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."

5 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Tweaking the genome by SteveAstro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  2. So did John Lennon or DaVinci have stronger genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could an "average" human be made more creative with gene therapy? Or enviroment still the important variable

  3. Folly by sdprenzl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  4. Re:So did John Lennon or DaVinci have stronger gen by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Psychedelic Logos by ubrayj02 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.