Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Mutations Allowed Humans To Be Artistic
Makarand writes "Most anthropologists believe that the transformations which allowed
humans to think and behave in a recognisably modern fashion happened
gradually and were a result of demographic and cultural changes.
However, according to an expert on human origins at Stanford University
these transformations have a biological explanation and were not gradual.
According to his
theory 50,000 years ago
genetic mutations resulted in a creativity
gene that led to the development of the modern mind and started
a cultural revolution by triggering biological changes in the brain and
vastly improving the human ability to communicate.
Evidence in support of such a theory has been found in the form of FOXP2, a
gene proven to affect the ability of learning and processing language and which in its
mutated form can result in speech and language impediments. Also, the
human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice
and other animals."
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Anybody remember the Arthur C Clarke stories with chimps with tweaked genomes. Rendezvous with Rama had one I think.
Here we go again, from impossible to obvious in one generation.
Steve
The trolls on slashdot are missing the FOXP2 gene. Maybe they will be able to get treatment now.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
In an attempt to inject a little bit of humour into the whole Evolution v Creation "debate" (which seems to generate more heat than light!!!!), I offer the following.
Two men in a bar are watching an evolutionist and a creationist battle it out on a talk show. One turns to the other and asks, "What do you think about this whole Creation/Evolution debate?"
"Well, I think they both have a point.", the other says.
"How so?"
"I think some of us were created in the image of a Divine, Supreme Being to rule and have dominion over the whole earth, and to worship Him and spend eternity with Him in Heaven. And some of us are descended from primeval ooze via monkeys."
"That's stupid!"
"You're just jealous!" Hey, if the cap fits!......
Some other observations:
Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, and the pig likes it!
It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt!
Don't argue with a fool. People listening may not be able to tell the difference!
God brings down the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Could an "average" human be made more creative with gene therapy? Or enviroment still the important variable
No wonder my army of monkeys haven't been writing anything worthwhile
http://www.detroitluv.com
A guy goes to a zoo and sees a gorilla with two books. The gorilla looks confused. One of the books is the Bible, the other Darwin. The guy asks the gorilla why he looks confused. The gorilla says "I can't figure out if I'm my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother!"
From what I understand,
Prmates/homoerectus had stumbled on
Magic mushrooms or other types of hallucenagen, and therefore Fed their creative mind..
bla bla..
RIAA is trying to patent the 'artistic gene' !
A study last year indicated that FOXP2 evolved "some time between last Tuesday and 200,000 years ago"
no... really.
...a black monolith of 1x4x9 dimensions has been found in Africa.
The newest X-Man... Kreativ!
With the power to think outside the box!
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
It would be very interesting to determine if the mutated FOXP2 gene and/or others involved in learning have an effect on the way a human or chimpanzee utilizes psyllocybin.
It may very well be that the mutation was a natural selection among the hominids who consumed the psyllocybin-containing mushrooms.
... that life is a genetic mutation!
But then again, Jimmy Hendrix said that life is but a joke.
FOXP2? Sounds scarily like FoxDie, the genetic virus from Metal Gear Solid that kills off kickass genetically modified main characters! Perhaps the aliens who put us here* are planning to kill off the creative geniuses, leaving us with only mindless Windows-using rednecks to defend the planet from invasion!
* See UFO: Enemy Unknown, PC/Amiga 1992.
You can patent the gene and sue everybody on earth for copying it! Except for all the pop bands out there, that is...
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
Eventually. When everyone else has quite finished with it and the meek have stopped saying "No, please, after you." Until then, the cocky little bastards shall inherit the Earth;
There's an enormous amount of work to be done on this.
...and an enormous amount of funding needed, I would guess. Too bad the article doesn't show any opposing views, just the opinion of the guy who thought it up and hence needs to promote it at all costs.
Granted, it's an interesting idea, but I'm wondering how sharp this supposed 'creativity boundary' really is. I find it unlikely that something so complex and essential to human society would be linked to only a handful of genes - that's ignoring a very large part of the evolution of the primate mind.
One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
Genetically modified animals become creative and evolve to/past human level?... ...but I wouldn't worry so much as Disney will have all talking mice executed out of copyright. :-)
The ENIAC Demo Competition
It is thought to have originated in humans over 25 years ago, and can be plainly seen in the explosion of Troll posts, on primitive BBS's across North America.
The gene, FW324D342, is not found in other primates, but is often found in worms, ferrets, and aboriginal tree slugs.
Scientists are hoping to develop a test to isolate individuals suffering with this gene and beat the ever living fsck out of them.
Symptoms include:
Routinely spouting on world politics when it realy has nothing to do with the thread.
Saying things like "First Post"
Writing assinine playoffs of the parrent topic.
Saying things like "Linux/Windows Sucks!"
Or "Poor me, I'm a descriminated Windows user who just blew 10 grand on an MCSE cert"
Have patience and faith, scientists are working hard to wipe out this world wide web plauge
I would rather be ashes than dust!
first off, we have an anthrapologist suggesting a biological explanation, which is rather novel if not erroneous.
And i'm not sure he knows what he is talking about - Just because when this one gene is mutated it affects language etc. it doesnt mean it is solely (or even partially) responsible for these things.
Although there certainly are biological elements of creativity - we have the basic framework for it, most other animals dont - the biological part isnt necessarily that interesting. Its the actual social constructs - i.e. the sociocultural framework of art - which is far more interesting and tells us far more about ourselves than the minor evolution of some gene at some point in history.
That is what anthropology is all about, so it is wierd to see an anthropologist talking genetics
One would presume that testing this theory would be feasible by creating a human being with a non-mutated version of this gene. For obvious reasons that would not be possible... For the same reasons creating, say, a chimp with our version of the gene wouldn't be sensible either.
So, how does one test this theory?
.: Max Romantschuk
If I had a spare zillion $$$ lying around (I don't), it would be terribly interesting to introduce the human version of this gene into some hamsters or dog embryos, and see if it does them any good as the animals mature...
-Erik -- --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
So... after the "long lasting mouse", are we gonna see the "artistic/speaking mouse" ?
"Planet of the Apes" is tomorrow...
Retro-viruses are probably the best vector for rapid mutation, and the mutations have to be fairly safe or the retro-vuris would kill it's host.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Yes, it was a clear blue day, Og and Yog, who was later known as "Mr. Wheel" remember it well, when the monolith came down. Log was just thumping some twigs without a single legal thought in his empty cranium. But it all changed that day, when the monolith came down, and gave to mankind...lawyers!
EVOLUTIONISM
Do you BELIEVE that the matter and energy consisting of the big bang always existed?
No, in the current state of knowledge, observed facts point to that theory as fitting the evidence best. Show me YOUR proof of your interpretation please.
