Research report that chin dimples, which have done so much to endear stars such as Robert Mitchum to women, are also the result of a mutated gene.

Evolution is crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Working on my car I always wonder why it just doesn't evolve itself to something better -- like a Lexus or something. IT surely can't be that hard since DNA is a much more complex mechanism....and yet here I am! Stupid cars! For that matter at least my watch should evolve itself into maybe a Rolex....

Talking dog...

[nesneros]

I don't know Davey, that doesn't sound like such a good idea.

rats of nhim

[Anonymous Coward]

cool.... maybe we'll see some super intelligent rats that will wipe out mankind. yeah, I didn't read the article, so what!

biological reductionism

[peter303]

Biolofical reductionism tries to explain living things with single causes. This has been mostly done with disease, but now they are trying to explain human behaviors. Too simple.

God to Satan:

[Anonymous Coward]

I *told* you.

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

insanity peppers

[redherring22]

Dog: Hi, Homer. Find your soulmate.
Homer: Hey, wait a minute! There's no such thing as a talking dog!
Dog: [barks]
Homer: Damn straight!

(thanks, SNPP)

wo there!!

[dollargonzo]

wait a moment there.this is one gorilla we are talking about. for example, i was born in russia. if i was the only russian speaking person in the US, then i could teach some people some russian, but obviously not as good as myself. does this prove that russian is not retained through generations???

QED

Uhm, all genes are mutations

[RockyJSquirel]

Except for the (completely unsupported) thesis that a mutated FOXP2 gene is in some very vague way important to the evolution of language, the assertion of these articles are absolute truisms.

Almost all genes must be mutations of what came before them (the exceptions being genes that crossed species barriers because of viruses or something and genes that are extra copies).

Obviously we talk a little better than monkeys, so a few genes must have mutated along the way...

Rocky J. Squirrel

I discovered this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

By reading Genesis 11:1-9 from the Bible. [sarcasm]What wonderful new revalation will science come up with next!?[/sarcasm]

Re:I discovered this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Someone not only decided to put this gene in a baboon, they let him post to Slashdot.

Just go back to your cage and have a banana, m'kay?

Koko doesn't have language

[asarva]

Herb Terrace's research with "Nim Chimpsky" in the 1970s blew away the "animals can sign" theories. Some people cling to this, but in general nobody claims that chimps can talk (with their hands).

Re:Koko doesn't have language

[Anonymous Coward]

riiiiiiiiight.

Is Nim Chimpsky like The Rats of Nimh?

Read some current papers- there is nothing to suggest that Koko is just mimicing to get a bannana.

Maybe it validates that you're the top-dog to think so though.

Re:Koko doesn't have language

[Luyseyal]

I wrote a paper on this year before last. There are quite a few PhD's in cognitive science and cognitive ethology who think chimps, dogs, and others are communicating quite well. They'll tell you it's simply a matter of degree of language skills, not "yes these animals have it" or "no they don't".

No primate has signed a sentence longer than 3 signs, it is true. But hand signs aren't the only thing they're testing. There's another group of chimp researchers who use a button pushing mechanism.

Anyhow, the point is, one dumb chimp doesn't collapse the theory. It's far more compelling to me that these high level animals could understand some basic emotions and drives and assign a label for those concepts than to accept that they are complete automata, lacking comprehension of any ability.

So, I demand more proof than a one-off experiment with one chimp to prove the research is off-base.

For reference, you can read my paper here: http://arrakeen.dynodns.net/paper.pdf

-l

Re: Koko doesn't have language

[Black Parrot]

> No primate has signed a sentence longer than 3 signs, it is true.

I would guess that part of the limitation is the amount of working memory they have. Though certain idealizers like to ignore it, humans also have limits on how complex a sentence they can form without writing it down where they can make sure all the pieces match up, and the limitation appears to be working memory - which most idealizers consider an "extralinguistic" factor.

The other question is whether apes even have anything to say that's complex enough to need more than a few sequential signs.

Language idealizers like to think that 'language' is an essentially independent facility that operates independently of the rest of the 'mind' (whatever that is), and IMO they blunder seriously when they do that.

Generative linguistics started with a simple idea by Noam Chomsky half a century ago, but for the past ~40 years it has been nothing more than an industry of adding epicycles to fit various speech habits to the theory, and even then they won't touch certain kinds of languages, such as classical Greek, that are very unkind to the theory. And it's all because they treat language as if it were something like physics, that can be studied without reference to the organisms that use it.

Re: Koko doesn't have language

[Luyseyal]

can be studied without reference to the organisms that use it.

my philosophy of language professor was way into Pragmatics. He seemed pretty interested in the adaptations necessary for language to survive... so anyway I'm just saying there's some hope for the science. Relevance Theory is a step in the right direction.

-l

Re:According to Discovery Channle (aquatic apes)

[kcelery]

There might be a link between semi-aquatic behaviour and the shortness of our hair. There is also a link between mental activity and fish. Animals like dolphin, whales, sea lion etc are more clever than the grass eating mammal like horse, goat.

geneticists' time estimates for this gene

[bbc22405]

How did these geneticists come up with their estimates for the time to replace the previous gene in the population, and when the replacement occurred?

It sounds to me like they completely pulled these numbers out of their hats, especially the estimate of the time it took this allele to replace the previously dominant one(s). How could they possibly know what this number would be?

They talk about this gene as if there are no other alleles other than those possessed by the non-talking family etc. Are there? This would help me believe (or not) their estimate of when the beneficial mutation occurred. But if there is only one very (completely) dominant form of this gene, how would they measure the age of it? How can these scientists realisticly weigh its genetic advantage? The family in England with the mutant copy; do they have the same version of this gene that is possessed by chimps? (This is the unlikely case, and the interesting one. The chimp version may have been the previously dominant version.) Or do they just have some random, harmful mutation of it? (This is the likely case, and less interesting in gauging the importance of this gene.)

Details, I want details.

Re:geneticists' time estimates for this gene

[Anonymous Coward]

>They talk about this gene as if there are no other alleles other than those possessed by the non-talking family etc

They sequenced 44 copies of FOXP2 genes from normal people around the world; all were identical except the ones from the impaired family and one other impaired individual. It's not what I'd call comprehensive but it suggests this allele is very widespread. In their previous study (Nature 413, 519 - 523 (2001) ) they showed that a couple hundred individuals do not have the mutation found in the impaired family, but they only looked at the area where the mutation was found, not the whole gene then.

>The family in England with the mutant copy; do they have the same version of this gene that is possessed by chimps
No, totally different, seems to be a random harmful version
The other impaired unrelated guy had a translocation in the gene

>how would they measure the age of it?
They did a lot of statistics making assumptions about how fast DNA mutations accumulate, and looking at the surrounding area for allele disequilibrium

>It sounds to me like they completely pulled these numbers out of their hats
Well, they present a bunch of stats in the actual paper(including huge +/- intervals) that the pop press never mentions.... sorry I don't understand the stats that well myself or I'd explain it to you. Here's what the researchers actually said about the time issue:
"the time when such a FOXP2 variant became fixed in the human population may be pertinent with regard to the evolution of human language. We estimated this time point using a likelihood approach. Under a model of a randomly mating population of constant size, the most likely date since the fixation of the beneficial allele is 0, with approximate 95% confidence intervals of 0 and 120,000 years. Our point-estimate of 0 reflects the fact that high-frequency alleles rapidly drift to fixation, so an excess is most likely immediately after a selective sweep. However, if population growth soon succeeds the fixation of the advantageous allele, the rate of drift will be decreased and high-frequency alleles may persist longer in the population. Thus, the inclusion of population growth may push this time estimate back by at most the time since the onset of human population growth, some 10,000-100,000 years ago. In any case, our method suggests that the fixation occurred during the last 200,000 years of human history, that is, concomitant with or subsequent to the emergence of anatomically modern human".
This is alot more vague than the pop press makes it sound!

