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?"
Now those "Would you eat me if I talked?" Greenpeace ads will actually be reality. Goodbye Big Mac :( - s200.org
...A talking dog..." - Gecko
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
...isn't evolution based on genes mutating? Why is this such a surprise?
I'd be happy with just Family Guy back on the air.
--
#nohup cat
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
We're ALL X-Men?
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.
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--
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'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.
Karma: Nonnegative
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 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.
No, Evolution was observed long before this.
http://talkorigins.org
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...
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.
>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.
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
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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...
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?"
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
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.
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...
Xaotik Designs
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!"
...not gecko!
Isn't that a certain period in the month where your girlfriend whines about abdominal pains. And you *like* that? Freak!
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!"
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
ROTFL! That reminds me of the unfrozen caveman lawyer from Saturday Night Live.
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.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
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
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!
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.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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.
"I don't know, Davey..." Davey and Goliath
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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
"Get your damn dirty mice hands off of me"
"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?"
So, how long until I can get a talking dog?
I don't knooow, Daaavey...
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?
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.
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...
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
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.
Still do, baby!
illegitimii non ingravare
(* 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.
But they have taught chimps sign language. They can even do basic syntax. One called a cucumber a 'green bananna'.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
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.
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!
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
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
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.
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...
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.....
"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
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.
"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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.