Research Suggests Apes and Humans Separated By a Single Gene

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Research Suggests Apes and Humans Separated By a Single Gene

Posted by timothy on Thursday November 22, 2012 @07:17AM from the nothing-between-me-and-calvins dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers believe that they have found the definitive difference between humans and other primates, and they think that the difference all comes down to a single gene."

156 of 243 comments (clear)

Uh huh. by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-11-22 07:17 · Score: 5, Funny

And some are separated by less.
1. Re:Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is certainly not in the gene allowing us to throw chairs.
2. Re:Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I was gonna says it's the Hy-gene, but ...you're right.
  Damn smelly geeks
3. Re:Uh huh. by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oook?
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
4. Re:Uh huh. by war4peace · 2012-11-22 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  After watching human beings for over 3 decades, that gene is rare. Very rare.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
5. Re:Uh huh. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-11-22 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  FEWER
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
6. Re:Uh huh. by pitchpipe · 2012-11-22 09:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  yeah, blacks
  No. Racists: If ever there was a more ignorant, backward way of thinking than racism, it'd be done by something that lived in a slime mold at the bottom of a swamp. But then again, I think that I've just insulted things that live in slime molds.
  
  --
  Look where all this talking got us, baby.
7. Re:Uh huh. by TeknoHog · 2012-11-22 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  In some cases, they are separated by a few micrometers of rubber.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
8. Re:Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Too true Gods an English man and he designed Americans
9. Re:Uh huh. by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-22 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Still wrong though.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
10. Re:Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Is that you, Librarian?
11. Re:Uh huh. by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Ook, ook!
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
12. Re:Uh huh. by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  Says the guy who links to a wiki about the most unwitty, unclever and unintelligent works of fiction ever made.
  You must be a blast at parties.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
13. Re:Uh huh. by 7-Vodka · 2012-11-22 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Or, maybe it is.
  
  --
  Liberty.
14. Re:Uh huh. by Doubting+Sapien · 2012-11-22 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  But most are separated by more. I find the featured article to be overtly sensationalist. Excerpts from a wonderful talk by Ken Miller on the Dover ID trial should put things in perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk The fusion of chromosome #2 Dr. Miller alluded to is arguably *much* more significant than any single gene alleged in the article. I don't object to this submission as "news for nerds, stuff that matters." But jokes aside, we need much better QA for science writing in general.
  
  --
  ========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
15. Re:Uh huh. by QRDeNameland · 2012-11-22 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't that be...? Blook...blook blook...and a blook.
  
  --
  Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
16. Re:Uh huh. by VortexCortex · 2012-11-22 12:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  yeah, blacks
  No. Racists
  Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
17. Re:Uh huh. by fyngyrz · 2012-11-22 13:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Btw skinhead, "aryan" is a word that includes a fuckton of Indians.
  Metric, or Imperial?
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
18. Re:Uh huh. by ZombieThoughts · 2012-11-22 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Posting to remove a screwed up moderation.
19. Re:Uh huh. by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-11-22 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever people make comments about people=monkeys, it's always about race. The same way the noose has a special meaning.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
20. Re:Uh huh. by Mal-2 · 2012-11-22 19:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I have a group of friends in which we frequently call each other "monkeys" -- but there is no racism whatsoever to it. If you see someone imitating someone else (even if it's because it's a good idea), they're a monkey. If they're making lots of noise and gesticulating wildly -- monkey. Repeating something useless out of habit -- monkey. Climbing over furniture or other objects not meant to be traversed -- monkey. Getting on the stage via the scaffolding instead of the stairs (sometimes it's far easier to come on from the back or other unintended route than to wade through people and gear) -- monkey. If anyone asks, we always say "everyone is a monkey part of the time", and if asked about racism we say "who cares, in 500 years, EVERYONE will be brown". One of our group became known as "monkey boy" for his habit of climbing poles or other structures to try to spot people in a crowded room, rather than trying to hunt them down in a crowded venue. (I don't blame him, he's short.)
  So no, calling someone a monkey can be completely non-racial.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
21. Re:Uh huh. by mjwx · 2012-11-22 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Btw skinhead, "aryan" is a word that includes a fuckton of Indians.
  
  Metric, or Imperial?
  Pretty sure it's a metric Indian.
  