>How did these geneticists come up with their estimates for the time to replace the previous gene in the population, and when the replacement occurred?
The authors state
"A summary likelihood method (compare with ref. 27) was used to estimate the time, T, since the fixation of the beneficial allele in the population. The polymorphism data was summarized as H (ref. 17) and (ref. 28). We then ran coalescent simulations of a selective sweep with recombination as in ref. 13. " [and so on for a half page]
Uh.... some statistical modeling? It is safe to say they made a lot of assumptions. They did not give a number for a "time to replace the previous gene" anywhere in the article, I don't know where the pop press got that part.

The perfect mates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if only they could remove that gene from a smoking hot woman, make her infertile, give her a tapeworm, and clone me a couple of her, life would be grand.

Re:The perfect mates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, if they cloned her now, you'd have to be a pedophile to be able to get any use out of her before your equipment shrivelled up and was useless. You're quite disgusting.

mutant gene - no shit

[xcable_hhh]

so you are saying a "mutant" gene evolved the human species. No shit, any new gene is a mutation.

It's so obvious!

[JimPooley]

This is all just part of the Mice's experiments on us... They wanted the cavemen to be able to tell them the answer, not just grunt it or spell it out on the scrabble board!

Re:It's so obvious!

[jerek]

What is it going to take for us all to realise that we humans are the result of some genetic manipulation by the Gods? Maybe the decoding of the model, revision number and perhaps a corporate logo in all that junk DNA? There are just too many *random* mutations for my liking. And how come these random mutations havent happened in other species, some of which have been unchanged for tens of millions of years?
Isnt it also a little strange how electronics and computer technology suddenly boomed around the time of the early UFO reports? Who knows, maybe even UNIX and TCP/IP came from the Gods?

Parrot culture

[jc42]

The word "culture" doesn't just mean human-type culture; it refers to any passing of information from one generation to the next by behavioral means.

Behavioralists have written a fair amount about parrot "culture". Parrots are generally adapted to exploiting a food source that is difficult to exploit. Parrots mostly eat seeds (and sometimes the fruit around them), so to a tree they are predators, and in areas with parrots, trees tend to protect their seeds. Part of the protectin is hard shells, but part is by hiding them so that parrots can't easily find them.

Part of the explanation of how parrots survive is that they learn to find seeds from the flock's elders. A flock member will remember that at this time of year, over on the east side of that hill, there are these trees that have good seeds about half-way up and 2/3 of the way out from the trunk. That parrot will lead the others there, and they'll learn about the seeds, and remember.

This is the conventional explanation of their intelligence, memory and longevity. These are needed to remember how to find all those hidden seeds from year to year.

We have a female cockatiel that we got from a friend with a breeding pair about 5 years ago. She's generally a skittish bird who is very wary of strangers. He moved away about 3 years ago. When he was in town a few months ago, he came by for a visit. After a few seconds of looking at him skeptically, she flew over, landed on his shoulder and nibbled his ear. This illustrates the memory abilities of even a small parrot.

Anyone who has had a pet parrot knows quite well how effective a "three-fingered hand" their beak and tongue are. If they had managed to spare a few brain cells for more complex language, they would now be the ones running the planet.

Speech is not an accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Researchers next want to try altering the gene in mice to see what happens, although they suspect there are many other genes involved.

The researchers themselves are already suspecting there are a lot of other genes involved. Naturally there would be. Look at a parrot, the ability to speak doesn't give it anything interesting to say (i.e. no intelligence to speak of (no pun intended), not compared to humans anyway).

If there are a lot of other genes involved (and there are), what are the odds they all happened by accident? There's not enough information here to say, but if someone told you they sat down and rolled a die 50 times and got "6" every time, would you believe it? Assuming it's purely random, the odds would be 6**50 (I suspect the way the average person picks up a die and rolls it precludes getting the same number that many times, which is part of the point). When you factor in the odds of all the things that would have to happen for life to occur accidentally, the chances are far, far more remote.

Our education conditions us to believe that all things are possible, some things just have very low probability. But in truth, some things are just impossible. What are the odds that if you threw all the appropriate components in the air (including batteries), it would land as a working radio? The simplest life is vastly more complex than a radio. For it to form by accident is just impossible (Thank you, Mr. Pasteur).

Evolution is an excellent example of a religion which moves its adherants to blind faith. The only difference between it and other false religions is that it attracts followers using a different set of emotions... it's stimulating to your intellectual curiosity, to your sense of wonder... but really, it's no more beneficial to you than any other untruth.

Evolution may be the most popular idea, promoted by the most brilliant minds of our time... but the most brilliant minds of another time bought right into the idea that the earth is flat, the most popular idea of their time. Great popularity does not make a fallacy correct.

Re:Speech is not an accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

ethics of intelligent pets?

[wren337]

I've often wondered, with this research and an earlier article about scientists creating mice with larger, crenellated brains. If we created a race of intelligent, articulate mice, could we ethically keep them as pets? Wouldn't they be entitled to rights, like self determination?

How could it be acceptable to kill them for research, or hold them against their wills?

Re:ethics of intelligent pets?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen many of the people responding here saying that we aren't all that special in comparison to other animals as far as language and intelligence. So how do people justify eating them or subjecting them to pain and torture?

Anyone else see the special on the History channel last night about canabalism? Yumyum.

More importantly

[JohnnyBolla]

I wonder how long it will be beforea a tlaking dog can have you?
I would think that our species holding onto this planet it pretty tenuous currently, and I think introducing competition is not the smartest of ideas. I think this applies double to something like a mouse. Mice are hard to kill off, they breed insanely fast, they eat the same food as us, and they carry disease. If you're gonna mess with this stuff, do it on something big and slow, like an elephant or a woman from Massachusettes.

Re:More importantly

[WetCat]

Yeah! Lots of talking mouses! Lots!
Is it really what we need?

Re:More importantly

[The Grey Eminence]

Watch out for all that virii in those mouses.

The future!

[godemon]

And once they re-engineer us to talk out of other holes we'll have all sorts of advancements in culture! I wish the telepathy mutation had kicked in instead.

Simpsons..

[al3x]

Talking dog: "Homer, find your soul mate!"
Homer: "Wait, there's no such thing as a talking dog!"
Talking dog: "Arf arf!"
Homer: "Damn straight!"

Speech != language

[mrogers]

What kind of competitive advantage would speech have offered for early humans, if language did not already exist? Language consists of much more than the production of words. You also need to be able to parse sentences, to "reverse-engineer" the grammar of your parents' language before you can start producing sentences of your own. This raises the question of whether parts of the brain have evolved "for" grammar (a hypothesis supported by Noam Chomsky and argued by Steven Pinker in his excellent book The Language Instinct ), or whether existing pattern-recognition and planning mechanisms turned out to be useful for language, influencing the form and scope of all subsequent languages (suggested by Mark Steedman among others).

It's even possible that complete languages existed before humans were able to speak. American Sign Language is an example of a language with its own complete, unique grammar and morphology, which does not make use of speech. (See Pinker's book again.) Its existence supports the hypothesis that the parts of the brain responsible for language can operate independently of the parts that co-ordinate speech. In summary, there is a lot more to language than co-ordinating the muscles of the mouth and throat.

Re:Speech != language

[Hoi Polloi]

But the mechanisms in the brain would not have continued to develop if they were not spurred on by the physical ability to speak. The complexity and manner of communicating would have been severely limited if it was just reduced to a few hundred visual signals (at best). I doubt that something as abstract as culture or religion could have evolved without speech. American Sign Language is not a proper example as it was created by an already established world of speaking/hearing people and the deaf have all the physical and mental capabilities for full speech even if they don't use them.