Do you BELIEVE that the matter and energy ball was infinitely big, or did you finally find the end of the universe?
No, in the current state ok knowledge, observed facts point to that theory as fitting the evidence best. Show me YOUR proof of your interpretation. please. Current evidence doesn't show it was infinitely nig or contained an infinite amount of energy. A lot sure, but not infinite (see Olbers paradox)
Where is YOUR evidence for the existence of an invisible omnipotent "God" ?
Genetic mutation allowed X
where X is an element of { all evolutionary developments in human history }
Sometimes, somewhere, somebody just show us how million years of evolution didn't work for him.
The article doesn't discuss how a single mutation would have spread through the population. In prehistoric times what advantage would there be in a gene that makes you carve useless bone trinkets?
Even if there were an advantage in having this gene it could not have suddenly spread through the whole human population. The more artistic humans would have to gradually displace their stupider cousins. And we could expect to see surviving tribes in remote areas still lacking the creativity gene.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
So 50k years ago some guy got stuck with this one little rampent gene, and it spread quickly, I gather, because girls always do dig "artist" types?!
This is the same insanity that pervades the entire genetic engineering field, i.e., the belief that certain traits can be traced back to a single gene. The obvious conclusion of such idiots is that we'll just find a way to tweak gene #123, and reap the benefits. Wrong! Genes and the realities they induce are far, far more complex than anyone can imagine today. Imagine holographic data storage. I'm totally convinced genes work together in a similar fashion to produce traits, and NOT the simplistic one gene-one trait model we currently have. Of course, we understand that sometimes many genes combine to affect a trait, but I'm sure there are very many orders of magnitude of interplay going on that we can't even begin to understand. But the fools will tinker like a boy tearing up a car engine for the first time. Sometime in the distant future we'll begin to understand just how networked genes are, how much of a "systems thing" genetics really are--at the individual level, and at an even more mysterious community level. At some point the stuff C.G. Jung was saying will become understood in a genetic way. But until then we'll undoubtedly wreak chaos....
--- WWSD? What Would Strider Do?
the aliens f@cked the monkeys
thus providing the great leap forward
clarence
the chimp
... does someone make the leap from finding "a gene proven to affect the ability of learning and processing language" to deciding that it is "an artistic gene" ? At best, all we know is that it affects learning and language. But somehow connecting this (tenuously shown) function to "artistic" abilities, and the building of cathedrals ?
/. editor who allowed it to go through without editing.
I don't know who should be blamed more for the very tenuous conclusions that smack of headline-whoring: the scientists behind the study, the guy who posted the ludicrous conclusions (his own ?) or the
And now all Fox is good for is "When Animals Attack"
and the Simpsons
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
"My God! It's full of Genes!"
I still can't let you in though Dave - you'll shut me down and ruin my chances for Best Supporting Starship.."
Actually instant evolution is a misnomer. I know someone who does Alife simulations on simple biological structures. And what he found is that, although there are epochs where new genes are introduced, there is a long and gradual period of "preparation". This is where the ancestors end up (arbitrarily) putting in the genetic support structure for said gene (as all previous attempts to enter the gene usually results in some "bad things").
It's not like a bunch of neanderthals were sitting around a fire and then Bob Dylan popped out.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Much of Western civilization clearly followed from the teachings of Moses, following his encounter with a burning bush, supposedly an Acacia. It is known that many Acacias contain the potent hallucinogenic substance dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is active when smoked and inhaled. Could it be that this is how Moses "found God?"
Sadly, those wishing to partake of similar transformational experiences today are prohibited by law from doing so. Both psilocybin and DMT are Schedule 1 drugs in the United States, and illegal in most other jurisdictions as well. This is despite a lack of evidence of addiction or physical harm caused by these substances.
Peace and love, y'all
So if we switch the FOXP gene on in animals, will they gain speech and art and stuff?
No I didn't read the article, what fun is that?
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
>
Obviously not, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Do you BELIEVE that the matter and energy consisting of the big bang always existed?
Do you believe that has any bearing on the question of evolution?
> If you trust in evolution, then the future is uncertain.
The future is uncertain regardless of what you believe or trust in.
However, the theory of evolution doesn't claim to save souls; it just explains the mechanism of biological change.
> Let's hope the Bible is a joke or you aren't going to like the future.
What about the Koran? The Kama Sutra?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...A source of all the witty remarks and replies on Slashdot. I was always wondering where all the smart-ass remarks originated from. Now I know and Knowing Is Half The Battle.
"Make me some if you're making some"
Maybe you can ensure that your children could be more creative, but I don't think a living person can be made more creative with gene therapy. That genes should have some influence on how the brain develops itself, or at least, the hemisfere related to creativity.
For a grown up adult I suppose that only can be done with brain surgery (something more like what happens in "Flowers for Algernon") or maybe some "intelligent" drug. And, well, for children and not so young the environment, of course.
So, anyone want to go Uplift a few chimps, dolphins and gorillas?
I wonder if the same bit redundant genetic code that gives us hiccups (supposedly because we were once all fist) is responsible for 'creativity'
Maybe fish are great artists in their own fishy way.
This article is fucking stupid. Completely fucking stupid.
Genetic "mutation" is responsible for EVERYTHING, people.. Bicycles, warheads, cheese in a can, dry wall, chess, television, and a fine selection of ladies' footwear. Saying genetic mutation is responsible for humans being artistic is like saying "NEWS FLASH : GENETIC MUTATION ALLOWS COW TO EAT AND POO"
Genetic mutation is also responsible for making the moron(s) who thought this post was an earth-shattering scientific revelation packed with keen insight into the structure of life.
Jesus fuckin fouth & inches Christ, at least we know Slashdot editors arent chosen on the basis of IQ..
Bowie J. Poag
I thought that common scientific thought now says that we didn't evolve from the great apes, but there is a common ancester that both the great apes and humans evolved from that was neither a great ape or a human.
I wonder if the discovery of this "random" mutation will help or hinder the creationists or the "by design" crew?
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
Well... It seems Dr Mureau's Iland is not far away now.
What would dolly had said if she had had more time?
Now if we could get walls to talk too...
errera hunamum ets
...today this could be considered a tech joke!
Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!
I think it's also worth realizing how quickly our knowledge of "hallucinogens" has expanded recently. While primitive societies long used such things as "magic mushrooms" they were actually not (re)discovered by Western researchers until lately.
60 years ago, the central activity of LSD was discovered by Hoffman. It was only after this that lysergic amides were realized to be present in morning glory seeds. DMT was first synthesized about ten years before that, and later realized to be present in many plants and even animal and human brains (yes, some argue this makes your brain illegal). Salvia divinorum was used traditionally for hundreds of years, but salvinorin was only really isolated and identified as the active principle about ten years ago, and its mechanism of action discovered as recently as last year.