  Unless it's a Native American, in which case they still use the Imperial system, although it's not the same as British Imperial units.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
22. Re:Uh huh. by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-11-22 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about that. From an evolutionary standpoint, "racism" as it were tends to prevail. Nearly all advanced lifeforms lend a favoritism towards their own clan, and shun others. I think the idea is that your familial gene survives and spreads, while theirs does not.
  In any case, some well known geniuses were also well known racist asshats, e.g. Bobby Fischer. And there's this:
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198112/Sleek-swift-deadly--Hitlers-stealth-bomber-turned-tide-Britain.html
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
23. Re:Uh huh. by CAIMLAS · 2012-11-22 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not saying you're wrong in the general sentiment of your statement (racism is wrong), but: what is intrinsically wrong with saying races/ethnicities are different? We know that they are - it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Different genes are present, and different genes express more strongly in different races. How, and why, is it wrong to say "sickle cell anemia is bad" or "red hair is bad"?
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
24. Re:Uh huh. by TheRaven64 · 2012-11-23 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The whole black people are monkeys thing is purely a US idiom. In the rest of the English-speaking world, there isn't that connotation and it's fairly common to call people (of any phenotype) monkeys with no racist overtones. That's part of the reason why the celebrity apes thing seemed so weird to the rest of us. It's not even universal in the USA. A lot of people called GWB a chimp, but there's no indication that anyone thought that he was black...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
25. Re:Uh huh. by war4peace · 2012-11-23 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Oh my god. being from Romania, I had to look up KKK on the web. Yeah, blame me for being ignorant, but really, I could as well blame you for being a stereotypical prick.
  Oh well, nobody's perfect :)
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
26. Re:Uh huh. by war4peace · 2012-11-23 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  With me not being from the US, I can tell you with certainty that you're wrong.
  Also, from my point of view, anyone who's remotely interested in politics is automatically suspect of missing that gene.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
27. Re:Uh huh. by quintus_horatius · 2012-11-23 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  It has nothing to do with a count of generations and everything to do with possible mutation. Your statement implies that Rudyard Kipling's "How the Leopard Got Its Spots" was on to something. Hint: giraffes didnt get longer necks by stretching.
28. Re:Uh huh. by tehcyder · 2012-11-23 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's British "humour" dickwipe.
  I would love to know what you consider witty. The banter before WWF matches? Videos on YouTube of dogs eating their own shit?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
29. Re:Uh huh. by tehcyder · 2012-11-23 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, blacks
  No. Racists
  Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
  I think I prefer racists who are just straightforwardly stupid, rather than ones who mis-use the brains they've been given.
  People with black, white or any other colour skin are all part of the same species, homo sapiens. That's it.
  The idea that white people are a different type of human is racism, pure and simple. You are a fucking idiot.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
30. Re:Uh huh. by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-11-23 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Intent" is not required to be racist. Have you asked the African-Americans in your group how they feel about being called monkey? Oh, there aren't any African-Americans in your group? Yeah, that's what I thought.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
31. Re:Uh huh. by tehcyder · 2012-11-23 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm not a racist but ..."
  'Something an idiot says just before making a comment that proves the idiot is, in fact, a racist.' http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i'm%20not%20racist%2C%20but%20.%20.%20.
  What's odd is why such people seem to feel ashamed of being racists, but are anyway. If you truly hold stupid ideas about race, you should have the courage of your convictions.
  I can only assume that racists have just enough intelligence to realise that their views are abhorrent to the majority of people, but nowhere near enough to take a look at those views and see how idiotic they are and not expound them in public..
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
32. Re:Uh huh. by tibit · 2012-11-23 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but that's a once-in-a-lifetime kind of a thing, so I don't see how it's relevant at all. We all know mutations can have pretty dramatic effects, like, duh.
  If you took an African village worth of people and deposited them somewhere on the Scandinavian peninsula, and kept them isolated for a 100 generations, you'd find them all white. Again, that's the research I've read.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
33. Re:Uh huh. by tehcyder · 2012-11-23 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying you're wrong in the general sentiment of your statement (racism is wrong), but: what is intrinsically wrong with saying races/ethnicities are different? We know that they are - it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Different genes are present, and different genes express more strongly in different races. How, and why, is it wrong to say "sickle cell anemia is bad" or "red hair is bad"?
  What's wrong is that the genetic differences are trivial. We are all homo sapiens. And it makes as much sense to say "all people with red hair are X" as it does to say "all people with brown skin are Y", i.e. none at all.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
34. Re:Uh huh. by Myopic · 2012-11-23 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it turns out that is almost certainly not how it happened. The ape-to-human transition happened over a couple million years among a small population, during which all of the important evolutionary genetic variations occurred. After that there were splits into subgroups of pseudo-humans such as the Neanderthals some of which bred with one another, but that happened over the last hundred-thousand years or so, during which much less evolution could have happened. Furthermore, my understanding is that recent research suggests that intelligence has declined over that time period, so if anything making the humans "farthest away" from apes dumber, not smarter. Personally, however, I don't put a lot of stock in that research.
35. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-23 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not odd. Not all racism is random crap being spewed and some of it directly contradicts itself in seemingly legitimate situations. After all, when science pushed Eugenics, they didn't find something wrong with the idea or concept of genetically superior or inferior races, they abandoned it because of the acts of those using it for their own advantage
  Most people do not really know it when they are being "racist". They do not know of other cultures or whatever and say things that later get pointed out as being racist. Racism is somewhat of a moving target too. It is often used as a weapon against someone with seemingly legitimate intents. Some things can have perfectly legitimate purposes and be claimed as racist and it is completely a moving target. For instance, we cannot exclude or discriminate against people because of race in hiring for employment or the payment of wages. On the other hand, quota mandates specifically mean someone will be excluded because of a need to a specific race. In Virginia (IIRC), they want to defeat the entire purpose of the NCLBA and institute passing/failing scores based around race. I'm sure no one was thinking let them dumb niggers and wetbacks remain dumb and we will concentrate on educating the White and Asian kids. But that is essentially what they ended up with by changing the passing failing levels for a race instead of changing the population of the race to the scores already in place..
36. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-23 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Look up the scientific theory of eugenics. It was all the craze less then a century ago.
37. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-23 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with it is that when it was done before, it led to all sorts of bad things. Hitler's master race ambitions were working under the premise of eugenics which was science somewhat at it's worst. It led to forced sterilizations and even deaths of people deemed inferior or a pollutant to the gene pool (even in the USA- California has the record for forced sterilizations). The differences in race is insignificant enough that delineation often does not serve a purpose.
38. Re:Uh huh. by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-11-23 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you had RTFA you would know that the gene in question influences language and decision making centers of the brain. As I'm sure you are aware, language and decision making skills are seriously fucking lacking in people of all races. Miscommunication and bad decision making is probably the most commonly held trait in the human species. For example, you just made a poor decision by jumping to the conclusion that war4peace is an American racist, rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he had poorly communicated his opinion.
39. Re:Uh huh. by buybuydandavis · 2012-11-23 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  23andme says I have Neanderthal DNA.
40. Re:Uh huh. by buybuydandavis · 2012-11-23 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with it is that when it was done before, it led to all sorts of bad things. Hitler's master race ambitions were working under the premise of eugenics which was science somewhat at it's worst. It led to forced sterilizations and even deaths of people deemed inferior or a pollutant to the gene pool (even in the USA- California has the record for forced sterilizations). The differences in race is insignificant enough that delineation often does not serve a purpose.
  "You must deny the truth, or you will become HItler."
41. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-23 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you will become Hitler, but a hitler will be born. I seriously doubt someone spouting the same racist crap today could become a leader of anything except minorities and idiots. change how we view those comments and it will change who follows them.
42. Re:Uh huh. by Mal-2 · 2012-11-23 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there are, and they use the term in a manner identical to the rest of us. The only group you could consider under-represented is women, because there is only one in the band, and she gets the call only a small fraction of the time (we have a rotating selection of trumpet players available).
  If you were climbing over a crowd control barrier to get to the stage (because you're late for the set), and someone else said "get your ass up here, monkey"... that's not racism, you're literally acting like a monkey.
  All connotations aside, sometimes people use words to mean exactly what they mean.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
43. Re:Uh huh. by lsatenstein · 2012-11-23 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, blacks
  No. Racists
  Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
  Is racism is a Christian thing? It was said that Moses's wife was a refined black woman. Orthodox Jews discriminate by religion, not by skin color or complexion. If you want to be one of them, a Jew, you have to prove sincerity and study. Moses's wife gave him excellent advice as every wonderful wife does for her lifelong partner. A single gene it is, and that gene has how many different variations.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
44. Re:Uh huh. by fyngyrz · 2012-11-23 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, into the gorge with you.
  Right then, Next?
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
45. Re:Uh huh. by DirtyLiar · 2012-11-23 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Cheeky monkey!
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
46. Re:Uh huh. by DirtyLiar · 2012-11-23 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  There was nothing scientific about eugenics any more than phrenology (the study of bumps on the head, and how they can tell you a person's intelligence and personality).
  Eugenics was based on assumptions, predjuce, and wishful thinking, not scientific studies or evidence.
  That there ARE differences between the races is made plain by diseases like cycle-cell sickle-cell-anaemia, and inherited traits.
  That the differences between people are greater than the differences between the races also seems plain, but until scientific research is done on the question, it is merely anecdotal.
  BTW, white people didn't become white from interbreeding with Neanderthals for the simple reason that not all white people have Neanderthal gene's. White people developed the white mutation after millions of years of being vitamin D deficient in the upper latitudes, or so the theory goes.
  Besides, who says Neanderthals were white?
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
47. Re:Uh huh. by robsku · 2012-11-24 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Intent" is not required to be racist.
  Yeah, but relation to race has to have something to do with what you're saying to be racist.
  
