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."
i've listened to some of McKenna's stuff and it's quite intresting. i agree with what he says, evolution and "intellegence" could of been caused by hallucinogens. the possibility of an animal eating some mushrooms and becoming self aware is more than credible. the question is... will the next stage in human evolution come around as the result of hallucinogenics? McKenna has certainly hinted towards and experienced mushrooms causing ESP. how long will it be until humans evolve into a higher form and ESP becomes common place among all, another 50,000 years perhaps?
and this one There's lots of other interesting stuff in the thread too.> 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.
FWIW, there was a discussion of this (not the article, but the purported 50,000 YBP quantum leap) on talk.origins about a month ago, and lots of the better informed regular posters weighed in against the idea.
E.g., this one:
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
links:
/ ref%3Dsim%5Fbooks/103-2380334-3906266
http://members.aol.com/discord23/mckenna.htm
the Mckenna book "Food of the Gods"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553371304
a review
http://cerebrex.com/bkfog.htm
and the fusion anomaly
http://fusionanomaly.net/evolution.html
more on Mckenna from lycaeum
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/McKenna/
FWIW, there's actually a whole branch of anthropology called -- get this -- Bioanthropology, filled with people who are quite interested in things like genetics, protein folding, etc. Of course, these scientists are interested in how these things affect human culture, society and evolution, but it's not surprising to see an anthropolgist talking genetics.
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
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.
You might want to try reading the articles before ranting against the "entire genetic engineering field" if you want to talk about folly.
They specifically say that the "trait" they're talking about may include "as few as 10 or as many as 10,000" genes.
They never claimed this gene was responsible for that trait.
They specifically said this was just one remarkable breakthrough among many that suggests that our current language skills depend on recent genes, more recent than what we normally call "the human species".
In other words, their hypothesis is that it was impossible for anatomically correct humans lacking MANY SIMULTANEOUS mutated genes to develop complex languages and cultures, and have what we would consider a normal human psychology. And they claim that these mutations are probably recent.
No one claims to have pinpointed the origin of "culture" in the genome and how it worked, or even expect to at any foreseeable future.
They just say if you can show anatomically correct humans have problems developing complex cultures if a few genes are not "normal", and the "normal" versions of the genes can be proven to be recent, then it follows that it might have been difficult for anatomically correct humans lacking those genes, as a set, to develop complex culture, and it would be reasonable to say they were necessary for that process.
That's a much more timid, reasonable claim than "the stuff C.G. Jung was saying will become understood in a genetic way", by the way.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
As an anthropologist, I can assure you that there is are entire branches of anthropology which have strong ties to biology. Among them, biological anthropology, medical anthropology and genetic anthropology.
What you are thinking of is my specialization, sociocultural anthropology. However, there are others in my department who spend their days (and months and years) at microscopes and working on genetics problems. The differences are generally that biologists are interested in mechanism (i.e. what can we make genetics do for us) and the present (i.e.what can genetics do for us now) while anthropologists are primarily interested in history (i.e. what do genetics tell us about our past) and demography (i.e. what do genetics tell us about human populations now).
Hope this helps.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.