Re:Speech != language

[Kitaro242]

The advantages would be twofold and do not require a generative grammar or explicable set of rules: 1) simple and efficient communication where visual aids are ineffective, namely the dark 2) the cognitive development of other areas of brain, again, namely the evolution of the areas known of Broca's and Werneke's (sp).

Kitaro242 www.VerizonEatsPoop.com

Re:Speech != language

[Anonymous Coward]

ASL might be a somewhat contrived example, but on the same grounds, so is "English". The concept of a "Language" as a single, agreed-upon entity is a fabrication. Look at "Chinese" -- two mutually unintelligible "dialects" that were it not for political issues would be different languages. Even moreso, the Academy of the French Language -- according to anecdotes, at least -- have proposed changes in the official French language that were contrary to human language. That is, they violated the rules that govern all languages rendering them unable to be learned as such by children.

If you, however, are claiming that if it weren't for the benevolent aid of teachers at schools for the deaf that deaf people would all be wandering around with no ability to do more linguistically than essentially grunt with their hands, I'd suggest you do a little research. I'm sure there have been deaf people around for a long, long time. If anything, having something called "American Sign Language" is little more than a recognition and a standardization of the many dialects of old French Sign Language that spread through the US when it came to the US over via Gallaudet. But to suppose that nothing existed before that it tantamount to supposing that there was no language in North America before the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

If anything, the ability to speak is an evolutionary disadvantage. The movement of the larynx that aids speech also gives us the ability to choke to death.

Re: Speech != language

[Black Parrot]

> This raises the question of whether parts of the brain have evolved "for" grammar (a hypothesis supported by Noam Chomsky [xrefer.com] and argued by Steven Pinker in his excellent book The Language Instinct [amazon.com] ), or whether existing pattern-recognition and planning mechanisms turned out to be useful for language, influencing the form and scope of all subsequent languages (suggested by Mark Steedman [ed.ac.uk] among others).

I go heavily with Steedman. Lots of the evidence the chompskyites dredge up doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. For example, there's a famous article where they cite the speech of some kids with "severe cognitive disorders" who are still able to speak well, but if you look at the cited speech you can very easily see examples of analogies, metaphors, expressions of relationships, etc., in the things the kids say. I.e., some very sophisticated modes of thought that we wouldn't expect from a signing ape; they aren't so completely mindless as the proponents of the "Speech is Special" school of thought would have you believe. This kind of literature can only stem from schools of thought where the proponents are so sure of the answer that they don't bother to think about their own claims critically before they go to press.

That's not to say that there isn't lots of weird stuff that demands an explanation, such as localized brain damage that causes very specific (and sometimes bizarre) linguistic defects, but in general there has been a lack of self-critical thought in the chomskian camp. IMO much of it is political, since it has the very noticeable effect of exempting the study of 'language' from the study of cognition, biology, historical linguistics, etc., leaving "generative grammar" as a 'pure' discipline involving nothing other than the application of formalisms to explain the proponent's notions of what constitutes a grammatically correct sentence.

I deliberately refer to Chomsky more than to Pinker, since I'm less familiar with the latter. From various quotes I've seen, I recognize that he makes some good points, and I think at least some of his views are in serious conflict with some of Chomsky's, but I did hear him speak once, and I was very unimpressed with his ability to make a case. He is sort of a pop star among linguists, and he draws audiences that are not generally very well informed about the subject matter, let alone inclined to think about his claims critically.

Reminds me of a very old dog joke....

[bytor4232]

Man walks into a bar with his dog, and says "Ill bet anyone 100 bucks that I can make my dog talk."

Bartender looks up and says, "Ill take that bet"

Man says to dog, "What goes on top of a house"

dog says, "ROOF!"

Bartender says, "Hey, wait a minute, he didnt talk!"

so man says, "Okay smart guy watch this...". He turns to the dog and says "Who was the greatest baseball player ever?"

dog says, "RUFF!"

Bartender picks the man and dog up and throws them both out into the street.

The dog looks at the man and says, "Maby I should have said Dimaggio?"

Re:Reminds me of a very old dog joke....

[Jeld]

I heard a bit different version of this joke:

A man comes into a bar and says "I will bet a 100$ to anyone that I can make my dog talk", so everyone in the bar is making bets with him, he puts the dog on the bar and says "Jessey, say something!" The dog is silent. He tries a few times to make the dog talk but it only barks. So he pays everybody and leaves. When he gets out he tells his dog "Jessey, why the heck wouldn't you say anhything, we have lost a shitload of money today!" And the dog replies, "Just think how much we are going to win tomorrow." :)

Re:Reminds me of a very old dog joke....

[jx100]

I'm reasonably sure that was in a Warner Bros. cartoon. It was one that had Michigan J. Frog, wha sings constantly, except for the few moments where it really counts. The talking dog is a side act that that some review board finds then throws out, along with its discoverer.

Re:Reminds me of a very old dog joke....

[bytor4232]

Your right, it was in the Michigan J. Frog cartoon. I've heard it outside WB thou from a couple of sources, including Prarie Home COmpanion, but thats not to say they didn't take it form WB!

The Nagging Gene

[borgasm]

I am wondering how long after speech was developed that women evolved a nagging gene.

I think we can probably pinpoint this event to when men started living much shorter lives than their female counterparts.

Re:Dateline 200,000 BC: Man Invents the Pickup Lin

[nathanm]

ROTFL! That reminds me of the unfrozen caveman lawyer from Saturday Night Live.

short answer

[Ender Ryan]

If you had children, they'd learn to speak as well as you, but that doesn't appear to be the case with gorillas.

It's not like I did the research, it was much more involved than what I explained I'm sure. Plus I'm sure they didn't consider it to be entirely conclusive.

Personally, I find it interesting that the other gorillas picked up the language at all.

Re: short answer

[Black Parrot]

> If you had children, they'd learn to speak as well as you, but that doesn't appear to be the case with gorillas.

One issue is whether gorillas in the wild (or in the zoo) have any motivation to learn to 'talk'. It's not obvious that they should learn to 'talk' well in an experiment like this.

Re:short answer

[dollargonzo]

not true at all. my sibling especially do not speak NEARLY as well as my parents do. that is actually one of the biggest problems with assimilation: you lose the language.

QED

hmmm...

[i_have_no_name]

"sit booboo sit" BOOBOO: "ruck ru, im out!"

The Talking Frog

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a joke:

A boy was crossing a road one day when a frog called out to him and said, "If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess".

He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.

The frog spoke up again and said, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week."

The boy took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket.

The frog then cried out, "If you kiss me an turn me back into a princess, I'll stay with you and do ANYTHING you want."

Again, the boy took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.

Finally, the frog asked, "What is the matter? I've told you I'm a beautiful princess, that I'll stay with you for a week and do anything that you want. Why won't you kiss me?"

The boy said, "Look, I'm an engineer. I don't have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog is cool."

People who talk too much...

[MjDascombe]

I always suspected they were freaks

history

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I have a fact or two to report after reading a book about the history of languages (a pretty good book).

The ability for humans to talk comes from our larynx dropping down allowing greater control of the vocal chords. Before that happened all we could do was grunt to communicate the most primitve of signals to each other. Since we lived in a (extremely primitive) tribal society (like an native american tribe but muchhhh less advanced) the more we could communicate the better our odds of survival. For instance, it's very hard to say "ill sneak up behind the lion while you distract it" by using only grunts (obviously it was the ancient form of the lamer that got to do the distracting... the ancient geek was already trying to destroy the enemy). Of course, this was all accomplished through evolution. It took a very long time to develop the human vocal chords that way. And it made them more open to harm. Thus, dog's can bark for hours on end but humans would get a sore throat. Personally, I think it's a good trade off because I'm almost positive that dog's dont have several hundred words to describe breasts. Fin.

bullcrap

[BigChigger]

"greater control" of the muscles etc. that enable speech did not make language magically appear.

bC

Re:According to Discovery Channle (aquatic apes)

[lobsterGun]

We don't need muscles to close our nose or ears.