  Have you asked the African-Americans in your group how they feel about being called monkey? Oh, there aren't any African-Americans in your group? Yeah, that's what I thought.
  Considering his explanation of their use of the word those African-Americans need to be really dumb to take offense.
  Funny thing, btw, you being racist in your post claiming another person being racist. Probably don't realize it either even after I said it :)
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
48. Re:Uh huh. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-24 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, blacks
  No. Racists
  Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation.
  These variations aren't studied to determine which populations are more distant from apes because we're all equidistant from apes. They're studied to help understand how people have been evolving SINCE the split from apes. The fact that we find them varying among human populations (and present in all human populations) is one of a number of indicators that this mRNA is biologically active in humans. The fact that its origin lies at or near the juncture of human and ape lineages does make it likely that it played a significant role in making humans what they are (i.e. different from apes).
  
  If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
  Not according to what I've read. Neanderthal genes have been found in every population except people descended (almost entirely) from sub-Saharan Africans. Maybe if you sampled enough African DNA, you'd find it, but most people there don't have it even now unless they're descended from modern immigrants. Apparently, immigration of exogenous populations into central and southern Africa was uncommon enough that few if any Neanderthal genes made it there. That's not to say there wasn't gene exchange into (central and southern) Africa. There was as we know from historical records and anthropological evidence. Apparently it was very slow until modern times.
  That or Neanderthal genes are somehow disadvantageous in the African environment. To find out if that's the case you'd try to study whether other exogenous genes made it into Africa thousands of years ago.
49. Re:Uh huh. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-24 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly because dogs are descended from more than one species or subspecies of wolflike animal. Also because we've been intentionally been breeding freakish dogs for thousands of years whereas freakish people tend not to find mates.
50. Re:Uh huh. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-24 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, fuckton wasn't a metric unit. Must be Imperial.
51. Re:Uh huh. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-24 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  It need not be based on racism. Nationalism or religious bigotry is enough to motivate people to try and wipe another people from the face of the Earth. It has happened many times, most frequently between people of similar ancestry.
52. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-24 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I don't disagree with this. However, the only reason I brought Hitler up was because of his study and following of eugenics which is basically the concept of races being superior or inferior to others based around the very real and imaginary differences scientifically supported between the races and he took it to the point of trying to genetically cleanse the "impurities" from the master race. A reason we do not emphasize these differences any more is because of the "horrid" acts that happened in the past when we did.
53. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-24 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Eugenics was based on principles of plant biology and its evolution and extended well beyond race. It was the scientific rage at the time and started with observations by Gregor Johann Mendel who was studying evolution of strains of the pea plant.
  Here is a scientific American article on it published in 1911. Notice the sentence "The absurdity of legislation to cure social evils without scientific facts to base that legislation upon, is no more apparent than in the disposal of the insane You will find it more closely resembles Darwinism and evolution rather then your claim of racist bigots. You will also find the alarming claim of scientific fact was actually a push to end a "cured" mans ability to reproduce based on this scientific fact.
  As I said, look up the scientific theory of Eugenics. You will find quite a bit of science involved in it. Of course it is misapplied and bent in ways, but it was a crowning achievement of science at one time.
54. Re:Uh huh. by DirtyLiar · 2012-11-24 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't want to read my entire post, here is a summery:
  Eugenics was/is NOT science.
  Why?
  01) Science requires use of the "Scientific Method"
  02) Science requires repeatable results.
  03) Took hearsay as evidence.
  04) Took prejudices as evidence.
  05) Took folk-tales as evidence.
  05) Preformed no experiments.
  06) Produced no repeatable results.
  07) Took scientific data from other studies, and applied it without testing it first.
  08) Produced ZERO "superior" or even improved people.
  09) Eugenics never produced any "new" or revolutionary theories.
  10) Eugenics never overturned any old prejudices.
  11) Eugenics ever only reenforced the old prejudices.
  The rest
  ===========
  Did you actually READ the link you posted?
  The FIRST two sentences (both the subtitle and the Editor's Note) called Eugenics a PHILOSOPHY, which is exactly what it was.
  Here they are:
  
  Our editorial from 1911 praising the new science of eugenics also hints at the darker side of this philosophy
  Editor's note: This editorial was written and published in 1911. Although our editors of a century ago pondered some lofty aspirations for the orderly future of humans, it was only three decades later that the brutal reality of a Nazi social order suffused with a eugenicist ideal brought home the practical shortcomings of the philosophy.
  Philosophy. Not Science.
  Here is a link for you to read: Science and Eugenics. And here is the first paragraph:
  
  The truth about the science of eugenics is that there is no science to eugenics. What passed for scientific method in the eugenics movement is almost laughable now; if it were not so disturbing. Eugenicists were trying to explain complex human behaviors based on second hand accounts and in some cases heresy.
  Here is the link to the whole article: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Splash.htm
  