If it is true that these substances can lead to an evolution of consciousness, then can you imagine what sorts of changes could occur in the next hundred years?
(Of course, if you really buy into McKenna's ideas, maybe I should say, in the next 10 years....)
Peace and love, y'all
But fox is such a crappy network, couldn't they have associated creativity with USA for their "The Dead Zone" .
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Way too much has been made of genetics in recent years leading to tons of bad research. I even took a class in genetics in college only to find out that 95% of genetics research is crap. Anyone that runs experiments on humans to find a gene is most likely wasting his time. Remember kids, you heard it here first :)
Methinks that a dictionary could have fitted much gooder in that hands of the editor who readed the story...
And in a story about a language gene... i.r.o.n.y.
Scientists have discovered that genetic mutations have prevented humans from being able to bop other people across the head with their tails and scratch themselves behind the ears with their toenails.
And you all just thought it was a cute story!
Those of you with land and lawn-mowers near biotech laboratories, please be extra-cautious from this point forward.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Why, perhaps they have too much FOX29 instead...
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
Cats are pretty creative. Not only can they persuade you to part with a significant portion of the food on your plate, they insinuate themselves to the point of displacing you from your favourite chair. And then, just to rub salt in the wounds a little more, they also paint and dance.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
P.S. I have no connection to these books/websites but I did fall off my chair laughing the first time I saw the website :-)
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Well, if it's a dominant trait then you'll pass it on to some of your offspring. Then they will be able to talk to you and each other, forming a stronger tribe that rapidly grows due to the power of group organization.
I can also imagine benefits from language even in a single person. When I write quickly, my handwriting is nearly illegible to anyone else. But the notes in my day planner and shopping list certainly improve my efficiency by augmenting memory alone.
AlpineR
That would explain the "FOX" Network.
- Don't let the past dictate who you are, but let it be part of who you will becomeDaVinci most likely would have made John Lennon look like a total retard.
No, because DisneyCo is thought to have a copyright on that.
Will I retire or break 10K?
if somehow creativity was controlled by a single gene, how come creativity in humans is found in varying degrees.
also, how do you quantify creativity? Creativity could result from unique life experiences.
Yeah! FOXP2 is our key to be Patrons of another race. A-human, ul-chimp, ul-dolphin.
~ducks
"Most anthropologists believe that the transformations which allowed humans to think and behave in a recognisably modern fashion happened gradually and were a result of demographic and cultural changes.
However, according to an expert on human origins at Stanford University these transformations have a biological explanation and were not gradual."
It's both, people!
It's important to remember that evolution is not JUST about genes. Learned and emergent behaviors are also very important, and can eventually lead to genetic changes!
For instance, say a particular creature survives by eating bugs off the ground. Then, global climate changes make these bugs scarce. Many of the creatures die. One day a creature accidently knocks over a rock and finds bugs to eat under it. Other creatures learn this, and pass the behavior to offspring who observe their parents flipping over rocks.
Creatures with some random difference that allows them to flip rocks better, say, longer claws, have an advantage for survival, and pass these traits to offspring.
Also, if any creatures have genetic differences that cause them to tend to flip rocks instinctively, they will also have a survival advantage.
THIS is how changes happen. Mutations are random, but certain of them are favored by environmental factors.
"Creativity" by itself may seem useless for survival. What does decorating your body have to do with survival? Well, the same thing that makes us creative may allow us to communicate better (and therefore coordinate hunting attacks better) or to solve puzzles such as how to squeeze water out of a plant, for example. It's all interconnected!
So, it's POSSIBLE that this "creativity gene" mutation was simply favored AFTER humans started to learn how to do a few "creative" things.
Brain surgery, sheesh. It's liposuction all over again. The human body has one simple principle on which it's functions improve. Repitition, it's really that simple. Just do practice at something you get better at it. Want to get fit, i.e. improve your ability to exert yourself physically, exert yourself physically on a regular basis for an extended period. Want to improve your creativity, be creative on a regualr basis (try taking an hour out of each day to sketch something for a month, see how much better you get, see what other abilities improve as well).
It's the same with children, you don't need to rewire their genes, just ensure that you bring them in a stimulating environment, with plenty of encouragement and oportunity to express themselves.
nb. (for the hard of thinking) encouragement != telling your child to do something
He's from Minnesota.
KFG
1. There are a few techniques for measuring old dates (say, 4000 years and older, including upwards of millions of years).
2. These techniques are not accurate for young objects, such as dates taken from recent volcanic activity
3. Because these techniques are only recently employed, they have not been tested on anything we know is old to prove they work.
4. They are untestable because we have no objects we are certain are, say, 60000 years old except by these techniques. Therefore we cannot test these techniques on anything within range.
5. These techniques are based on the assumption that breakdown, injection of elements, etc, continues at a constant rate.
Now consider that there is one test we can employ - dating objects we know the date of. Eg, a recent lava flow. Consider potassion-argon (K-Ar) dating. In a young flow (eg 1948-49) there should be too little argon in the sample to provide an accurate date. It follows logically then, that if enough argon is discovered to place it's date within the accurate date of a K-Ar then the method must be inaccurate.
Let me make this clear for Black Parrot - I know K-Ar cannot accurately measure a sample 50 years old. And the reason is because there should be too little argon. So if enough argon is present to form a date, then the assumptions that K-Ar is based on are invalid. Now consider a volcano that is discovered by explorers in 1970. It had last erupted in 1920, but they had no idea. They took some samples which showed the flow to be 1.2 million years ago. Because they are certain their testing is accurate, they will never understand that it may be incorrect.
Now here is an article which demonstrates what I said above: here
So my question is, if K-Ar fails when it can be tested, and produces an age of 0.27-3.5 million years old for something that is _known_ to be young, then why should I trust the dates given in contemporary science?
If I am to take evolution seriously, then this question must first be answered. Forget anything else, lets talk about this.
What does the Koran teach Black Parrot? (without resorting to google). How much do you know?
I use bracketization rather than an ASCII drawing, but hopefully you can derive a tree from the indicated nesting. (Each matched pair of parentheses indicates a tree or sub-tree. Only the leaves are named, but there is a node in the tree for each pair of parentheses.)> I thought that common scientific thought now says that we didn't evolve from the great apes, but there is a common ancester that both the great apes and humans evolved from that was neither a great ape or a human.
