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."
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
Could an "average" human be made more creative with gene therapy? Or enviroment still the important variable
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
That would also explain why LSD (ergot) and psyllocybin are so safe.
There's also the legend of a bread like mushroom that makes urine red (think water into wine).
Was Jesus a drug dealer?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Genetic mutation allowed X
where X is an element of { all evolutionary developments in human history }
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
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?
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
> 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
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.
I cannot believe that this has been modded up to 5, Informative. Our ancestors ate magic mushrooms and so developed a capacity for language and sophisticated technology?! Please!
I didn't go to grad school, but I did get a bachelors degree in Anthropology - and I like to think that I am pretty well read in the field. I can guarantee that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence linking proto-humans, or physically modern humans, to any sort of psychedelic chemical that facilitated brain development. The material evidence does not exist.
Further, I don't see how a single class of substances can be linked to brain development. There are a whole host of chemicals in the human body, the consumption of which is evolutionarily invisible. Why should magic mushrooms be so special?
This post, and this theory, sound more like an attempt to fit any Associated-Press level ideas to a world-view that embraces drug use. Anthropology has been littered with things like this for generations (e.g. social darwinism, innate criminality, race, skull volume=intelligence, aquatic evolution, and the list goes on). I say, take your agenda elsewhere.
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
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
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!"