  Eugenics was based on principles of plant biology and its evolution
  You are falling prey to the thought error of false equivalency.
  Engeneering too is based on science, but Engineering is NOT science.
  Science Fiction, also based on science, is not science.
  Just because something is based on a science does not make it science.
  Besides, goal of science is knowledge, and nothing else. (Some scientists may have goals that extend beyond knowledge, but not science itself.)
  Physics, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, quantum physics, astronomy, etc. all only have the discovery of new knowledge about how the universe works as their goal.
  Eugenics, on the other hand, ALWAYS had 2 goals. Neither of them being the quest for knowledge.
  The first (and stated) goal was to create the "Perfect Man". (A nebulous and poorly defined concept to begin with.)
  The second (and unstated), but more important goal of Eugenics was to justify the already existing prejud[g]eses held by those with wealth and power, and to justify their places in society as leaders.
  Your "proof" even states that the goal of Eugenics was the creation of a "Perfect Man" (in itself a logical fallicy), a concept they don't even bother to define. What would a "Perfect Man" be? First, being realistic, the definition of a "Perfect Man" is different in different times, different cultures, and different situations. The definition even will vary from person to person. (BTW, the Christian bible defines being human as living in a state of IMPERFECTION, with God being the only perfect being, so if you're Christian, there's that.)
  We may not be able to use the article to define what a "Perfect Man" IS, but taking the talking-points of the article, we can defi
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
55. Re:Uh huh. by CAIMLAS · 2012-11-26 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  You bring Hitler up regarding Eugenics, but it wasn't Eugenics which led to Hitler to put what he viewed as social leeches in concentration camps, killing them by millions, any more than it was the Marxist socioeconomic policies he was trying to institutionalize. You don't exactly see people blaming Marxism/Socialism for Hitler's genocide, do you? So why Eugenics?
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
56. Re:Uh huh. by CAIMLAS · 2012-11-26 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Marxist redistribution of wealth and the current hatred of the "super rich" seems to be headed that way pretty damn quickly.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
57. Re:Uh huh. by sumdumass · 2012-11-26 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  You should spend a little time looking into the master race. Hitler and Germany specifically set out in practice of Eugenics.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4
  I said nothing about the holocaust. The holocaust is not the only horrid thing to happen under Hitler. The holocaust was likely more palatable by the German citizens and those involved because of the generics practices. Germany had required every doctor to record every genetic impurity or defect and those people were force sterilized. Later, the T4 program started euthanizing the insane, crippled, diseased and disabled. This was all because of Social Darwinism which was a European concept that you could force the ill traits of man out of the gene pole by controlling the reproduction of people with them.
  BTW, the T4 building or department was the one that coordinated the eugenics program, the euthanasia, and took control over the final solution. If the holocaust and Eugenics is connected, we know it was the same people controlling it. Outside of sharing the same building for it's command and control and the same people, I'm not sure anything outside of inflammatory remarks cause the connections.
58. Re:Uh huh. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-26 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Marxist redistribution of wealth and the current hatred of the "super rich" seems to be headed that way pretty damn quickly.
  Pananoid much?
The gene position, of course, is by smittyoneeach · 2012-11-22 07:18 · Score: 2

501

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
1. Re:The gene position, of course, is by pushing-robot · 2012-11-22 07:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  To be pedantic, there are actually a pair of genes at that location.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
2. Re:The gene position, of course, is by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-22 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't realize that you were a man of the cloth.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:The gene position, of course, is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Didn't realize that you were a man of the cloth.
  501? Man of the cloth? Are we talking about Levis?
4. Re:The gene position, of course, is by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-11-22 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  It's very unlikely it codes for sentience.
  But the real question is what would happen if we activated it in a higher primate, like a chimp.
  Of course I don't even want to begin to imaging the ethical dilemmas of that experiment, since it would amount to creating the first sentient member of a new species if it succeeded.
5. Re:The gene position, of course, is by ArcadeMan · 2012-11-22 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Let's ask Japan, they have probably already done some work towards catgirls.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
6. Re:The gene position, of course, is by Nadaka · 2012-11-22 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  No, all of Japans trans species genetic experiments involve actual physical breeding. Just ask the squid monster.
7. Re:The gene position, of course, is by MichaelSmith · 2012-11-22 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  More than that, if they're right, then introducing that gene into other species should make them sentient?.
  No beacuse other ape species are sentient anyway.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
8. Re:The gene position, of course, is by margeman2k3 · 2012-11-22 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  And in most people, it's 404.
9. Re:The gene position, of course, is by smittyoneeach · 2012-11-22 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Levis, Levites; err on the side of Aaron.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
10. Re:The gene position, of course, is by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-11-22 12:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Sentient" merely means aware. A snail is sentient. The proper word is "sapient".
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
11. Re:The gene position, of course, is by budgenator · 2012-11-22 13:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Gorillas such as Koko, when taught sign language are scary smart, even without the gene.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
12. Re:The gene position, of course, is by UnknownSoldier · 2012-11-22 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Man of Cloth is the colloquial idiom for a priest.
  Movies of interest: "Contact" (Jodie Foster), "The Mission" (Robert De Niro)
13. Re:The gene position, of course, is by riverat1 · 2012-11-22 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think it must be 42.
14. Re:The gene position, of course, is by tehcyder · 2012-11-23 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Let's ask Japan, they have probably already done some work towards catgirls.
  I am intrigued, please post further details immediately.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
15. Re:The gene position, of course, is by V+for+Vendetta · 2012-11-23 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Sentinent" in this sense should be understood as "self-aware", which is the right word to use. I.e. recognizing yourself when looking in a mirror. "Sapient" doesn't carry this notion (as far as I can tell).
16. Re:The gene position, of course, is by DirtyLiar · 2012-11-23 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, all of Japans trans species genetic experiments involve actual physical breeding. Just ask the squid monster.
  Actually, the only trans-specieal breeding project (other than the typical human+sheep/dog/cow/horse/ect) was done in Russia, where a doctor convinced a woman to have sex with a Gorilla in hopes of creating some kind of super-warriors for Stalin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov
  She never got pregnant. (Like THAT'S news)
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
Uplift by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-22 07:21 · Score: 4, Funny

If this is indeed true, you know somebody is going to try it.
(Although the reverse experiment has apparently been done, a casual perusal of C-span makes that obvious.)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Re: Uplift by Dupple · 2012-11-22 07:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, I'll be a monkeys uncle!
  