Phylogenetically speaking, humans are apes. Our neighborhood of the tree of life is thought to be something like this (based on the genetic evidence):
Unfortunately the biological concept of "ape" clashes with the conventional meaning of "ape" (which excludes humans, and for lots of people may even be limited to "gorilla"), but then the word "ape" has been around a lot longer than our ability to parse a tree out of the genetic evidence. But notice that there's no way to name a sub-tree in the tree of life "apes" without either (a) including humans, or else (b) excluding some things we'd like to call "apes".
But back to the tree, there was a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) of humans and chimps, which was itself neither human nor chimp, a MRCA of the humans-chimps and gorillas, etc. Those MRCAs are the nodes of the tree.
> I wonder if the discovery of this "random" mutation will help or hinder the creationists or the "by design" crew?
Creationists: assuredly not, since they think evidence is something to be ignored rather than something to be explained. Most deny that "good" mutations can happen at all.
Intelligent Design advocate: there is a big spread of beliefs in this group, ranging from outright creationists to people who accept evolution, the big bang, and all that, but only reserve a tiny claim that "God^W an intelligent designer helped things along somehow, somewhere along the way". Some in the latter group might actually appeal to this discovery, though for the most part they prefer to stay as vague about their claims as possible in order to avoid accidentally presenting a testable hypothesis. (If you're curious about the pseudo-science and politics of the Intelligent Design movement, go over to the talk.origins newsgroup and post a question about it. You'll get a real ear full, I guarantee you.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And give the man a prize. Relatedly I hate the term "back to nature." Whenever I hear someone use that phrase I tend to respond, " Excuse me? Can you tell where and when you managed to *leave* it in the first place?"
While we continue to make strides uncovering fact after fact in just about every field the quality of scientific *thinking* these days is pathetic.
There would be no harm, other than the stress of annoyance, in that, if it weren't for the fact that some incredibly wooly thinking is being used as a "scientific" basis for legislation.
Bah! I'm going to go get a cabin out in the woods of Montana if this keeps up (with a broadband connection). I'll call this " Back to Civilization."
Ummmmmm, no. No manifesto will be forthcoming. Thank you very much. I like technology, it's idiots I can't stand.
KFG
Genes are responsible for everything? Like democracy came from a "democracy gene"? Currency emerged from a "money gene"? The Wright brothers were the first carriers of a "flight gene"? The Internet couldn't be invented until some scientist stood too close to a microwave and mutated an "HTTP gene"?
All these technologies came into being as a result of social and scientific development. Presumably we've all had the mental capacity for these things since prehistoric times, but it took communication and the cumulative work of generations to create them. This is in contrast with physiological changes like "mostly hairless body" that require genetic mutation, not just new ideas.
I think the conventional wisdom is that language was like these technologies -- early homo sapiens had the capacity, but it took time for grunts to be gradually refined into words. This research suggests that language wasn't possible until a special genetic change occurred, putting it in the same category as "most hairless body" mutation rather than the unleashing of a dormant capacity.
AlpineR
Yes, because "good" mutations obviously happened, since we are here. Right?
I would say you ignore evidence, Black Parrot, so why should I think differently of you than you do of me?
In a post the other day on /. - one scientist was very upset that Mars didn't have the polar ice needed to "terraform" the planet. We are not able to terraform this planet if it were to need such at this point.
If you ARE religous, this is an insult. God gave all of us the ability to create. Some have this ability more than others. God, to beleivers, is the CREATOR of all that is creative.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
of the sort of thinking the parent poster was ranting against.
Sorry, I'm really not meaning to troll or flame. When I *mean* it I'm generally more subtle than that and considerably more snide.
But the fact is that you seem to have *entirely* missed the point being made. With rather comedic results in your first sentence, since the questions you ask are exactly the sorts of things the parent poster is getting so worked up over.
KFG
Way too many Star Trek episodes not withstanding, messing with an adult's genes is not going to restructure existing tissues. For example, a gene for longer bones won't make you grow taller, because your bones have already stopped growing. A gene for more body hair won't make you hairier, because what the gene really does is controls the development of follicles in the fetus.
Some gene therapies for diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, work (or will work) because the tissues involved - lung tissue - have substantial continuous growth. Others work at the single protein level, sometimes creating a de facto extra organ in the form of altered cells or symbiotic bacteria. Some can be reapplied to active or inactivate existing structures. (Some male pattern baldness could be treated.)
Recently, we've seen that the brain retains stem cells, but to upgrade your brain (or mine), we'd need to:
There's a couple of good SF novels in that ... of course, Bruce Sterling's Holy Fire has already covered a good deal of this territory.
This is standard Creationist rhetoric. The very simple answer to these questions is that the systems are calibrated using things of which we know the age. For example, if you go to the Smithsonian, you will see a cross section from a tree that is over 10,000 years old. We know it is this old because we can count the rings, just like in any other tree. From this, we can calibrate our dating methods. Even the worst case scenarios, the lower end of the dates are still far beyond what Creationism requires. I find it hard to believe still believe in a 6,000 year old earth when there are clearly trees older than that! (And no one denies dating based on the counting of rings.) Besides, what about star light? How can we see starts billions of light years away? Again even at the low end of the estimates (assuming non-constant speed of light, etc.) the distances would still be too large for Creationism to work. To put it plainly, why would a God go to all this trouble to make the world appear old, when it was in fact not.
Could it be used to cure my dyslexia?
Well I hope not, I like thinking in a way that makes my thoughs hard to put into words. It'd benice to be able to read I suppose, but I've got quite a good imagination so that doesn't matter too much either.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."
We all know that the earth is actually run by mice!
From the post: "Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."
;)
That's why my million monkeys with typewriters haven't churned out any Shakespearian prose yet...Looks like I'll be doing a little gene therapy first, then look out literary world, here I come!
How did genetic mutation in humans 50,000 years ago make us more artistic? Does he have DNA from 50,000 years ago? I took art history and the earliest human remains have been dated to 28,000 years ago. Is he saying that there were artistic monkeys 50,000 years ago? Once again, I am sure we would have covered the monkey cave paintings in my Art History class. I think his theory has more holes in it than Evolution.
1 repetition
2 repetition
3 repetition
4 repetition
5 repetition
6 repetition
7 repetition
8 repetition
9 repetition
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: That's an awful long string of letters there.
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
Eating various mushrooms will either give you the ability to grow tall or shoot fireballs.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
No good, I'll come in again.
Assuming a life-span of about 30 to 35 years per generation, is 1,500 generations enough for a gene to be selected in order to become _so_ widespread?
I had thought that Natural Selection was a process that took substantially longer.
I'd like to know who's funding such research? In a full genetically explainable world, you do not need to pay for mass education or rehab... Only save who is savable...
