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
No wonder my army of monkeys haven't been writing anything worthwhile
http://www.detroitluv.com
A guy goes to a zoo and sees a gorilla with two books. The gorilla looks confused. One of the books is the Bible, the other Darwin. The guy asks the gorilla why he looks confused. The gorilla says "I can't figure out if I'm my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother!"
RIAA is trying to patent the 'artistic gene' !
A study last year indicated that FOXP2 evolved "some time between last Tuesday and 200,000 years ago"
no... really.
...a black monolith of 1x4x9 dimensions has been found in Africa.
The newest X-Man... Kreativ!
With the power to think outside the box!
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
It would be very interesting to determine if the mutated FOXP2 gene and/or others involved in learning have an effect on the way a human or chimpanzee utilizes psyllocybin.
It may very well be that the mutation was a natural selection among the hominids who consumed the psyllocybin-containing mushrooms.
... that life is a genetic mutation!
But then again, Jimmy Hendrix said that life is but a joke.
You can patent the gene and sue everybody on earth for copying it! Except for all the pop bands out there, that is...
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
Eventually. When everyone else has quite finished with it and the meek have stopped saying "No, please, after you." Until then, the cocky little bastards shall inherit the Earth;
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
It is thought to have originated in humans over 25 years ago, and can be plainly seen in the explosion of Troll posts, on primitive BBS's across North America.
The gene, FW324D342, is not found in other primates, but is often found in worms, ferrets, and aboriginal tree slugs.
Scientists are hoping to develop a test to isolate individuals suffering with this gene and beat the ever living fsck out of them.
Symptoms include:
Routinely spouting on world politics when it realy has nothing to do with the thread.
Saying things like "First Post"
Writing assinine playoffs of the parrent topic.
Saying things like "Linux/Windows Sucks!"
Or "Poor me, I'm a descriminated Windows user who just blew 10 grand on an MCSE cert"
Have patience and faith, scientists are working hard to wipe out this world wide web plauge
I would rather be ashes than dust!
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
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?
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?
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
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.
This article is fucking stupid. Completely fucking stupid.
Genetic "mutation" is responsible for EVERYTHING, people.. Bicycles, warheads, cheese in a can, dry wall, chess, television, and a fine selection of ladies' footwear. Saying genetic mutation is responsible for humans being artistic is like saying "NEWS FLASH : GENETIC MUTATION ALLOWS COW TO EAT AND POO"
Genetic mutation is also responsible for making the moron(s) who thought this post was an earth-shattering scientific revelation packed with keen insight into the structure of life.
Jesus fuckin fouth & inches Christ, at least we know Slashdot editors arent chosen on the basis of IQ..
Bowie J. Poag
But if you are the only person to have language, what good does it do you? How can you impress women with your guitar playing skills if they have no appreciation of music?
Biologists do say that the spread of a gene in a population can follow a pattern where it increases slowly for a long time, then passes a threshold and shoots up rapidly to almost the whole population. Perhaps the creativity gene was like that.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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
Methinks that a dictionary could have fitted much gooder in that hands of the editor who readed the story...
And in a story about a language gene... i.r.o.n.y.
Cats are pretty creative. Not only can they persuade you to part with a significant portion of the food on your plate, they insinuate themselves to the point of displacing you from your favourite chair. And then, just to rub salt in the wounds a little more, they also paint and dance.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
P.S. I have no connection to these books/websites but I did fall off my chair laughing the first time I saw the website :-)
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
"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
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.
"Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."
We all know that the earth is actually run by mice!
From the post: "Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."
;)
That's why my million monkeys with typewriters haven't churned out any Shakespearian prose yet...Looks like I'll be doing a little gene therapy first, then look out literary world, here I come!
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.
...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
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.
You are human because you create crap.
Forget the whales - save the babies.