  --
  Watch those corners
2. Re:Uplift by CRCulver · 2012-11-22 07:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In case you don't get the parent post's literary allusion, he's talking about David Brin's Uplift series which starts with the novel Sundiver . It's a science fiction work based on the idea that human intelligence is due to ancient interference by a mysterious alien race. I re-read it recently; enjoyable stuff and much less dated than one would expect.
3. Re:Uplift by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's a science fiction work based on the idea that human intelligence is due to ancient interference by a mysterious alien race
  Actually it's not that clear, in the series Humanity is often referred to as a "wolfling" species. It is unclear to all players on the Galactic scene if there was an unknown "uplifter" or Humanity is one of the rare exceptions in the Galaxy.
  This uncertainty always seemed like an allusion to human religious belief, most alien species are so convinced that it is actually impossible for a species to attain sapience without intervention that they'll even go to war over it. Intelligent Design anyone?
  Note that I am not suggesting that Brin is promoting intelligent design, I'm pointing out that most of the aliens in the series are as delusional as the religious types who refuse to accept the universe for what it is beyond their very narrow beliefs.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
4. Re:Uplift by erroneus · 2012-11-22 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the way the article says it, it rather gives in to the notion that the mutation isn't accidental and was both rather recent and abrupt.
  I have already read some theories into the idea that humans are genetically modified apes. That the mysteries of how the ancient Babylonian culture and languages seemed to appear from nothing into a fully complex form has left many very confused about how it all came about. That we are all the product of a "Stargate" style alien race who needed slave laborers doesn't seem as outlandish to me as "the earth was created in seven days." More interestingly, though, it actually connects in some ways to the god myth... you know, like "created in his own image" and all that?
  I wonder. If it was proven, beyond any reasonable doubt that we were created by genetic manipulation by a superior race, (created, not simply evolved) it would in a way prove the theists right. What I wonder is whether or not these theists would consider these superior beings to be gods or just advanced intelligence?
5. Re:Uplift by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 08:48 · Score: 3
  
  Pfft, who are you to judge their beliefs?
  I don't judge them, I also don't kill them. If you consider the past 2000 years of history, the same cannot be said for most religious groups. (Some more than others... like Christians....)
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
6. Re:Uplift by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You guys who constantly judge the actions of Christians of many years ago would do well to see how much worse the non-Christians were.
  Right, I keep forgetting, crimes against humanity are justified if you can find a worse one that you can blame on someone else, my mistake.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
7. Re:Uplift by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  The abruptness is pretty easy to figure out.
  By the time the ancient Babylonians figured out writing on stone, the rest had been pretty much figured out. This leaves no record of how they got there except for what stories they chisiled out.
8. Re:Uplift by H0p313ss · 2012-11-22 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  i was paraphrasing a quote from the books there actually. One of the requirements for recognition being that the species has renamed its planet according to certain criteria, one of which is that the name they choose no long means "dirt".
  Happy thanksgiving!
  I guess that in the 25+ years since I started reading the series I had forgotten that detail. :)
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
9. Re:Uplift by Doubting+Sapien · 2012-11-22 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Where have you been? For a long time already, men have had their hands in their jeans, fiddling with themselves. Whether or not that makes you a monkey is a point of disagreement among individuals of different cultural persuasions.
  
  --
  ========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
10. Re: Uplift by dreamchaser · 2012-11-22 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  No no, a monkey's your uncle!
  No, he's a monkey's distant cousin, and a closer cousin to apes.
11. Re:Uplift by CAIMLAS · 2012-11-22 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  You might be keen to realize that those who were less worse than Christians probably didn't survive long enough to reproduce for more than a couple generations. Christianity, then, appears to be a fairly resilient evolutionary belief system.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
12. Re:Uplift by Barryke · 2012-11-22 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  You forget that history forgets what it doesn't want to remember. The winner writes history.
  Historically, most literature hundred(s) year old we still know today was written down/saved from bookburnings by/for cristians.
  Accounts of the ugly side are fewer, but it happened. We/they terrorized millions of people in many countries worldwide with our crusades, raised armies to burn villages, and burned witches. Todays rise of other religious wars is a reflection of the cristian centuries a several hundred years ago. Truth is ugly, live with it.
  
  --
  Hivemind harvest in progress..
13. Re:Uplift by TheRaven64 · 2012-11-23 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Several things. First, Babylon didn't come from nothing. We have lots of prehistoric evidence of gradually increasing levels of civilisation (stone age, bronze age, iron age, and so on). Second, it doesn't seem too far fetched to assume that a writing system is either a product of, or a stimulator for, a large number of other social developments. To have writing, you need to have people who can dedicate enough of their lives to learning how to read and write, which means at least a degree of agriculture, so that people who don't hunt and gather still can eat. You need specialisation or roles within society, which means you also get various other trades appearing at the same time or earlier.
  Finally, it really wouldn't make sense from an to travel to another planet to collect slaves. You'd want slaves who can live in the same environment as you, and that are easy to feed, and that means that using something that evolved on your own planet would make sense. Even if you only took back fertilised ova, the energy cost of transportation would be huge. And, if you could build an interstellar spacecraft, you'd already have enough automation and energy control that using a hacked-up evolved life form to do would would be woefully inefficient.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
14. Re:Uplift by sumdumass · 2012-11-23 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  It would be considering the times were completely different 2000 years ago and using the moral standards of today creates a fallacy situation when you somehow attribute standards of now to past events. It is entirely proper to interpret events through the eyes of the participants of the events.
15. Re:Uplift by H0p313ss · 2012-11-23 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  It would be considering the times were completely different 2000 years ago and using the moral standards of today creates a fallacy situation when you somehow attribute standards of now to past events. It is entirely proper to interpret events through the eyes of the participants of the events.
  True, so let's start with the actions of the KKK in the past fifty years and work our way backwards from there.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
16. Re:Uplift by sumdumass · 2012-11-23 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  You can but I'm not sure what your point would be. The KKK of the last 50 years is a pretty docile organization compared to its' history and is largely neutered in its deeds. They are more talk then anything. You can't even make the GP's point about religious extremes as the modern KKK mostly uses science to back it's position instead of religious ideals.
17. Re:Uplift by Tracebooks · 2012-11-23 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you really want to go there, then you should be castigating all Norwegians and Danish for the ravages of the Vikings. And all Italians for the actions of the Roman army. And those are nations, with status conferred by birth. Many people who are Christians today have ancestors who weren't, and many of those past Christians have descendants today who aren't. So hold the hate speech, k?
To the anonymous submitter: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Why don't you link to the original article?
1. Re:To the anonymous submitter: by Spottywot · 2012-11-22 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't you link to the original article?
  Thanks AC, the original link was quite horrible.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
2. Re:To the anonymous submitter: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Why don't you link to the original article [nature.com]?"
  Most likely it's way too technical for today's /. average reader and editor.
3. Re:To the anonymous submitter: by RDW · 2012-11-22 08:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Most likely it's way too technical for today's /. average reader and editor.
  ...and probably because the conclusions of the paper have very little in common with the massively hyped version on medicaldaily.com. The original authors are much more cautious (and certainly don't claim that this is _the_ difference):
  "Taken together, the unusual features of miR-941 evolution, as well as its potential association with functions linked to human longevity and cognition, suggest roles of miR-941 in the evolution of human-specific phenotypes."
4. Re:To the anonymous submitter: by solanum · 2012-11-22 10:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Why isn't this modded up? It's the single most useful post to this story. I've just read the actual Nature article as the submitted link was indeed horrible (with flash video auto-starting to boot), and it makes none of the claims that that the submitted article or the summary make. It is still rather interesting though.
  
