Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Wow, I want a talking dog too!
::i visited slashdot and all i got was this lousy sig::
Now those "Would you eat me if I talked?" Greenpeace ads will actually be reality. Goodbye Big Mac :( - s200.org
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
"If you keep an open mind people will throw a lot of garbage in it."
...A talking dog..." - Gecko
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
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.Googlefight "Slashdot Troll" against "BSD is dying" 303:229. BSD thus cant die.
...isn't evolution based on genes mutating? Why is this such a surprise?
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
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)
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
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.
We're ALL X-Men?
"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.
"Beware the squirrels"
Isn't that exactly evolution at work?
Aren't we all what we are because of a series of accidental gene mutations?
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 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.
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.
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...
Wow, can't believe nobosy said they wanted a talking Penguin. Just image a talking parrot! Oh, wait...
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
...when speech is about to be ruled a DRM circumvention device under the DCMA.
I mean....uh.....::grunt::::grunt:::
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
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!"
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
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? :)
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".
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I'm not big into Macs, but those young sheep would have to hold pretty good conversation before it put me off eating them.
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...
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.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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...
The "aquatic ape" theory is not well supported by evidence and has few adherents. Most mammals can hold their breath and swim.
. ht ml
Cecil has a good summary:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape
I don't want a talking dog, how about something cuter like a talking bird?
"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.
This gene:
/. 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.
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
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.
The future isn't what it used to be.
Perhaps in a few dozen millenia the giant mutant african greys will run the planet...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...and many do it better. Where are my muscles to close my nostrils/ears?
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
Perhaps they'll also be able to produce "how to program a VCR" gene?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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 ;)
I just heard it, it will probably be available in the archives later today.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
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...
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?
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
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.
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]
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
... down here... ... ...Kahn! KaAaAaAaAhn! KaAAAAaaaaaaHn!
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...
Screw having a talking dog, I want a superintelligent, telepathic dog that can help me get chicks...
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
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
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
To quote the talking dog (which is ridiculous, because everybody knows dogs can't talk) Gaspode from Terry Pratchett's universe:
'Woof bloody woof'.
sig sig sputnik
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.
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.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
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?
"Well it's not Victory - but then it's not Death either."
Carlos
To get a talking dog, is to marry one. Such technological incompetence!
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!"
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."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
don't send anyone into space
Your mother implements multi-vendor protocols without synergy
Egads! The next thing you know, the mice will be doing sociological studies on man.
-- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
Ability to speak didn't wipe out the rest of the humans, those who couldn't speak were just nagged to death ;-)
mnewberg.com
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.
...not gecko!
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.).
-- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
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...
'*snicker*I have no idea how that could have happened...*snicker*.'"
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
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
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Which mutant gene is repsonisble for blogs?
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*
-- Bandit450...If-Else-Do-*TWITCH*!
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 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...
1+2+1+1 || 1+2+2+1
I don't know Davey, that doesn't sound like such a good idea.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
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.
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
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
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)
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
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
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
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).
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.
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.
so you are saying a "mutant" gene evolved the human species. No shit, any new gene is a mutation.
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!
"Information wants to be paid"
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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?
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.
Carpe Deez
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.
Why is a mouse that spins?
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!"
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.
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?"
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
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.
ROTFL! That reminds me of the unfrozen caveman lawyer from Saturday Night Live.
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?
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.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I always suspected they were freaks
...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!
--- What
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.
mutant genes are responsible for everything - it's what genes do.
sic transit gloria mundi
I thought that was called evolution.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
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.
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?
keanmarine.com
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?
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.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
((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!!!!!"
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
is it possible to not have another genetics related story posted? ever? no? well then just mod this as flamebait, I guess...
sic transit gloria mundi
Researchers are very close to synthetically mutating genes to reverse this mutation in women. Half of earths population has stepped up to fund them.
I thought that basically gene mutation was responsible for basically everything about us. Did I miss something?
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.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
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.
Oh, and by the way, it's spelled "ridiculous" as in "deserving of ridicule".
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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"
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.
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.
What?
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.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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!
"I don't know, Davey..." Davey and Goliath
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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.
Jonahweb.com has stuff.
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.
I can imagine what CmdrTaco's dog would say:
... the Cat did it!
You're Late!
I'm Hungry
Why don't we go out anymore?
It wasn't me
What does "Neuter" mean?
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?
-judging another only defines yourself
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.
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
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"
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
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...
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.
"Get your damn dirty mice hands off of me"
>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?
So, how long until I can get a talking dog?
I don't knooow, Daaavey...
Just for the record, I didn't send the previous profain message. That wasn't me.
-word
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
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?
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...
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?
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.
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.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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.
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...
So those who could sweet talk their mates or talk themselves out of a fight were the ones who lived longer, eh?
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
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.
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?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
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?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
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
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
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".
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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?"
(* 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.
Table-ized A.I.
--
At least she had good taste.
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."
Table-ized A.I.
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.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
heh sorry i meant to say googolplex (10^googol) not googol. now try typing it :)
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."
Table-ized A.I.
After what creature are Canary Islands named?
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...... :
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!
Nathan's blog
[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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!
Hmmm, genetic mutation allows man to develop speech. Isn't that the way evolution works in general?
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
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.
Mi klopodas varbi por Esperanto.
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.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
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.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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...
-- This sig for rent.
Look, I'm not a creationist or anything, but your logic is unbelievably retarded. You do realize that, don't you?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Nice Marmot
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.
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 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.
People using this argument aren't looking for missing links, they are looking for a frigging family tree.
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. 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. No comment necessary I don't think. 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".
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.Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
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.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
>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
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?
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).
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I know because aletheiometer never lies. See p.69, The Subtle Knife.
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.
More goodies are available on the same page.> So the question begs: What did this crackpot get a doctorate in?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
- -- Truth addict for life.
Got any more easily falsifiable claims you'd like to try on us?> 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.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.)
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.
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.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
Why not chimps? Maybe they could get funding from some movie company wanting to make another "Planet of the Apes" remake.
"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).
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
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).
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
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).
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
Of course the taco bell dog would have an english accent.
Someone hates these cans.
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.