By opposition if the social interaction theory prevails then we ought to spend Xtra money on schools, rehab programs, etc...
I am not stating which is best or true, I just have the feeling that in one case like the other anthropology results are dictated by those who are paying for them.
May I use your sig please?
What if there is an easier way?
It looks like what you need to be railing against is not researchers but readers who draw absurd, overly strong conclusions.
... it has been found that another related gene is linked to people forgetting to spell-check their posts. It is also highly believed that the same gene is also related to others constantly pointing this fact out again and again and again. ...
>Writing assinine playoffs of the parrent topic
>Or "Poor me, I'm a descriminated Windows user who just blew 10 grand on an MCSE cert"
Karma: NaN
"aborigionese"? "explaines"?? The only clear marked inferiority here is in your spelling. I guess you have an extra dose of creativity.
Unless you are a phD in Biology, don't be such fond of yourself, because that's very stupid
But what if it turns out that there's basically no difference from one human to the next?
you are able to continue to be the jerk that you are.
notice no discrimination towards your parents, who i'm sure were nice people, and shouldn't be held accountable for whatever bad childhood you had which resulted in the jackass we see before us today.
This is brilliant! If I hadn't been bitch-slapped for modding up the "troll investigation" post, I'd mod this up.
It's perfectly obvious that it continues...
> > > Let's hope the Bible is a joke or you aren't going to like the future.
> > What about the Koran? The Kama Sutra?
> What does the Koran teach Black Parrot? (without resorting to google). How much do you know?
Probably slightly more than you know about the Kama Sutra.
BTW, I have a copy of the Koran on my shelf, from long before 9/11 too. However, I never finished reading it cover-to-cover because it's just a compendum of the same kind of boring nonsense the bible is made of. Life's too precious, kind of thing.
Also, I notice that in true creationist fashion you've completely given up on trying to defend your views, and started taking ad hominem pot shots at those who disagree with you instead. Lurkers will surely notice that creationists are the best argument against creationism.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...it has been observed in nature and in the lab. A quick example are London moths who changed color on their own as the trees they lived on were affected by the increasing smoke/soot from the increased use of coal to power industry.
What is a theory is that mankind evolved to its present state over time from "lower" forms of life. It is a theory that attempts to explain (to some extent) how we got here.
Here's another theory on how we got here...God made us.
Both are theories on how we got here. One is testable, the other is not. The one that is testable we call "scientific." The one that is not testable we call "religion."
Both theories require faith.
The scientific theory requires faith in the sence that we know that all of this type of objective knowlege is an "slow-speed" approximation of reality. The scientific theory can never fully explain anything because each phenomonon contains an infinite number of parameters. So we know objective knowlege has limits and deep down this troubling - especially for scientists - dedicated essentially to task explaining things.
The religious theory also requires faith. Usually this is expressed as faith in some kind of Diety suitably anthropomorphized for mass-consumption. But it doesn't have to be this way.
Since science has to leave-off somewhere, the door is left wide-open for an important question...is there transendental knowlege? If so, then science can progress. But this just begs the question...is there a limit to this transendental knowlege?
You are left with nothing more than that situation you often find yourself in... where a feeling comes over you... in a particular situation and you think to yourself...this is remarkable.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
This "theory" seems like a self-indulgent fantasy promulagated by those who use chemicals to kill brain cells. This way they can say "I'm really not a drooling, stoned fool! I'm helping my creativity!"
No, the reason I have stopped is because of you, and a few others like yourself, who resort to insults rather than logic. And because of one time when I went in circles for ages trying to get you to see something that was so fundamentally simple but you just couldn't. So I decided that there's not much point arguing unless I can talk to someone in person to see what point they are having difficulty with.
I have never seen a person convinced through a forum, or slashdot posts, either way, so seriously what's the point? You'd be ignorant to think I've stopped because I've subconsciously "realised" my arguments are invalid. I'd rather spend my energies talking with someone in an environment where they can learn, and I can learn, and we can discover together whether either of us has any valid arguments. And despite what you may believe, if evidence was shown to me, and all my criticisms of evolution and the evidence I have seen for creation were addressed, I _would_ change my view. But I doubt this will ever happen through slashdot, and especially never by you - it would have to be in person, over a long period of time, where I can carefully investigate all the arguments presented.
We're all equally ignorant, just about different things.
Nor is there any shame, per se, in stupidity. That would fall into the ranting against the sky being blue catagory. Real stupidity is just an inate state, like the color of one's eyes. Accept it in others, and yourself, and move on. ( I reserve the right to distress over the number of these people in congress though)
But, like you, it's the obstinately *willfull* ignorance of otherwise intelligent people that makes me want to grab the clue bat and "get their attention" as in the old joke about mules and 2x4's.
KFG
If you trust in evolution, then the future is uncertain.
I don't know about you, but my future is certain. I'm going to die. Unlike you, I am not afraid of the concept of death and therefore do not need to invent fairy tales in order to avoid confronting the issue.
Whatever floats your boat. Say "Hi!" to Jesus for me.
How long will Humans keep Thinking
they came from Monkeys...?
Maybe the Monkeys came from Us?
john
Genetic mutation is the slowest and most ineffective form of evolution. I seriously doubt a single person's genetic mutation affected the change in all humans.
Anthropology has roughly four main categories: Biologicial(Physical), Cultural, Archaeological, and Linguistic. Ideally researchers take into account all 4 when doing research, but many specialize in specific ones.
You are refering to one specific sub-field of Cultural Anthropology. Please read about anthropology more if you think "an anthrapologist suggesting a biological explanation, which is rather novel if not erroneous." A good place to start would be the American Anthropological Association.
1. A scientist makes an in depth study of the relationships of certain genes, their affects on humans, and the results of their changes. He discovers that a single gene controls a surprisingly large amount of characteristic of human artistic ability. This alters a prior hypothesis about the time it took to develop these characteristics.
2. In an attempt to summarize this complex relationship for general reading, much of the original concept is left out of the title and some is placed in the actual text of the article. However a clever and informed person might be able to discover it by applying interpretaion of the text and the general knowledge of science.
3. Some Blow Job Pimp comes along and reads the title, thinking that is enough to understand the whole thing. He rants on about how the title was so obvious and stupid. He flames and trolls about how the title doesn't tell him anything he didn't already know, and how the world is so stupid to even care about anything.
4. Blow Job Pimp eventaully reads the whole article and discovers there is a lot more to the discovery than just the title. Maybe something informative was actually discovered.
I'm still waiting for step 4 to happen. It might be a long evolutionary process, or it might happen quickly. Such an interesting scientific observation to see it happen in real time, right in front of us.... But only to those willing to learn.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Well you're alive, are you not? Or do you believe that Humans started off perfect, and we have arrived at our current imperfect state simply due to bad mutations?