- Water just rolls out of our ears on its own.
- We actually do have muscles that allow us to close our nostrils, they just aren't used that much in every day life.
- Noses are angled in such a way that as long as we stay upright in water we can keep the water out.

I used to do a lot of swimming. I never wore ear or nose plugs and never had a problem with water seaping in.

well, I could've told you that

[glwtta]

mutant genes are responsible for everything - it's what genes do.

If it didn't mutate, we'd still have communication

[hacker]

"If an infinite number of rednecks driving an infinite number of pickup trucks fired an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs, they would eventually write all the great books ...in braille."

Are they TRYING to not piss of religions?

[Havokmon]

Two critical mutations appeared roughly 200,000 years ago in a gene linked to language, then swept through the population at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans began to dominate the planet, according to new research.

I thought that was called evolution.

Re:Are they TRYING to not piss of religions?

[Winterblink]

I thought that was called evolution.

Duh. The point being made here is that they think they've identified the particular gene that mutated, thus facilitating that evolution.

Re:Are they TRYING to not piss of religions?

[Havokmon]

Duh. The point being made here is that they think they've identified the particular gene that mutated, thus facilitating that evolution.

-Havok reels him in...-

Why? Was their faith in question? :P

Re:Are they TRYING to not piss of religions?

[Winterblink]

Sorry, not getting how faith works into any of this. :)

Koko the ape already talks

[teamhasnoi]

Koko can already talk. She was taught sign language, and has a vocabulary of over 1000 signs, and can understand over 2000 spoken engligh words. Which is far more than many posters on slashdot.

Gene Mutations and the Human Species..

[ldopa1]

In 1 AD, there were about 150 million humans worldwide (Source), and according to Columbia University there were ~6B people in 1995 (a growth factor or 40).

As best as I can figure, that means we are 40 times more likely NOW that someone on the planet will develop a significant new gene mutation than we were at the birth of Christ (give or take 15 years, but that's another story entirely). I wonder what the factor is if we had an idea of the population in 198,000 B.C. I couldn't find a source.

At any rate, I guess my point, or question, is this; Given that it's 40 times more likely that someone will have experienced a significant gene mutation today than in 1 A.D., and the factor probably goes up a tremendous amount given the population difference between 198,000 B.C. and the birth of Christ, isn't it possible (maybe even likely) that just ONE of the people in this world who claim Extra Sensory Abilities might actually be telling the truth?

Now OTOH (On The Other Hand), it's also JUST as likely that some mutation will come along which will wipe out these beneficial mutations, but those mutations won't spread like beneficial ones.

This also leads me to a question: How did the first person with the ability to speak spread the gene? It's not like they had anyone to TALK to. I'm guessing the first person to speak was a man. Here's why:

Man Speaks First:
Man: "Hey baby, you want to come back to my cave and check out my wall paintings?"
Woman: "Grunt"
(Man and Woman go back to cave, presumably check out wall paintings, have children...)

Woman Speaks First:
Man: "Grunt"
Woman: "Buzz off, loser. You don't have a fast enough rock." (Man goes off and kills deer)

Just my humble opinion.

Re:Gene Mutations and the Human Species..

[Anonymous Coward]

Spread the gene? Through rampant boffing.

If you mean, start using language, the general theory is it evolved (no, oh screw it, pun intended) over a length of time.

A few grunts that sound like this while pointing at a tree, and suddenly, everyone grunts the same way when there's something going down at that tree.

Re:Gene Mutations and the Human Species..

[jafac]

If I had extra sensory abilities, I wouldn't tell a single damn person.

I'd be out there sucking bank account numbers, safe combinations, etc. from rich people, and going to vegas and cheating at cards.

breed a dumb pig

[cryofan2]

no msg

Talking animals

[2names]

((Scene: mid 1800's, ranch territory...)) A cowboy is making his way through ranch land when he meets a native American Rancher on horseback. "Can I talk to your horse?" the cowboy says. "Horse no talk," says the N.A.R. "Do you mind if I try?" the cowboy asks. "Go ahead," says the N.A.R. So the cowboy walks up to the horse and says, "How is this guy treating you?" To the N.A.R.'s surprise, the horse speaks! "Not too bad, he feeds me good. He whips me once in a while, though, and THAT I don't like." The NAR can't believe what he is seeing. He and the cowboy continue back towards the ranch when the NAR's dog runs out to greet them. "Mind if I talk to your dog?" the cowboy asks. "Dog no talk!" exclaims the NAR. "Mind if I try?" the cowboy asks. "Go ahead," says the N.A.R. So the cowboy walks up to the dog and says, "How is this guy treating you?" To the N.A.R.'s surprise, the dog speaks! "Not too bad, he feeds me good. He whips me once in a while, though, and THAT I don't like." So the NAR and the cowboy continue toward the barn and the corral when the cowboy sees that the NAR also has a few sheep on the ranch. The cowboy says, "Mind if I talk to your sheep?" To which the NAR replies, "SHEEP LIE!!!!!"

wow

[glwtta]

I just actually read this discussion... genetics + slashdot = teh bad, teh very bad

is it possible to not have another genetics related story posted? ever? no? well then just mod this as flamebait, I guess...

In a related story

[hv]

Researchers are very close to synthetically mutating genes to reverse this mutation in women. Half of earths population has stepped up to fund them.

David and Goliath

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Davey!

How is this news

[Merls]

I thought that basically gene mutation was responsible for basically everything about us. Did I miss something?

Talking dogs?

[CourtneyGirl]

As the owner of two dogs, I don't think I'd want a talking one. Whatever would they say? My border collie would say "Want to play frisbee?" repeatedly twenty hours a day. And my cocker spaniel would spend all his time trying to convince people he's just as tough as a big dog. Gourmet meals from out of the trash and sniffing crotches would probably also become popular conversation topics.

Re:Talking dogs?

[StefanJ]

"Gourmet meals from out of the trash and sniffing crotches would probably also become popular conversation topics."

Not to mention kvetching about being neutered. "Yeah, you wanna try it boss? Better not let me catch you comin' out of the shower, ya know what I mean?"

Why no dividends?

[yerricde]

Like it or not, they ARE profitable

Then why hasn't Microsoft paid out dividends to its shareholders in its entire corporate existence? I'd imagine, 21 years after MS-DOS was shipped to IBM, that I'd see something. No, Microsoft had to go and blow its earnings on fulfilling stock options.

Re: Why no dividends?

[Black Parrot]

> > Like it or not, they ARE profitable

> Then why hasn't Microsoft paid out dividends to its shareholders in its entire corporate existence?

He didn't say who they were profitable for!

Why? Autism is a positive trait I tell you

[hackwrench]

In fact, it's going to be the next gene to sweep the globe, and when it does, it's going to be you non-autistic people who are going to be said to lack "key social skills"

A gene for writing code is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I wished like Hell my co-workers had this instead of whatever gene it is they have now. Looks like code, works like cow pies. Never tested, and less than half the functionality.

Send me the talking dog and I'll teach him to code.

This is Dumb

[skubalon]

I can't believe that anyone would believe this crap. When was the last time you saw a mutation that was positive? The answer is never.

I knew it!

[Hoi Polloi]

This proves that people are a bunch of mutants.

Judging from some people's speaking abilities I'd say the process of developing speech is still in flux.

I spoke with him yesterday.

[Hektor_Troy]

He chose me as his prophet and told me that all you cranks are sick and perverted and have no concept of what God really is and wants.

