Mutant Gene Responsible for Speech? 645
An anonymous submitter writes: "A new study published in Nature reports that humans developed speech and language 200,000 years ago as a result of gene mutation. Washington Post story with more background. The mutation in the FOXP2 gene allowed humans greater control over their mouth and throat muscles, and gave them the ability to produce new sounds. It was apparently such an advantageous mutation that it quickly swept through the human population (10,000 - 20,000 years) almost entirely wiping out earlier versions. This development seems to also match up closely with the time period humans began developing culture. Researchers next want to try altering the gene in mice to see what happens, although they suspect there are many other genes involved. So, how long until I can get a talking dog?"
Talking Dog (Score:3, Informative)
So, how long until I can get a talking dog?
Ooh, maybe 10,000 - 20,000 years?
Well, maybe not that long, but still... quite a while.
Michael
According to Discovery Channle (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily. Most evolution happens by survival of the strongest (or fittest). The best individuals survive and pass on their genes.
Gene mutations are random events. They add something new, something unexpected to the gene pool. Most of the time, the mutation is harmful, the individual dies, and the mutation is not handed on to the next generation. But sometimes, something good will result, making the gene pool stronger.
Humans might have developed their speech skills just by slow development (the ape that grunts loudest gets to pick its mate or something). This study suggests that there was a great leap in evolution, due to the mutation, and that relatively few genes control a major part of the throat muscles.
Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math (Score:2, Informative)
Not for certain yet (Score:5, Informative)
may have played a central role in the development of modern humans' ability to speak
could have given them a critical advantage
may at least partly explain why humans can speak and animals cannot
The
The confusing part to me is the fact that gorillas obviously have language ability, as seen in Koko [koko.org], a gorilla that is able sign. So the mutation in this gene does not determine whether a species has the capacity for language or not, perhaps it only determines the proficiency in language.
NPR (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Most geneticists don't really believe that... (Score:2, Informative)
Genes do a number of things. Most genes that we understand fairly well function for coding proteins - the macromolecular machines that do almost everything in the cell (determine, maintain, and change structure of the cell; catalyse chemical reactions; regulate processes; etc...). Genes that do this are _relatively_ easy to understand, as we can usually observe where the protein is and what it interacts with. Quite a few genes serve as regulators for the transcription of protein-encoding genes. For each protein-encoding gene, there may be a dozen or more regulator genes. These regulators can have either a positive or negative effect on the transcription, so the rate at which the protein-coding gene is transcribed depends on the sum of the influences of the regulators (which themselves are also regulated). The vast mojority of mammalian genes that have been identified have unknown functions. The gene described here could be protein-encoding. It could be a regulator. It could be a developmental gene that starts a cascade of regulators during fetal development.
A genome is not analogous to a blueprint, as is comonly thought. That's actually quite a poor analogy. A better analogy is that individual genes are like congressman in the House of Representatives. They bicker and fight sometimes and work together other times. It is mainly the sum of their actions that we observe, not the idivudual debates and compromises. We can only conjecture about those.
Re: Isn't that evolution? (Score:3, Informative)
> It's a theory... just like this story. If you begin to automatically take theory for fact, you are a fool.
Too bad the theory exists for the sole purpose of explaining the facts. Creationists like to sing the "It's Just A Theory" hymn, but it's the facts that disprove creationism. The theory replaced creationism because we needed something that actually fit the facts.
Re:Koko doesn't have language (Score:4, Informative)
No primate has signed a sentence longer than 3 signs, it is true. But hand signs aren't the only thing they're testing. There's another group of chimp researchers who use a button pushing mechanism.
Anyhow, the point is, one dumb chimp doesn't collapse the theory. It's far more compelling to me that these high level animals could understand some basic emotions and drives and assign a label for those concepts than to accept that they are complete automata, lacking comprehension of any ability.
So, I demand more proof than a one-off experiment with one chimp to prove the research is off-base.
For reference, you can read my paper here: http://arrakeen.dynodns.net/paper.pdf
-l