...and I'm not buying your argument that your lack of bandwidth is preventing you from continuing to defend your views nor responding to Black Parrot.
With respect, I think your arguments are circular and unconvincing (although you may have other, more convincing arguments to make) to me.
At this point, I think Black Parrot has convinced me that your retreat is not based on the reasons you stated. That doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't give me any rational reason to agree with you.
The simple fact that you can even POSE the questions in your post - pointing them directly at evolutionary theory is the WHOLE point.
The proposal that mankind evolved from lower forms of life is a scientific theory supported by some evidence and perhaps hurt by other evidence...but that is exactly the nature of science. Theories attempt to explain facts with testable hypotheisis.
So the fact that YOU can not accept the proposal that evolution is a good description of how we got here based on YOUR analysis and interpretation of the data is what science is all about.
In fact, you are free to come up with your own interpretation of the data if you wish.
If your suggestion is based upon testable hypotheisis then you can join the community of scientists proposing explanations for reality.
If your explanations are NOT based upon testable hypotheisis (for example if your explanation is "God did it like in the Bible.") then I suggest you go to either a church or a bar where such proposals are often discussed with equally remorseless vigor and certainty.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Maybe you could be given this gene so that you can draw and create some decent graphics. Because lets face it, that stuff on Propaganda is shite, you whiny little nobcheese.
The superiority of the mouse version of FOXP2 is proven.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Most respected anthropologists agree that creativity evolved slowly over all, but did experience a significant "growth spurt" around 500,000 years ago when a single protohominid family of apes split into two main groups, the prehistoric precursor to Homo Erectus and the French. Homo Erectus and his kin spent the next half million years making great strides in such varied areas such as discovering fire, electricity, personal hygiene, and making really good movies. The French, in a classical example of divergent evolution, learned to make stinky cheeses and an over-priced alcoholic beverage from rotting grapes.
It may depend on how our brains' "learning window" is genetically programmed, too. Frex, with cats, the window is very short -- they lose all *flexibility* in their *ability to learn* by 6 weeks old. Whereas the window in dogs is about 15 months. In humans it seems to be about 8 years (judging by the point where it ceases to be *easy* for a child to learn to read and to learn other languages without rote memorization).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
> And because of one time when I went in circles for ages trying to get you to see something that was so fundamentally simple but you just couldn't.
The problem wasn't with getting me to "see" it, but rather convincing me that it was right.
> I have never seen a person convinced through a forum
I see posts on talk.origins now and then where a lurker delurks and says it was the debate in the forum that convinced them.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The spread would have been rapid. Ape chicks love bone trinkets, regardless of how dull they are. The whole economy is built on this principle - only those things pleasing to women have value. Gold, diamonds, bone trinkets and sea shells have few practical applications yet men die for them. Think about it.
Have you listened to upper management recently? Remote, yes, lacking creativity, yes and they have their own schools and language.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Clifford D. Simak wrote an excellent set of novels, but I don't know what their name are in English. The French edition has them in a book called "Demain les chiens" ("Tomorrow, Dogs"). I read it long ago but I highly recommend it.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
According to his theory 50,000 years ago
This guy has a 50K year old theory? How the hell old is he?!?
Spread the RC luvin'
I don't believe anyone is having any difficulty in hearing and understanding what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying is wrong, and not a logical conclusion.
Evolution does have evidence supporting it, or it would not be such a prevalent theory. Scientists noticed changes in fossils that were gradual, and thought evolution was a likely way to explain it. Darwin noted how the finches of the galapagos, separated from one another, developed different traits to best survive their respective islands. He hypothesized that they had a common ancestor, and that they had developed over time to fit those islands, based on the evidence available to him.
Scientists have noticed changes in species in this day and age -- witness the evolution of dogs by artificial, rather than natural, selection. A Great Dane and a little Yorkie are barely the same species now. Evolution is only a theory, but it is a theory that is logical, is backed by evidence, and observable on at least a small scale.
Scientists (in aggregate) do not have an agenda of destroying all faiths. They merely take the evidence available to them, and try to explain it in a logical fashion. Were there evidence for creationism, it, not evolution would be the prevalent theory.
Your claims about the beginnings of the Universe are, unfortunately, irrelevent to the topic of evolution. Even if one could prove any number of gods had had a hand in the initial formation of the Universe, that still doesn't make it true that they created all life on Earth in roughly the form it is in today. Evolution as a theory remains completely valid.
The truth about Michael
You are human because you create crap.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
I have been told that this beneficial mutation alone is on the order of 1 to the 1x10^10000. Well, I had better start playing the lottery then because I must have the touch. I have been told that the chances of another such mutation happening that is in the area plus of another sex (and surviving) is multiple factors of the above probability. Again, I have faith it will work out. Why? I don't know. I haven't ever met the folks who came up with these theories much less had them proven mathematically (or otherwise) to me, but I will blindly put my trust and faith into them. Even if they have been dead for many years and some proclaim, "How can you believe a 100 year old document?" I will stay strong.
Oh look, little Johnny has learned how to eat his breakfast by directly absorbing the nutrients through his tenticle shaped appendages. That means no burping up, but does mean he knocks over the oatmeal bowl a bit too much for my clean loving taste.
I am sure there is some perfectly illogical, I mean logical emotional and hypocritically reactive... Crap, lets start over. I am sure there is some logical explanation to all of this.
Sorry Pal, but you're gonna get it. Single traits can be traced back to single genes, see just about every mouse knock out paper that has been done to date(yes, yes I know about background specific effects). Granted genes do work together to pattern extremely complex structures such as the brain; however, single genes have been demonstrated to be necessary for very specific structures and/or functions. This is the whole point of this Anthropologist's ramblings. A single mutation in the regulatory region of this gene could be responsible for "creativity". This single mutation is a lot easier to explain from an evolutionary standpoint then your gene network theory. Did every single gene in your imaginary network obtain a mutation at the same instant? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense. It is true that that there are many methods of genetic control and regulation that we just have no clue about, but that doesn't mean we should toss logic out the door. Non-biologists (anthropologists especially) should just keep quiet at this point
> Scientists (in aggregate) do not have an agenda of destroying all faiths.
I would guess that the majority of scientists in the USA are Christians. I think I have seen mention of a survey on it, which interested parties might be able to find with Google or by asking about it in the talk.origins newsgroup.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Where's CowBoy o'Neal in this?
On the bottom with CmdrTaco?
Let's say a genetic difference is enough to result in a 1% difference in production of offspring. Then 500 generations are enough to make those who lack the gene account for less than 1% of the population.