  --
  Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
5. Re:To the anonymous submitter: by Rutulian · 2012-11-23 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, TFS/TFS is terrible, and not at all an accurate description of TOR (the original research). For those too lazy to click the parent's link, here is the abstract of the article,
  
  MicroRNA-mediated gene regulation is important in many physiological processes. Here we explore the roles of a microRNA, miR-941, in human evolution. We find that miR-941 emerged de novo in the human lineage, between six and one million years ago, from an evolutionarily volatile tandem repeat sequence. Its copy-number remains polymorphic in humans and shows a trend for decreasing copy-number with migration out of Africa. Emergence of miR-941 was accompanied by accelerated loss of miR-941-binding sites, presumably to escape regulation. We further show that miR-941 is highly expressed in pluripotent cells, repressed upon differentiation and preferentially targets genes in hedgehog- and insulin-signalling pathways, thus suggesting roles in cellular differentiation. Human-specific effects of miR-941 regulation are detectable in the brain and affect genes involved in neurotransmitter signalling. Taken together, these results implicate miR-941 in human evolution, and provide an example of rapid regulatory evolution in the human linage.
  Now, I realize this might be a bit technical for the non-biologists. But suffice it to say, the article is about microRNA-mediated gene regulation (the first sentence). A microRNA is not the same thing as a gene. It is a regulatory RNA that influences transcription and post-transcriptional modification of SETS of genes. So in other words, a mutation event that resulted in the creation of a new microRNA resulted in changes in the regulation of genes linked to brain function, as well as some compensatory mutations that likely affected the extent of regulation of those and other genes by the microRNA.
Well, THAT explains my in-laws by igaborf · 2012-11-22 07:24 · Score: 2

We should be serving bananas for Thanksgiving!
1. Re:Well, THAT explains my in-laws by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-11-22 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Did you intend to insult your spouse, or was s/he just incidental damage?
I see why now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:27 · Score: 5, Funny

a group of baboons is called a Congress...
1. Re:I see why now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I don't know if that's right. A group of baboons can usually accomplish something.
2. Re:I see why now.. by Myopic · 2012-11-23 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a collective noun for "congressmen"? I proffer "baboon": a baboon of congressmen.
  These folks have some similar suggestions. These folks, too.
3. Re:I see why now.. by robsku · 2012-11-24 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  This is 0 and it's parent "5, Funny", really? Should be switched :)
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Misleading summary by Fwipp · 2012-11-22 07:28 · Score: 5, Informative

TFA makes it clear that it was a difference in this gene that _started_ the divergence, between 6 and 1 million years ago. TFS makes it sound like flipping one gene would produce chimpanzees rather than humans.
1. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The scientific paper makes no such hyperboleus claim as to have found the gene that started the divergence.
  "Taken together, the unusual features of miR-941 evolution, as well as its potential association with functions linked to human longevity and cognition, suggest roles of miR-941 in the evolution of human-specific phenotypes. "
  This is the strongest general claim the authors have in the article. Both the summary and the linked article are extremely misleading.
2. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  And I forgot, evolutionary its probably anyway different than a one gene change. It was probably a translocation that prevented further viable offspring. Prevention of viable offspring is an important step in speciisation.
3. Re:Misleading summary by Toutatis · 2012-11-22 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  I was thinking something similar. That separation is always expected to star by a single gene.
  This is like surprising at realizing that two branches of a tree are separated at the beginning by a single micron.
4. Re:Misleading summary by HiThere · 2012-11-22 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  While the don't claim it started the human divergence, they do leave it wide open to interpret as being the reason we grew large brains. Quite possibly the divergence had already happened, but the timing is about right for the gene to have appeared in Homo erectus. Or perhaps a bit earlier. That was not a species with a large brain. Perhaps other mutations were required to allow the skull size to expand.
  Caution: I am not an anthropoligist.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
5. Re:Misleading summary by HiThere · 2012-11-23 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I am skeptical. I said "appeared in Homo erectus", not "caused the appearance of Homo erectus". It doesn't appear early enough to have caused the divergence of Homo erectus. And it clearly didn't produce a large brain on it's own, as Homo erectus didn't have a large brain. It does, however, seem to increase the tendency of cells to divide, and it's particularly active in the brain (and switched off elsewhere). This tends to imply that it might be ONE of the causes of the neural proliferation in later species of genus Homo, but it clearly isn't sufficient in itself.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Uhh, Rise of the Planet of the Something-er-Others by mosel-saar-ruwer · 2012-11-22 07:28 · Score: 2

Meet "Chimp 9". We gave him a gene therapy...
Hum... by TheDarkMaster · 2012-11-22 07:33 · Score: 1

From TFA:

...The gene is highly active in the regions of the brain that control language learning and decision making, indicating that it may play a significant role in the higher brain functions that make humans, well, human.