Fascinating

[thasmudyan]

This article is fascinating, no doubt. But the Slashdot headline had me confused for a second, because EVERY evolutionary advantage (in fact every property a living thing can have) has been created by a mere mutation. So I was wandering how this is news. What had me fascinated most about the article is the timeframe - 20.000 years! This is really a short time, not so long ago evolutionary speaking. I think it's interesting to know that the human race is in fact that young, which means we're merely at the beginning!

A Talking dog?

[cryptochrome]

"I don't know, Davey..." Davey and Goliath

what a bunch of crap

[fredopalus]

Why do scientists have to have a reason for everything. They have to stop extrapolating they're data, and just take a look around them.

This is very important!

[Edrick]

This find is actually very significant. It is a rare example of mutations in history that lead to an immediate and dramatic change in a species.

The fossil record before the past million years or so (when homo sapiens sapiens became prominant) has a great deal of gaps in it. Overall these gaps are not HUGE, but they do account for many changes in phenotype.

This speech discovery shows how an advantageous mutation can quickly transform a species, both advancing it, and also erasing those that failed to evolve with it.

This provides a decent analogy to how primates (Great apes specifically) were able to evolve into autralopithecus and other early hominids so dramatically.

I have a feeling that as we dissect and analyze the human genome more (as well as the genomes of animals) we will discover many more evolutionary links that explain in much more detail how we evolved.

Just what we need ... Talking Pets

[KJSwartz]

I can imagine what CmdrTaco's dog would say:

You're Late!

I'm Hungry

Why don't we go out anymore?

It wasn't me ... the Cat did it!

What does "Neuter" mean?

MUTANT GENE RESPONSIBLE FOR CMDRTACO'S INCOMPETANC

[Anonymous Coward]

I think so.

veggie time

[null-sRc]

if (insert an animal you eat here)s could talk, albeit very very very limited, it might make some people realize that (insert an animal you eat here)s are sentient beings and should not be consumed merely to pleasure their tongues.

maybe green peace activists will resequence (insert animal that is being exploited here)s dna to talk etc. as an act of... activism... could happen? maybe?

Re:veggie time

[CthulhuTequila]

Yeah and if Vegetables could talk we'd eat... uh... oh crap, guess we'd die. And it we're so silly as to do something like that, then "Survival of the Fittest" just kicked in and removed the morons who reduced their diet just because their food looked at them and said "Please don't eat me".

Re:veggie time

[null-sRc]

i am not driven by the need to continue my race, and as such, if my death saves another being, then i would rather die.

although that's a little extreme and wouldn't happen since, vegetables are not sentient, while animals are. it's been proven, by science, quiete magical.

reducing your diet isn't quiete accurate as you used it, since, since i don't eat meat, i eat a much larger variety of veggies. being vegetarian actually has many advantages, so. survival of the "fittest" as you put it, is in order after all.

A remnant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was apparently such an advantageous mutation that it quickly swept through the human population (10,000 - 20,000 years) almost entirely wiping out earlier versions.

Judging by the spelling, do you suppose CmdrTaco still has the old gene?

Theories about the origin of language

[bobdinkel]

As a linguistics undergrad the origin of language was a fascinating mystery to me. I've read quite a bit on the subject. Here a tremendous book on the matter:
Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Languageby Robin Dunbar

First of all, in primate society grooming is very important (establishing and maintaining bonds, blah, blah). Dunbar posits that pre-language vocalization was a way to "groom" more individuals at once and to do so at a distance. He pits this theory against other familiar explanations. Namely the "there's-food-down-by-the-water" theory and the "oh-shit-a-bear" theory. After some field research he has determined that the bulk of linguistic interaction is inconsequential chit-chat. This need to maintain a relationship with BS conversation holds true today - think about it. Anybody have a wife/girlfriend. How often do you send an e-mail or give someone call just to say "hi". You're not really exchanging valuable information. You're making an effort to keep whatever connection is there alive.

If you have any interest in the matter, I recommend that you read this book. My explanation doesn't do the author justice. I highly recommend this book to anyone. The style of writing is a pleasantly academic, but still accessible to the uninitiated.

Not pick up lines, singing

[Skevos Mavros]

The mutation added extra control over our vocal chords. So maybe the evolutionary advantage was singing? No words or language required.

Romantic crooners probably had an advantage in finding mates over their less-musically-endowed competitors... :-)

Re:Not pick up lines, singing

[rodentia]

Still do, baby!

Re:Not pick up lines, singing

[Anonymous Coward]

either that, or they just started giving better head---newly learned tongue action skillz---to the ladies.

How long until your dog can get a talking human?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Is more like it.

Just more of the same...

[truthwaylife]

Typical evolutionist article that focuses in only on part of the facts. Language is not caused by one simple gene that accidentally 'mutated': as Noam Chomsky pointed out many years ago, it is wired throughout our brain structure (the famous 'black box'). Besides, all theoretical linguists know that languages over time gradually reduce in complexity: some of the most complicated and sophisticated languages are spoken by the most 'primitive' tribes. That well-known scientific fact doesn't seem to cope well with the evolutionist stance of ever-increasing complexity.

I'd like to hear this as well..

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're so damn sure about evolution and it's truly fact and not theory, where's the proof? More importantly, where's the evidence that disproves creationism? This is definitely news to me.

Oh, and one point I'd really like to hear you touch on is how the moon and its expanding orbit of the earth fits in with evolution. I see that is a serious problem myself. What about you?

Re:I'd like to hear this as well..

[ShavenYak]

Oh, and one point I'd really like to hear you touch on is how the moon and its expanding orbit of the earth fits in with evolution. I see that is a serious problem myself. What about you?

Oh yeah, because if the moon's orbit was a teensy bit smaller many years ago, animals couldn't have evolved. Makes sense to me. Would you like to express your point clearly enough now that someone might be able to touch on it?

Re:I'd like to hear this as well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Crationism is non-disprovable. That is to say, scientifically untestable, and therefore pointless for a scientist to worry about. Think about it - I could have jsut created the whole universe 5 minutes ago. I just created you with all these false memories, see? I'm actually God, but my name is Arkenwheezle, not Thor or Allah or Jehovah or Lir or whatever. Nyah Nyah. All hail me!

Science is a method, a process, by which one continously changes one's beliefs to fit the evidence, by disproving hypotheses (science CANNOT prove anything. Ever.). It is fundamentally at odds with all but the most wishy-washy religion.

Re:I'd like to hear this as well..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not arguing against your actual point, but I wouldn't go around claiming to be God and saying no one can disprove that fact because they're likely to try and kill you to attempt to confirm it. ;)

Re: I'd like to hear this as well..

[Black Parrot]

> More importantly, where's the evidence that disproves creationism? This is definitely news to me.

Understandably, since it doesn't have much currency in creationist circles.

Planet of the mice??

[N3WBI3]

Researchers are likely to try to introduce the genetic mutations into mice as part of their work, but they said many other genetic changes would likely be necessary to produce a talking animal, and several said they doubted anything of the sort would ever be possible, let alone desirable.

"Get your damn dirty mice hands off of me"

Don't carve it backwards!

[Skevos Mavros]

>If I have to carve the definitions of law,
>fact, hypothesis, and theory backwards on
>one more 2x4 and beat one more ignorant
>putz who was asleep in science 101 about
>the head and shoulders with it, I'm
>switching to PT 4x4s for durability.

Why carve the definitions backwards? That way won't they leave an imprint on the putz's forehead the right way around? An imprint which will then appear backwards to the putz when they look in the mirror?

Carve them the right way around! Educate the putz! :-)

Or are you trying to educate the putz's friends?

WORD Virus

[lonemonk]

William S Burroughs speculated on this possibility at great length in his writings. It certainly seemed plausible when he discussed it and it's good to see some science help to clarify the idea.

Perhaps science will assist in backing up my supposition that psilocybin mushrooms were responsible for the creation of a human ability to be aware of our own consciousness. Combined with this Word virus it paints a picture of some pretty radical transformations leading to everything we now hold dear.