In other words, sure, yes.
obviously the gene for creativity becoming active causes the gene for large penises to become inactive. hence all you whiteboyz tiny units.
-----------
black, proud, and 9"
Not to be flamebait, but just to ground this conversation in the actual scientific method, let's remember that at one time most scientists believed the earth was the center of the universe. All of this is conjecture. Don't mistake it for known, proven fact. When approached as just another theory, as it indeed is, however, it is an interesting one.
> (judging by the point where it ceases to be *easy* for a child to learn to read and to learn other languages without rote memorization)
That does not necessarily identify the closure of a "learning window" since it may (or may not) have a lot to do with the wiring of the auditory cortex, language related cortex, and the neurons responsible for controlling the vocal tract.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
Awesome! another scientific theory. We should teach this in all public schools as fact and ridicule anyone who questions the validity of what our scientific community is able to come up with.
I can't wait.
So, you worship a God that condemns a soul to eternal damnation if they don't say the magic words, but stands idly by while His priests molest little boys in His own House. Don't give me that "God works in mysterious way" line. Sorry, I cannot bring myself to worship a callous, hateful god.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
"... believe that Humans started off perfect, and we have arrived at our current imperfect state simply due to bad mutations? " I think snake dancers, and TV evangelists come from inbreeding. Either that or all those stupid people reproducing, while the smarter people, on average have less children.
So that I might blend in.
It's not working.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
The human body has one simple principle on which it's functions improve.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
irrelevance. that's what human creativity is all about.
Lets splice this geene into some Chimps and see what happens!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This is a single gene, either you have it or you don't. Those that don't are severely limited, basically retarded. Every single normal human has it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
..So many great quotes.
:P
Like Khan (Well, he looks like Khan)'s quote about there being no genes for trunks.
Genes == Blueprint. Genes == Make the body grow in a certain way. Genes don't make you eat spam, or imagine CowboyNeal naked with hot grits poured all over him.
That's all in yer personality, which is developed through actual living. Of course, it can be modified. Here's an easy experiment: Hit yourself in the head with a hammer a few thousand times.
"Genes make you do this! Genes make you do that!"
Right. How long until someone kills a shitload of people, and is then set free because, "Mah geenes made me do it!"?
Genetic mutations pretty much gave us all our characteristics that distinguish us from the other animals, you know.
Homo Heidelbergensis had decorative axes (and other things that have been found) way too big to be used. They were for show. That was at least 500,000 years ago I believe. Homo sapiens did the same damn thing.
It also takes a long ass time for a language to naturally develop. 50,000 years is plenty.
Look at rock stars today and how many women they sleep with. It isn't at all hard to understand how they can propagate.
The importance of Turner and Fauconnier's work is that they're coming out of linguistics and a deep understanding of the functions of such things as metaphors and counterfactuals and their essential involvement in letting language make sense.
Once such a threshold is crossed, you're going to see genetic selection for secondary characteristics which suddenly acquire greater pertinence to survival advantage. Trivially, if we can talk certain shapes of tongues will be favored, where before there may have been no selection pressure towards those best at forming the sounds of words. So on this sort of hypothesis - that a general sort of cognitive capability gradually increased until crossing a threshold at which a novel and significant sort of performance became enabled - there are also likely to be genetic shifts in the population following this favoring those genes which are most compatible with the new capability. This does not mean that these genetic shifts are themselves responsible for its appearance. It does not mean there is a "gene for language," even if you can demonstrate a correlation between the emergence of language and the favoring of a certain gene.
If, to again make a trivial example, on a planet far away a species developed the game of basketball. And if there were a vast intergalactic audience that quickly developed a love of basketball such that the players in this species developed a large survival advantage which extended for many generations, then you would subsequently see in their genetic record a flourishing of those genes which correspond with taller stature. That does not in any way prove or indicate that those are "basketball genes."
How the guy quoted in this article ever got a doctorate, let alone a post at Stanford, is baffling.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
If they want to be thorough with all of this, they should really test their hypothesis.
They need to create some monkeys with a human version of FOXP2. Sure, all of middle class america will freak out about creating mutant monkeys, and environmentalists will try to make it illegal to do so, and the President will cut your funding.
BUT, we could scientifically prove that a sudden mutated change in FOXP2 can create the effect that they are claiming. Not to mention that a super-smart mutant monkey population would be so friggin cool.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
The link between FOXP2 and language is questionable at best. To try and say that this is "THE" gene for creativity/artistic ability is laughable. This genes plays a role as a developmental transcription factor in formation of parts of the brain and skull. So if you're an imbecile, you can try and link it with just about any cognitive function you want. And gues what, if your head doesn't form properly, you can't wear at hat...ohh this must be the hat wearing gene...brilliant, lets write a journal article!! There is a reason that this guys is an anthropologist and not a geneticist/biochemist.
The article didn't articulate the particular relationship between the so-called creativity gene and speech impediments. If we're to suppose that the relationship is proportional, then one could suppose that anyone with a speech problem was also short-changed in the creativity department. With that said, here's a very short list of stammering creative types: Robert Boyle; Lewis Carrol; Charles Darwin; Issac Newton; Virgil. Or maybe their stammering inspired their creativity (with, maybe, stammerers being more socially isolated and, therefore, more prone to introspection and, eventually, discovery)? Or is the relationship just the opposite. Let's see. Almost any fast-talking politician. Yes. They're artistic-creative. AREN'T THEY! Who knows; lots of holes in the article.
So why is it you people STILL insist evolution is true? And if it WERE true, wouldn't there be a single, agreed upon "standard" theory?
Mod me down if you like, but you can't kill the truth.
Earth Clan
L.B.Sambo: 'Oh please Mr. Tiger, don't eat me' ....
Tiger: 'I won't eat you (this time) if you give me your beautiful green jacket'
'Sambo, Mumbo, and Jumbo enjoyed their meal of pancakes and butter'
This sounds exciting, but suffers from the same flawed causal reasoning ...'
that seems to appear in anything in the news that starts: 'Gene found for
If a gene (or gene complex) 'causes' creativity, then it only does this in
the case of some normalised background context.
To say that X causes Y, is always relative to some background conditions.
Scientific experimentation and statistical analysis both rely on this to
make assertions about causes. Experimentation by fixing background
conditions (replication and control), and statistical analysis by
(hopefully) sampling a sufficient number of cases that we can assume that a
X does cause Y under all conditions. Both have their problems (ie. Do the
constrained conditions of the experiment generalise? Was the sample really
representative of the population?)
Applying it to this case: A child with a 'normal' gene for this type of
creativity will, if raised in a impoverished environment, NOT be creative.
