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."

Comments

Sceptical

[Marcus Brody]

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

Re:Psychedelic Logos

[Bodrius]

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.