Recalling my experience when trying to socialize with people so far, I believe this gene in a significant proportion of humanity works only partially...

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
The missing link between humans and republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:35 · Score: 1

Surely will be found soon!
1. Re:The missing link between humans and republicans by Grayhand · 2012-11-22 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Surely will be found soon!
  I have my doubts it'll ever be found. They did confirm the existence of Homo Moderatus, they are the missing link between Republicans and Democrats.
2. Re:The missing link between humans and republicans by ebcdic · 2012-11-22 09:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  From the point of view of the world outside America, Democrats are the missing link between humans and Republicans.
Now this really should get people to think about.. by 3seas · 2012-11-22 07:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

... what GMO food they eat....
Re:What about the "ape family"? by MightyMartian · 2012-11-22 07:44 · Score: 2

There are a helluva lot of complexities. I think many of the differences are not necessarily in the genes themselves, but in gene expression during fetal development. So while there may be a single gene that is different as it relates to neural development, you also have to factor in the whole developmental matrix involved. I would think just throwing this gene into a fertilized chimp egg probably isn't going to get you a near-human IQ chimp, and there are a whole host of factors surrounding gene expression during fetal brain development, which will almost certainly involve many other genes.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Research Suggests Trolls and Humans Separated by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:46 · Score: 1

Where on Slashdot did you find evidence of that smart gene, anyway?
Re:What about the "ape family"? by dissy · 2012-11-22 07:48 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm still not sure. For something as complex as both of us, a single gene being able to toggle between humans and apes sounds a bit simple.
Well yea, that's because you didn't read the article, and are ignoring all the many other genes that have been changed in the last 1-6 million years after this one first gene was changed.
Must be ... by pastafazou · 2012-11-22 08:00 · Score: 1

Gene Simmons they're talking about....
Re:BS by Randle_Revar · 2012-11-22 08:09 · Score: 1

*that

--
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Feel sorry for the first mutant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 08:11 · Score: 3, Funny

I always wonder at the first human to appear.
Looking terribly odd. No-one to talk to. Nothing to read. Nowhere to shop.
How bleak.
1. Re:Feel sorry for the first mutant by TapeCutter · 2012-11-22 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  All the other apes making fun because he was bald....no wonder we are a hostile species.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's the Y Chromosome! by 0xG · 2012-11-22 08:16 · Score: 1

If you have a Y, you're an ape!

--
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
1. Re:It's the Y Chromosome! by Brad1138 · 2012-11-22 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I am not sure how to label it, but primates lack the ability to build on achievements of previous generations. In a number of ways, they are as intelligent or more, than humans, but that is a real road block. If that gene covers that, it would make a lot of sense.
  
  --
  If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
2. Re:It's the Y Chromosome! by MightyMartian · 2012-11-22 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  There is evidence of some degree of cultural transmission in at least some primates, so you're not quite right there. And let us remember here that the evolution of humans since the first tool using apes was marked by toolkits that remained insanely stagnant for hundreds of thousands of years. I think the explanation is advanced language capacity. Without it, cultural transmission is crude and limited, and introducing innovations very unreliable. Once you have language, you have a means of communicating accurately and articulately not just existing knowledge, but also innovations. If other primates had language skills near as ours, even if other cognitive abilities weren't as strong, I think you would likely see that sort of innovation spread through such a population.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The shopping gene by Grayhand · 2012-11-22 08:17 · Score: 1

It's the genetic drive to buy useless shit you don't really need. Humans that lack this drive are actually less evolved but better at handling their own money.
Not a "single gene" by nomad-9 · 2012-11-22 08:38 · Score: 5, Informative

The article is crock. Scientists didn't pretend that "all the difference humans and apes comes down to a single gene", they stated that they discovered a new brain gene that is unique to humans .and they are hopeful to find more of the same to help explain what makes us who we are.

They don''t even say that this gene was the "first" and sprang all the others. All they are saying is that it played a significant role in human evolution, and that it appeared from junk DNA after humans evolved from apes.

Being unique to humans, and being the one and only single difference between humans and apes, are two different things. One is a scientific statement and the other is typical media sensationalist drivel.
1. Re:Not a "single gene" by rodarson2k · 2012-11-22 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  miRNAs are not genes.
2. Re:Not a "single gene" by Giftmacher · 2012-11-23 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, I'm definitely not a fan of calling miRNA genes (even in a genomic context). I've seen a few people refer to RNA genes or non-coding RNA genes, but the nomenclature is still somewhat in flux. Whatever the case, use of the word "gene" without a qualifier definitely implies a protein product IMPO, which is a bit sloppy.
I'm not so sure ... by PPH · 2012-11-22 08:53 · Score: 2

... its even one gene.
I'll give it some more thought after the NFL games are over today.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:nonsense. by viperidaenz · 2012-11-22 09:14 · Score: 1

What actually separates all other races from Africans is beastiality. Sex with the Neanderthals. All Europeans contain between 2 and 5% Neanderthal DNA. They lived in the northern continents for millions of years before us and were not as intelligent as African humans. The Africans came in, did a little cross breeding and wiped them out in a few tens of thousands of years.
Re:What about the "ape family"? by physicsphairy · 2012-11-22 09:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Clearly, the gene in question is the "read the article" gene, which allowed proto-humans to begin amassing knowledge instead of just mindlessly stating opinions.
However, it sometimes is deactivated. Humans without this gene can continue to access many of their other advancements, but they do revert into being simple code monkeys and posting on slashdot.