: Some members of our society would do well to be cured of this ancient virus. (I'm thinking of politicians)

talking dog

[poot_rootbeer]

So, how long until I can get a talking dog?

I don't knooow, Daaavey...

Right. That's just what you need

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, how long until I can get a talking dog?"

He probably wouldn't have to much to say except to walk around your apartment shouting "I like to lick my ass!" Your dates and neighbors would just love that I bet.

Music Gene? Did We Evolve to Like Music?

[Louis Savain]

Evolved speech is one thing but how about music? Here is a few little questions for the evolutionary crowd.

What is it about appreciating music that is evolutionary important? Does loving music make one more fit for survival? If not, where are the music-insensitive humanoid species? Why were they wiped out if they ever existed? Was it war? Di the music lovers kill off the others? Is there something about a mutated music-loving gene that makes some of us violent and want to kill off non-music lovers?

Re:Music Gene? Did We Evolve to Like Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it about appreciating music that is evolutionary important?

Obvious Fuckin troll. Quick answer: It's not. Lots of people don't like music or don't care about music.

Re:Music Gene? Did We Evolve to Like Music?

[Kaz Riprock]

What is it about appreciating music that is evolutionary important?

Obviously nothing. Otherwise, evolution would have the previous generation killing the current generation. Every adult has lamented "the music these kids play nowadays" since the beginning of beguines.

Re:Music Gene? Did We Evolve to Like Music?

[BlueFashoo]

If not, where are the music-insensitive humanoid species?

That would be me.

Evolution is a bunch of huey

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists have been trying for over a thousand years to unravel the "mysteries" of life and the universe, and haven't really gotten anywhere. Sure, they have all this knowledge about genes and DNA, but what has that really proven, besides what we are made of. Science is almost always contradicting itself, to the point where people hardly pay attention to scientific discoveries anymore because, more likely than not, within a few years a new discovery will be made that says the previous one was wrong.

On the other hand, the Bible explains pretty much everything. People don't want to believe it, though, because to believe it would also mean you would have to follow its teachings, and people don't want to give up sin. What's easier to believe, though, that a divine being created the universe according to a plan, and that's why there is order, or that everything just happened by chance and accident, and we are only here because of luck. Personally, I don't believe accident would create something as complex as the universe or human beings.

significant evolutionary advantage?

[Akoman]

I'm curious how the ability to produce more types of sounds confers a 'significant evolutionary advantage.'

Its not like it make a man run really fast, or have super strength its... whistling. Look as man takes over the world with his amazing whistling powers!

Best thought is that perhaps they were already starting to organize into tribal-type groups and that this development allowed better communication. Which would mean that, yes, this gene played an essential role in starting culture.

Anyways I think that part of the article is a bit lacking. Anyone read the actualy online publication?

Blue Sub 6 here we come...

[TheNarrator]

I can just see it now super intelligent talking whales, mice, etc bent on fulfilling some mad environmentalist's dream of wiping humanity off the earth. This is basically the plot of Blue Submarine No 6, an anime movie.

Talk not so cheap afterall?

[Gudlyf]

From the article: "The finding provides evidence for the idea that language spread by giving a major survival or mating advantage to those who possessed it..."

So those who could sweet talk their mates or talk themselves out of a fight were the ones who lived longer, eh?

Talking Mice?

[rnturn]

Heck, why not a talking horse? Wouldn't it just be so perfect to have to stop thinking of the old Mr. Ed show as a comedy and to start thinking of it as prophetic science fiction?

Yes, there does.

[Anonymous Coward]

This one even happens to be funny and makes a good statement.

Reality mimics fiction...

[corwinss]

Did anyone else read "Mrs. Frisbee and the Rats of NIMH?" (later translated into the cartoon movie "The secret of NIMH")
Reality has been mimicing sci-fi/fantasy for ages now - maybe this is just another step.
Prolly not, buy what does it hurt to dream? ;)
After all - yesterday we had the man with 'bionic' eyes

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If they'd change the gene structure of mice, where's the protests for them, we're mutating them after all. If so many people are against mutating humans, why not protest for the little guys, sure they're not as advanced, but they're sentient

Sex-sex-sex.. is that all you ever "UnnGa" about?

[montey]

Of course this gene spread like wildfire through the human species.

What would you respond better to? "Ung o-o, urggh, blarg, gooAh?" or "Hey sexy, whats a fine thing like you doing in a swamp like this?"

Technical data

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you not be familiar with this problem?

The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago.

Jihad Touma and Jack Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System," The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 108, No. 5, November 1994, p. 1954.

We are presented with an unresolved mystery. All theories of lunar formation require that formation take place in the equator plane, yet models of tidal evolution do not place the Moon there.

Touma and Wisdom, p. 1955.

etc etc etc, Google is your friend. ;)

Re: Technical data

[Black Parrot]

[blah, blah, blah... snip]

> Touma and Wisdom, p. 1955. etc etc etc, Google is your friend

Yes, but it's not creationists' friend. It took me about 5 seconds to find five posts to talk.origins that invoke Touman and Wisdom to refute the creationist lunar recession argument. You, sir, are engaging in egregious quote mining.

Or more likely merely quoting some creationist Web page that did the quote mining for you.

Re: Technical data

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, obviously the followup post wasn't the initial AC.

Now, back to the topic, which I would like to hear some intelligent people discuss.

IIRC, a PhD or someone from NASA actually admitted this is a serious technical issue. Anyone have any useful links (for technically inclined individuals) instead of conjecture and just what they can find with a quick Google search?

Re:Technical data

[Kalani]

Hello, what the hell does that have to do with biological evolution? If you have an issue with the position of the moon, take it to the physicists, not the biologists. And while you're at it, take a look at the "three body problem" for an understanding of why it's so difficult to account for the tiny fluctuations in the orbits of mutually gravitating bodies (even in the pre-General Relativity classical physics).

Re:XP2 gene-patent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for someone to patent the gene.

The royalties would be enormous and we could get everyone to shut up.

Takes Two to Tango?

[Tablizer]

(* Since making new sounds doesn't increase the number of live births per "litter", this finding inevitably means that smooth-talking cavemen got all the girls. *)

But it takes a listener also. If you make up new words, it does not matter unless the other person understands. IOW, it takes two to tango.

Like another poster said, perhaps it was singing that made the big difference. Or, perhaps that person had more ability to "sound sexy" regardless of communication.

Hey, when did the Geek Gene appear and why did it spread? Obviously not during a dot-com-like bust.

then explain these, and ask if this is good

[Anonymous Coward]

not everything first perceived as good is truly beneficial down the road. Is this gene mutation responsible for:

• 'executive babble'
• buzz/acronym generation (babble)
• lawyer talk
• Lawyers
• laws that would punish me for killing lawyers
• platitudes

Why settle for a talking dog?

[Eric Smith]

So, how long until I can get a talking dog?"

Too mundane. I'm looking for a telepathic dog.

--
At least she had good taste.

Lab science set-back

[Tablizer]

The cost of drug research is gonna skyrocket:

Rat to intern: "Pssst. I'll do cute circus tricks for your girlfriend if you let me out of this maze."

First speaking human

[Anonymous Coward]

First speaking human: "Where you from ?"

Non-speaking human: "Uh ?"

First speaking human "Uh 'ain't no country I ever heard of"

Uplift (David Brin)

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets make an Earth clan

TV 40,000 years ago

[Tablizer]

TV must have been boring before that mutation.

Ricky: "Lucy!"
Lucy: "Whah?"
Ricky: "Booboo!"
Lucy: "Where booboo?"
Ricky: "There booboo!"
Lucy: "I see *no* booboo"
Ricky: "Move head to there"
Lucy: "Okay, I look for booboo there"
[Bonk!]
Lucy: "Zzzzzzzzzz"
Ricky: "There! Bad Lucy make booboo, lucy now sleep."