Calling the gene (network) the CAUSE, is to ignore completely ignore a long
chain of developmental resources that are equally essential in producing
our creative human being.
Moreover, in a evolutionary context, it is obvious that the cultural
resources (education, socialisation etc.) available now are not the same as
were available in proposed evolutionary environment in which this mutation
(or set of mutations) was proposed to have engendered this sudden creative
ability. So the background conditions in which the malfunction is taking
place are not the same as those conditions under which the mutation took
place: The selective environment was not the same as the current
experimental environment - so we cannot assume a similar cause/effect
relationship.
And even more importantly: our current cultural environment is dependent on
learning (the passing of information in a non-genetic way), and this
ability, more than likely, is dependent on the same creative (linguistic)
abilities that this gene is supposed to produce. So we have genes creating
enviromnents which produce the selective environment for further genetic
changes. Towhit: A complex feedback mechanism which incorporates genetic
change as part of the equation NOT some simple Gene causes Trait mechanism.
This doesn't mean that this stuff is boring, or hopeless. But the claims
of causal genetic primacy oversimplify the evolutionary history.
I recommend Lewontin's 'It ain't necessarily so' to anyone that wants an
elucidating take on the endless genes-as-causes reporting present in the
headlines.
The fact that a mutation of the FOXP2 gene in the "KE" family causes language impedements does not imply that the gene has anything whatsoever to do with language in normal usage.
Here's an analogy. We have a bunch of variations on a model of car. Some have the exhaust pipe on the left, some on the right. Those with the exhaust pipe on the right frequently have failures of the electrical system - because the hot exhaust pipe is too close to some critical part of the electrical system, causing it to burn out.
Now think FOXP2 gene => which side the exhaust pipe goes on, and electrical system => language system.
(This objection is not original with me - it is raised by Stephen Pinker in one of his books, probably The Language Instinct. It might not be original with him either.)
In general, the article in question looks to me like poorly supported speculation - although that may be an artifact of it having been filtered through a science reporter.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
God created man in his own image. So we are creative... as is demonstrated by this attempt to explain creativity with genes. =)
Then maybe there is hope for you.
Just my thought, but creativity almost seems to be the ability to seat yourself on what you know, yet venture through the mind to the unknown, dangerous, crazy, impossible. The ability to bring a creative thought from the mind to real life is an amazing gift.
God is love.
If you think otherwise, you've been deceived.
John 3:16 - 17
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. For the Son of God was sent not to condemn the world, but to save it."
One can learn at any time at any age, given the motivation. As you mentioned cats, I'll give you an example: I have 2 cats, the first that I've had for several years before the second, and showed very little sign of creativity. The second showed up, and very quickly learned how to open doors by itself (it had been locked in a kenel sized pen at my inlaws for several months prior living at my house, so it was past your six week old figure). When the first cat saw that, she quickly picked up the ability herself.
Just... Amen.
PS: Creationists suck.
Look at the original post and look at this ubrayj02's post. You've been trolled mods.
Enrico Fermi observed:
(1) With fairly modest technology a civilization could colonize the galxay in a time on the order of 10 million years (a very short time Vs. the age of the universe).
(2) If Earth is not a special case, intelligent life must be common in the universe.
Therefore, Fermi asked:
(3) WHERE IS EVERYBODY?
If earth is indeed not a special case and it took 5 billion years for the critical mutation that enabled human-style creative intelligence to appear (presumably, the minimum needed for space-capable technology) it may be that human-and-beyond is indeed rare in the universe!
The answer may be that there ISN'T anybody (at least nobody close enough to talk with or visit!)
Kama Sutra? The ancient catalogue of sexual positions? Perhaps you were referring to the Ramayana, an important Indian religious text.
These kind of bible thumpers do not speak for all of christendom. They just represent a mindless, faithless subset of the religion that needs cheap marketing gimmicks in order to stay interested.
Modern biology is their little scapegoat to distract them from the fact that faith and peity really aren't exciting enough for them.
A reasonably intellegent 7 year old can easily reconcile science and religion.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you met a guy that had his own son tortured and killed would you turn your back on him? Would claims of altruism in this act change your mind?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Human colour-sensitive eyesight credited to freak genetic mutation!
Human erect post can be attributed to a genetic mutation!
I was wondering how I failed the piss for that microsoft job since I don't even do drugs. I must have come up positive for FOXP2!
Then explain why he stands by while children are molested by His priests in His house, explain why a soul is condemned to eternal torment because they do not embrace Christian theology? After all, God is both all powerful and all knowing, right? If he knows someone will not embrace yet does nothing stop that from happening, He, Himself is condemning that person to eternal torment. If He knows that a priest is a child molester and does nothing to stop it, he is an accessory to rape. Either He is or is not all powerful and all knowing, there is no middle ground. What is the last digit of Pi? Can God create an object so massive that he cannot move it? Oh I know what you are going to say "ohh poor unbeliever, too bad you're going to hell and I'm going to heaven" and I'm sure you'll say your prayers tonight and pray that I see the light. Well, I won't, does that mean God didn't listen or that He already decided to condemn me? Let me make sure I understand this, if Cardinal Law believes in Jesus, then he gets a free pass to heaven even though he is directly or indirectly responsible for so much anguish but, Ghandi is in hell. Yeah, that's a system I wanna sign up for.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
My point exactly!
That's like arguing that a truck scale is useless because you have to know in advance that the object you are weighing must weigh several tons in order for you to get an accurate weight estimate from the truck scale.
When you make *any* kind of measurement, (be it age, weight, or whatever) you have to have a rough idea of what the age,weight, whatever will turn out to be.
If you know that the object weighs several tons, you will know to use a truck scale. If you know that the object most likely weighs a few ounces, you use a postage scale.
If I tell you that I have an object that I want you to weigh, but don't give you *any* information about it, how will you chose a scale? Without *any* prior information about the weight of the object, you cannot make that determination.
If I asked you to weigh an object without telling you in advance what sort of object is might be, how would you know what kind of scale to employ?
The object might be a feather, or it might be a Mack truck. Without knowing any more about it, what kind of scale would you use??
If this line of reasoning sails over your head, then you are totally hopeless!!
In Kubrick's film (and Clarke's novel), the Monolith has the affect of enabling new forms of thought in the hominids it encounters. Clearly, there must have been some kind genetic manipulation in the hominids on the part of the Monolith in order to enable them to be able to conceive of the idea of "weapon". Maybe the notion of random mutations is too narrow. After all, if people with these genes in some damaged state are unable to function in certain ways, does this not suggest that the genetic changes may in fact have been engineered? Were big black bizarro gizmos in our past? Intersting idea....and these new findings are certainly fodder for all sorts of flights of fancy.