--
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Re:Homosexual Ape FleshLight With Real Ape Sounds! by TapeCutter · 2012-11-22 09:28 · Score: 1

Carlin was a comedian and an absolute master with language. His comedy works because there is a grain of truth in it, but if he were alive today I'm sure he would be shaking his head in disbelief at all the people who now think his work is revealed truth.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:It's all about the mirrors... by TapeCutter · 2012-11-22 09:40 · Score: 1

Apes recognize themselves in a mirror and spend much more than 5 seconds examining themselves. However they don't do it every day because they just don't care about make-up and razors.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I suppose this is the equivalent... by ameline · 2012-11-22 09:47 · Score: 1

I suppose this is the equivalent of flinging poop at y'all...
I wonder how long it will be before someone tries splicing this into a chimp or great ape genome and see what happens... :-)

--
Ian Ameline
Re:BS by toriver · 2012-11-22 09:47 · Score: 1

No, bovines (bulls) are even further removed from humans than primates are. But perhaps you belong to the select few who feel that a bunch of nomads sitting around a camp fire three thousand years ago with no concept of genetics had all the answers...
Re:Homosexual Ape FleshLight With Real Ape Sounds! by UltraZelda64 · 2012-11-22 13:01 · Score: 1

A "grain"? I think there's a hell of a lot more truth to what he said than most people are willing to admit. More "truth" than I've ever heard from any Christians (and they by far make up the majority), that's for sure. I've always agreed with a lot of the things he said. He said things how it is, while no one else had the balls to do it, out of fear of "upsetting" someone.
Humans aren't apes? by jedwidz · 2012-11-22 13:17 · Score: 1

I'm shocked that humans aren't considered apes.
1. Re:Humans aren't apes? by guruevi · 2012-11-22 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Humans are considered primates, simians, hominidae (great apes) and of the genus homo which in itself has ~15 species (most extinct, homo sapiens sapiens being the only extant species in "modern times" - the last roughly 100,000 years). For the first half of our species existence we had about 5 other species (the 3 major erectus, neanderthal and rhodesiensis) of the genus homo to contend with which we potentially/intermittently/allegedly interbred with and eventually caused them to be non extant.
  Although recently (last 100 years or so) we have seen a new parasitic homo sapiens species develop - homo sapiens jurisconsultus which seems to want to extinguish all progress made on the evolutionary ladder by homo sapiens sapiens.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:nonsense. - ah, a racist asshole by rubycodez · 2012-11-22 16:51 · Score: 1

neanderthals weren't beasts, they were archcaic humans, with language, advanced tools, art and complex social groups. It is racist of you to make a claim of "beastiality"
Re:BS by Randle_Revar · 2012-11-22 17:09 · Score: 1

No see, I am intelligent, which is why I damn well know that you can't pin the differences or even the fundamental differences between other apes and humans on one gene. The gene seems to be very influential, but "separated by a single gene"? Bullshit.

--
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
The Gene where apes and humanity meet is... by leftie · 2012-11-22 17:12 · Score: 1

... Gene Simmons
Not even close to accurate head line by Giftmacher · 2012-11-22 21:25 · Score: 1

The actual paper is here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/full/ncomms2146.html It's talking about miRNA *not* genes, nor does the paper claim or support the notion this is the single defining difference between humans and apes. For those who don't know, not all of our RNA encodes cellular machinery. Some RNA molecules regulate whether other RNA molecules go on to make a functional protein, this paper is describing a class of regulatory RNA that may act on many hundreds of targets. (To quote from the Discussion: "birth of a novel miRNA might influence expression of hundreds of genes"). In this instance, some of the targets regulated by this new miRNA are neural so it appears to be a very significant finding. It's a very interesting paper, utterly over-egged by the headlines. I suspect a dodgy press release/over excited journalists.
Dress code? by jandersen · 2012-11-22 22:18 · Score: 1

So, since genes come in pairs, this is about a pair of genes? As I always suspected, the real difference is in the trouser department, then.
Actually it's not a gene, it's a micro RNA. by Voxol · 2012-11-23 01:10 · Score: 1

Actually it's not a gene, it's a micro RNA.
A gene is like a blueprint for a protein. This a chunk of DNA that encodes and RNA which in turn up and down regulates other genes. It's not a great metaphor but you might think of it as like the scaffolding used to build a house rather than the blueprints.
Humans ARE apes. by Max_W · 2012-11-23 01:39 · Score: 1

Humans did not evolved from monkeys. Humans are just of of the many kinds of monkeys.
It is just a monkey that learned to put down thoughts on papyrus, clay tablets, papers, electronic display. etc.
This is it. It is the state of the science on this.
One thing you can always count on... by DoctorBonzo · 2012-11-23 03:22 · Score: 1

is that the popular press will overhype scientific results to the point of meaninglessness.

"Medical Daily" now counts as popular press in my book.
Re:See, God DID have a plan! (flamebait) by lpq · 2012-11-23 04:40 · Score: 1

If this wasn't a flamebait answer, I don't know what what...
chromosome 2? by WillgasM · 2012-11-23 05:12 · Score: 1

I thought human's divergent evolution from other primates was largely caused by the merging of two chromosomes. That's why we have 23 and all other great apes have 24. That seems like a fairly definitive difference.
Re:What about the "ape family"? by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-11-23 09:32 · Score: 1

You know who I am talking about, the family who have an overly-grown fur on them through several generations.
Is that just a chance mutation relating to hair? Or something deeper?
Chance mutation. Possibly not even a mutation, just part of the random gene mixing that happens in everyone. Vestigial traits are suppressed and then are repressed in individuals basically at random. If a trait has little affect on a person's survival or reproduction it may tag along in a for an indefinite length of time in a gene pool.
For example, I can't grow a beard and I shave my face about every 3 or 4 days. When I was 18 I shaved once a week because after about 7 days I had 5 0-clock shadow. It's a trait that generally runs on my dad's side of the family, but it skipped him. My father can grow a beard normally. Somehow, whatever gene combination that suppresses facial hair growth is suppressed in him but expressed in me.
Another fun item is to see if you have a Palmaris Longus tendon. http://voices.yahoo.com/palmaris-longus-tendon-yours-single-double-absent-7878310.html I have one in my left wrist but none in my right. For years I wondered if there was something wrong with one of my wrists in that my tendon structure didn't match.
Re:See, God DID have a plan! (Poe's Law) by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-11-23 09:42 · Score: 1

Or, it is an example of Poe's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Or your post is...
I'm not sure about anything anymore...
Re:nonsense. - ah, a racist asshole by viperidaenz · 2012-11-25 08:07 · Score: 1

It's the correct term. They're a different species, separated by millions of years of evolution.
Re:nonsense. - ah, a racist asshole by viperidaenz · 2012-11-25 08:08 · Score: 1

Tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. Like, 30,000ish