Re:TV 40,000 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean 400,000 years ago. Slipped a zero, buddy.

Trivia Question of the Day

[Eric Smith]

After what creature are Canary Islands named?

Do you really want a talking dog?

[npsimons]

So, how long until I can get a talking dog?

Are you sure you'd want to hear what dogs would have to say if they could talk?

I for one, am looking forward to the day we give cats opposable thumbs. Just think of the havoc they could wreak!

Well Duh!

[slickwillie]

Hmmm, genetic mutation allows man to develop speech. Isn't that the way evolution works in general?

Prefrontal cortex

[mindpixel]

My guess is that it would be related to the development of prefrontal cortex...RAM...unhardwired space where the base symbolic connections that are the foundation of language can swim around until they are in the right configuration...

Re:Dateline 200,000 BC: Man Invents the Pickup Lin

[Dynedain]

Actually, I'm betting that the ability to sing (not talent mind you) fueled the spread of the gene. It would go a long way in explaining the popularity of groups like the Backstreet Boys now wouldn't it?

Any good links to additional info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming this discovery of gene mutation is valid, anyone heard of any other cases of "macro-evolution"?

Re:Any good links to additional info?

[Copid]

Some good places to start are here and here.

An important nit to pick is that when you hear the word "macro-evolution," you're usually hearing it from somebody who is trying to move the goalposts for evolutionary evidence (or somebody who is arguing against them in terms they can understand). The trick is that "macro-evolution" is conveniently difficult to define, so as soon as evidence comes up to support evolution, the threshold for "macro" versus "micro" shifts a bit in order to settle that evidence neatly into "micro." The above links refer to speciation, which, while still somewhat difficult to define, is a more concrete way of referring to the phenomenon.

Re:Any good links to additional info?

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is all very educational and entertaining, it's a far cry from what I was hoping to get a link to.

I'm not trying to say evolution didn't happen or doesn't happen, but, what I was hoping for is some really convincing direct evidence for evolution on a large scale (ala, big bang theory).

Anyone have any links along these lines?

Re:Any good links to additional info?

[Copid]

Hmmm... I remember hearing a request for more cases or information on "macroevolution" and that is what those pages deal with.

I'm not sure what you're hoping for in terms of a "big bang" theory unless you're one of the people who believe that theories on the origins of the universe and evolutionary theory are somehow linked. They're not. The so-called big bang theory could fall apart tomorrow and have no effect on the theory of evolution (unless it fell apart because it was proved that the universe is only a few thousand years old or something along those lines). They're two very separate things. Some people tie them together because they fall into some peoples' single theory of the atheistic origins of everything. So be it, but they're still separate theories from separate disciplines.

You're not going to get an evolutionary biologist talking about "the theory of the origins of everything" and trying to put together a complete string of events from the beginning of the universe to modern time. The general theory of evolution is, quite simply, that thanks to natural selection, new species arise from ancestral ones. Modern animals are related through common descent. It says nothing about the origins of matter. It just seeks to explain why we have so many different species, why most of those species appear as though there was a time when they didn't exist (that is, we can't find a *really* old human fossil next to dinosaur fossils because there were no humans yet), and why most modern animals appear to have vestigial parts and processes that are shared with different species (like, why do some species of whales have a pelvis?). If you're looking for a single theory that covers matter, space, time, genetic diversity, and the origins of life, you're in for disappointment. You have to take each theory separately (something a lot of creationists seem to forget...they argue with the big bang theory as if it's somehow going to change the fact that species are currently evolving).

cool but implausible

[sennomo]

I don't entirely agree with the naysayers that point to the fact that just one gene usually doesn't control an entire feature. However, even if a gene exists to permit speech, there's still something missing from dogs and chimps: the proper vocal apparatus. A chimp has a larynx similar to that of a human infant, which allows them to breathe and swallow at the same time. This larynx design, however, interferes with speech.

Being optimistic, maybe a little gene therapy and a little surgery could get chimps to talk like humans. Ethical issues aside, I'd be interested in what they would have to say. Their conversation couldn't be worse than that of most humans.

Hate to burst your bubble, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, where the content of the posts is nothing more than a karma whoring festival where no actual intelligent discussion takes place, just nit-picks combined with assumptions, etc. :P

Just yet another AC who is vaguely familiar with this 'problem' and would like to hear the facts associated with a seemingly well-known issue, actually *gasp* _discussed_! :)

Creationism in action!

[Black Parrot]

> I bought a "Science for Christian Students" book at the thrift store for laughs.

Anyone curious about the intellectual stature of creationist authors should rush over to the talk.origins newsgroup, find the week-old thread named "Weasel program", and skim down to the point where the published and oft-quoted creationist author Walter ReMine intervened and ended up making himself look like a fool of the first rank (and IMO raised some reasonable question about his basic honesty while he was at it).

Be sure to read all his posts in the thread, because it gets better as it goes.

Just the lingo

[Bowling Moses]

It's not so much that it's uncertain as the authors are couching their study in typical scientific language. The most top two-word phrases most commonly seen in research papers are: may be, might be, or could be.

Skip the mice...

[Alsee]

I suggest they skip the mice and put put the gene in a gorilla. We've already seen they can learn sign language. I'm sure koko would love to have a baby that can speak.

-

Mutant Genes

[BlueFashoo]

Big Deal. Just about all of our genes (maybe even all at our point) our mutations. That's how you get new features, like, jaws, hair, genitals, brains, insert your favorite feature. If the mutation manages not to kill you, and be passed on to your kids, that's evolution. If it makes your life easier or manages to make you more succesful in getting laid, having more kids, even better.

hardware without programming doesn't do much

[brre]

Us language capable species also rear our young
in a sea of verbal behavior, the verbal
community. Speech isn't just sounds, it's
what you do with them, how much you're exposed
to them, how important they are in the rest
of your life. What contingencies they
figure in.

We have a few not-very-controlled examples of
individuals who were raised without a verbal
community. They had the same gene, the same
genetic endowment. They did not develop speech.

With all due respect to genes, without the
right environment, quite a few potentials
will never be realized. One of them is
verbal competence.

poo-poo

[Eil]

This ought to have been from "no-shit-sherlock" department.

You'd think most people 'round here would have at least heard of the theory of evolution already.

suppose the announcement had been...

[brre]

Suppose the announcement had been a human gene had been discovered/identified that enabled humans to use money. Would you believe that?

Suppose the announcement had been a gene had been discovered/identified that enabled humans to use toilets or similar facilities. Would you believe that?

Suppose the annoucement had been a gene for wearing clothes.

Suppose the claim was a gene for fashion.

You wouldn't believe that? No?

You'd say, no that's a social construction. It's not genetic, can't be. Different humans do it differently, and it's obviously related to their culture, not what they're born with.

But these are all things uniquely human. All humans do these things to one degree or another, and no members of other species do them. Gotta be in the genes, right? Gotta be a gene for each of 'me, no?

No.

Some things uniquely human, we learn as humans from other humans. Examples include clothing and speech. And if you believe otherwise, you're welcome to try getting those behaviors from a human without letting him learn them from other humans.

Relgious babble

[hayden]

The Bible, while some may disagree, has never been proven wrong. Even though throughout history, people have tried everything to disprove it, it has overcome.

That is simply because when pushed religious people simply say "you have to have faith" and then ignore everything else you have to say. By the same token it has never been proven right either.

If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it?

So we have two distinct species, a and b (see why animals have big long scientific names yet?) The creationists cry "Where's the missing link?" We find it. The creationists cry "Now were are the two missing links?" We find two more missing links. The creationists cry "What! There are now four missing links? This is just getting more and more unlikely!" Are you seeing the problem yet?

People using this argument aren't looking for missing links, they are looking for a frigging family tree.

Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil?

And people who use this argument don't understand how unlikely fossilisation is. To be fossilised an animal not only had to die (a fairly likely occurence), it had to die in such a way that it's bones weren't exposed to the elements, scavengers, bacteria etc. The chances are one in millions if not billions. So yes, it's quite likely a whole group of animals lived and died without leaving a single identifiable fossil.

I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.

And I think that religion exists because most people can't believe that life is as pointless as it is. You live, you breed (maybe), you die. Deal with it.

... a dragon-like, fire-breathing, sea monster (dinosaur).

No comment necessary I don't think.

Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?

Ahhh, you've hit on something that real science has gone to work on. There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the great flood actually happened. Except it wasn't a world wide disaster, it didn't even happen to the ancestors of the Jews and there was no ark. It is most likely the flooding of the Black Sea after the last ice age. When all the ice melted, sea levels rose which left the black sea (which was then fresh water) seperated from the Mediterainian sea by a high dam of mountains. Eventually these gave way and flooded the black sea. The people who fled this kept the stories and became the Assyrians. The Jews got the story from them.

Not exactly a world wide disaster but a good example of how an actual event becomes "biblical".

Dr. Bert Thompson is a brilliant man who has devoted most of his life to the study of scientific "fact" versus Biblical "fact".

That is not research. Research requires you come up with a theory that fits with the evidence and then find more evidence to see if it's correct. If it's not then you throw out the theory and find a new one that better fits with the evidence. Christian "Science" works on the presumption that the bible is correct and then finds evidence to "prove" it. Thing is you can prove anything correct if you ignore enough of the evidence. No, something somebody wrote in a book a couple of thousand years ago cannot explain away the massive body of evidence to support evolution.

Re: Relgious babble

[Black Parrot]

> People using this argument aren't looking for missing links, they are looking for a frigging family tree.

Rather, they're looking for an excuse.

There's more evidence than that

[hayden]

The common theory of how man came down from the trees and conquered tha planes with their superior intellect (*bashes chest with tarzan yell*) could well be crap. What appears to be a possibility is that the weakling man was forced into marginal environments and had to adapt to survive. The best candidate for that was living around water.

Humans actually share a lot in common with sea mammals. We can hold our breath, we have a downward pointing nose (useful to prevent your wind pipe filling up with water, unlike other primates), fat bonds to our skin rather than muscle (like other sea mammels and unlike most other land mammals except those that live in very cold climates, bonding to the skin provides better boyancy and keeps you warm), being hairless (much better hydrodynamics) and the odd reflex new borns have when placed in water. They hold their breath and do a breast stroke action. Better chance of survival if they happen to accidently fall into the water.

Re:There's more evidence than that

[Anonymous Coward]

the odd reflex new borns have when placed in water. They hold their breath and do a breast stroke action. Better chance of survival if they happen to accidently fall into the water.

PLEASE Do not try dropping your babies into water to see how well they can swim. THINK FEDERAL PRISON OK?

The exact date was 33,254 years ago

[leighklotz]

I know because aletheiometer never lies. See p.69, The Subtle Knife.

Scientific Method

[Anonymous Coward]

"Researchers next want to try altering the gene in mice to see what happens..."

Does anyone else find that really funny? I mean, what do they expect, mice that can squeak funny? What possible use could it serve? Who cares, more mutant mice!!!

Scientist A: "There's no denying it, the correlation between this gene and advanced oral motor control is rock solid."

Scientist B: "Indeed... let's put it in mice!"

Scientist A (hand's B a Corona(TM)): "Bitchen."

This reminds me of the X-men

[doc modulo]

I haven't read the article but this headline reminds me of the X-men of Marvel comics.

The main theme of that comic centered around normal people who were afraid of mutants with extra abilities and the X-men trying to intervene in the conflicts that resulted. The writers at Marvel had some nice stories sometimes, the execution could have been better though.

Anyway, it's amazing to me, that civilisation has only existed for 200.000 years (I'll adopt English punctuation when you go metric ok? :)

Imagine what it must have been like for those non-mutants whose world got turned upside-down completely by these strange beings that for them were like aliens.

I wonder how our society would react to mutants. Or other beings that are superiour to us but not sexually compatible. Maybe "gene altered freaks" or artificial intelligence will appear in our future. It's not outside the realm of possibility.

Would society react like the normal people in the X-men or would we somehow co-exist peacefully during the transition?

Re:This reminds me of the X-men

[Anonymous Coward]

evolution is going on all the time, and society has been dealing with such "mutants" all the time - generally the course goes as follows:

A lable is created for the unique

They are stereotype by said lable
(either praised or shunned)

Unique people often: hide their difference, use it for their own personal advantage, or seek out others of their own kind.

Some examples: tetrachromids, geniuses, savants... etc

it is important to note, that this also goes to explain racism

it is also important to note that a mutation is often totally mischaracterized, where one difference is used to somehow explain everything about a person

(as such, remember there is no biological evidence of "race", and yet because we misunderstand genitics most assume there is)

Re: the fly example

[King_TJ]

Right! I just picked up the latest issue of the free trade rag, "Bio I.T. World" and in it was an article about a scientist studying a genetic trait found in flies. Apparently, some of them have a tendency to fly low, while others prefer to fly up high, when they're let loose in a fixed maze-type environment.

The reason this had any relevance and interest is because the researcher was able to isolate a set of 3 genes that work together to determine this trait in the fly.

Basically, they hoped that the methods used to isolate the gene group responsible would eventually be usable on humans. They, of course, pointed out that it's far easier to accomplish a task of this type with a fly because the genetic code is relatively simple, and all of it is even available on an Internet web site. (I don't recall the URL, but it's published in the article.)

There's obviously been quite a stumbling block in deciphering most human traits for this very reason.... You can't tell much with a single gene.

Re studies proving the obvious

[King_TJ]

Personally, I've always suspected that most studies proving what seems incredibly obvious are created primarily to secure some government funding. Government grants are issued for all sorts of research, as long as it meets certain guidelines. If, say, the federal government has some tax dollars allocated for studies related to the improvement of farming - then you might qualify by offering to research whether or not crops taste better when harvested by hand or by machine. (You'd probably also conclude, after "much research", that they taste pretty much the same whether hand or machine picked. You'd also have thousands of dollars to buy yourself that new car or PC or whatever with, disguising it all as tools needed for said research.)

We speak because we can mouth breath.

[ratzmilk]

Humans are the only mammals that can mouth breath. We don't even start that way. New born babies can't until they are about 6 months of age. That opening at the back of your throat allows your vocal cords to vibrate sounds up through the sinus cavity. The enables a far greater range of vocal tones then what would be available to us otherwise.

Better control over the muscles in our mouths would have developed later in response to the new vocal range we now had. We would never have developed the languages we now have with out that mutation at the back of our throats.

Why mice anyway?

[DoctorFrog]

Why not chimps? Maybe they could get funding from some movie company wanting to make another "Planet of the Apes" remake.

No the literal arts majors got it right

[Kalani]

"Atoms" are only the smallest constituents of X (where the common interpretation of X is "matter" but can be whatever you want) by definition. The formal "atom" is a thing composed of many parts -- electrons, protons and neutrons (and below that quarks, fermions, etc).

It's interesting that it's been found

[Kalani]

If somebody found a gene that codes for humor, it'd still be news. Whether or not current theory says that a certain complicated thing is probably genetically coded in an organism's DNA, it's still interesting when the genes are found (especially when the behavior coded for is very complicated).

Bring on the neo-dogs.

[Associate]

Of course the taco bell dog would have an english accent.

Dear Moderators

[Anonymous Coward]

if you disagree and wish to have an intelligent discussion, then please post, not moderate.

Or, you could in essence censor things that frighten you like a child who doesn't want to be told of the murderer that lives nearby... ignorance never solves problems.