Humanity Gene Found?

Banana_Republican writes "Nature is reporting that that multiple copies of a mystery gene may be what makes us human. It appears that humans have multiple carbon copies of a recently discovered gene that other primates lack. In particular, one sequence not so romantically or emotionally termed 'DUF1220' was mentioned . Humans carry 212 copies of DUF1220, whereas chimps have 37 copies, and monkeys have only 30 copies. Apparently the current thinking is that this gene is responsible for coding important areas of brain function."

Comments

Duh

[john83]

Apparently the current thinking is that this gene is responsible for coding important areas of brain function.

Fantastic. Unfortunately, that seems to come from the same school of thought as my suggestion here: this gene is responsible for male pattern balding and fully erect bipedal motion.

er... thats a bit of a leap

[gsn]

In other news the more midi-chlorians in your blood, the greater the person's Force ability

TFA says that there is a gene that humans have more copies of than primates and that this gene makes a protein in the brain. They don't know what the protein does in the brain indeed they have no idea what having multiple copies of the gene does. Yet they reach the conclusion that this gene may be responsible for giving us our humanity.

All they seem to have is a weak correlation between the number of this gene and intelligence (which is arguable - I know some really dumb people) and as we've all learnt many times "Correlation does not imply causation."

IANAGS but I'd wait until there was some more evidence on offer.

Re:er... thats a bit of a leap

[Daniel Dvorkin]

All they seem to have is a weak correlation between the number of this gene and intelligence (which is arguable - I know some really dumb people) and as we've all learnt many times "Correlation does not imply causation."

If you RTFA (I know, I know, this is /. and that's against the rules or something) you'll see that the researchers are not claiming anything except "we found this gene, humans have a lot more copies of it than monkeys, and we think that might be important." Anything else is reporter's and/or story submitter's hype.

But there are a couple of other notes I'd like to make in response to your post, which are really responses to lots of posts of this nature. First, this is not a weak correlation; 212 vs. 37 vs. 1 is a significant difference in almost any context, and yes, we've all known some really dumb people, but unless those people are severely retarded, they're still a hell of a lot smarter than the smartest chimp or monkey. Second, I really wish people would stop invoking "correlation does not imply causation" as a mantra. Yes, it's true, but it's also true that correlation implies correlation -- by which I mean that if there is a statistically significant correlation between two variables, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that there exists some connection between them, and to use this assumption as, at the very least, a basis for further investigation.

I think people are so used to misinterpretations of correlation (almost never by scientists, BTW) that they forget that it is still a powerful and useful tool. Actually, this is true of statistics in general. Yes, it's very easy to lie with statistics; it is somewhat harder, but entirely possible and fairly common, to use them to discover great truths.

I hate science reporters

[Luxifer]

from paragraph 2 of TFA:
"Scientists don't know what the gene does."
    No, they know what the gene does, it codes for a protein. They don't know what this protein does.
    Then they say that the protein is expressed all over, including the brain, so that means it may be involved in brain function.
For all they know it could be a structural protein, which is a better bet if it's expressed outside the brain.
    Somehow I doubt that a single gene is responsible for humanity.

    I try to be positive when I post, but what kind of morons do they have writing this stuff? And this is Nature magazine? How about some info on what sort of protein it is: Kinase? Carboxylase? Protease? How about some info on the expression levels instead of how many copies there are? There could be 1000 copies in our genome, but if the expression is low, it doesn't matter.
    Guess I'll have to RTFP, where P=Paper.

Re:Oh well, so much for the

[thefirelane]

Your post confuses me... did anyone ever think there was no genetic difference?

no such thing as a humanity gene

[mrpeebles]

There is more to being human than genes and flesh. A baby is raised without human contact may grow up to be a human being, but certainly not a functional human being. And homo sapiens existed for tens, or hundreds, of thousands of years before acquiring religion, language, art, etc., aspects of civilization we consider important parts of our humanity. Isn't the most we could ever find a gene that allows us to be human? To make an analogy, ink allowed the original manuscript of Hamlet to be Hamlet, but it's not a Hamlet material. It doesn't contain the essence of Hamlet-ness in any meaningful sense.