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."
... that life is a genetic mutation!
But then again, Jimmy Hendrix said that life is but a joke.
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
McKenna has certainly hinted towards and experienced mushrooms causing ESP
... that... I think you must be psychichic...'
But usually only when its the 'observer' of the ESP experiment taking them.
'Wow - how did you know he was going to do
One gene-one trait is not the model we currently have. It works for some genes, and that's why Mendel was successful and a lot was discovered about how genetics work, but like you say it's usually more complex. I do agree with you that some people try to make things more simple than they are, I read about FOXP2 and I honestly don't know if there's reason to link it to creativity or if it's just speculation. Models are always simplified versions of reality, or they would be useless, but of course you have to find a balance.
"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.
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
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.
Actually, the motivation for the bias may be what you claim, but the error seems to a rather common, and completely unconscious, misunderstanding of causal relationships. The same kind that makes people believe in astrology, telepathy or what-have-you because of a single unrepeated coincidence in their life.
It's rather likely that psychedelics were present, and influential, in the birth of culture.
After all, currently the main use of our advanced and transgenerational communication skills is to communicate pleasurable, strong, preferably ecstatic sensorial experiences (in either the mystical sense or as an epiphany): we spend more time and effort discussing about movies, books, music, computer games than the technology that makes them possible. Religion is a major part of our culture, and separate (if complementary) of government mainly because of its capacity to induce altered states of mind.
Without the infrastructure that permits these in their modern forms, other extreme experiences have to take their place or support their primitive equivalents. Psycheledics seem to provide one hell of an interesting experience, since drug-induced altered states of mind so commonly an integral part of religions and traditions of cultures with simpler infrastructure (and depending on how integral you consider the Happy Hour, modern ones too).
So it's very likely, and there's apparently evidence, of a close relationship between increasing complexity of culture and use of psychedelics if they're available in the same area. It's not like they could get excited about neoplatonistic philosophy right off the bat.
But unless there's an experiment showing sign-language-skilled primates developing new cultural infrastructure when they're stoned, it's remarkably idiotic to see a causal connection.
It's a much simpler hypothesis that once humans could develop a culture and talk about interesting things, and drug consumption being an available and much more interesting thing than watching the grass grow, they would do it a lot, talk about it a lot, and use it a lot as an element in their cultures.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
...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