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?"
Wrong assumptions and wrong gene (Score:1, Interesting)
geneticists' time estimates for this gene (Score:2, Interesting)
It sounds to me like they completely pulled these numbers out of their hats, especially the estimate of the time it took this allele to replace the previously dominant one(s). How could they possibly know what this number would be?
They talk about this gene as if there are no other alleles other than those possessed by the non-talking family etc. Are there? This would help me believe (or not) their estimate of when the beneficial mutation occurred. But if there is only one very (completely) dominant form of this gene, how would they measure the age of it? How can these scientists realisticly weigh its genetic advantage? The family in England with the mutant copy; do they have the same version of this gene that is possessed by chimps? (This is the unlikely case, and the interesting one. The chimp version may have been the previously dominant version.) Or do they just have some random, harmful mutation of it? (This is the likely case, and less interesting in gauging the importance of this gene.)
Details, I want details.
Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole book is erroneous. It's blantly obvious that evolution happens, no intelligent creationist denies that. To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.
They don't argue that spontaneous speciation doesn't happen, they deny evolution in general.
To satisy your Christian mind, however, I will quote parts of the book and make my arguement more specific.
The book is "Earth Science for Christian Schools"
The theme basically is to discredit science. It was written in 1979.
Quotes
"Erosion is wearing away the continents -- an example of degeneration in nature"
"Even the most powerful electron microscope are unable to let us see the inside of an atom. What scientist would pass up an opportunity to look inside a neutron or electron? However there is presently no way to see these things, and many doubt there ever will be"
"Through a rapid series of miracles, God created a mature, fully-functioning earth ready for man's use."
"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"
"Evolution did not develop from modern science. Evolutionary philosophy can be traced back to the Greeks of the Sixth Century"
"Comets break up to form meteors, an example of degeneration in nature"
"A store that loses money to some of it's customers and breaks even on the rest can never nake a profit. Similarly natural processes of conservation and degeneration cannot combine to produce an improvement"
The next interesting section is on Geology.
They basically attempt to assert that the Creation, the Curse, and the Flood happened, and provide "evidence" as such. They point to the existance of "Fossil Graveyards" as proof of the Flood. They also attempt to discredit all methods of dating ancient materials. They admit their science isn't science with one like that sums up the whole book:
"The Bible is the source of truth for Christians"
They start with what the Bible says and then they shape their "science" to fit it. This is not science.
Re:Um... I havn't taken a biology class lately (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is quite bizarre; science is the study of what is and was and will be. From a Christian perspective, God has created all that there is and was and will be. So for a Christian to attempt to explain away our observation of God's creation seems awfully backwards to me.
As a Christian, I'm frequently annoyed at what lengths some other Christians will go in an attempt to artificially substantiate what they believe. I believe what I believe as a result of what I see and know; not as a result of what I'd like to see or have been told to believe. A Christian who fears science is a Christian who is unable to trust God.
Re:Next they find the gene for understanding math (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at Susan Blackmore's _The_Meme_Machine_, or _The_Mating_Mind_ by Geoffrey Miller for instance. Essentially, the claim is that higher vocal capacity would allow higher communication abilities. That is a major advantage, which would explain killing off/out-reproducing the non-mutants. But then, over the course of the next say...10k years, the advantages of being able to communicate more clearly become more and more pronounced...hence an arms race for clarity of communication--once the mouth works well enough, then the brain evolution towards language (Pinker's stuff is interesting here) has a reasonable chance of following.
Vocal cords + Big brains drive evolution of culture, and of the mental capability to run slashdot.
--K
veggie time (Score:2, Interesting)
maybe green peace activists will resequence (insert animal that is being exploited here)s dna to talk etc. as an act of... activism... could happen? maybe?
Re:Rediculous claim and theory (Score:0, Interesting)
If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn't each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn't at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don't apply, I am talking physical, not social development.
As you can plainly see, I don't believe in the evolutionary "work-around". I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.
As for the dinosaur bones, they weren't planted to confuse mankind. That is not God's way. Besides, that would border on the dishonest, and God cannot lie. And since (if you take into account Biblical and secular histories) the earth is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old, evolution and guided evolution doesn't work. Also there would not have been millions of years for dinosaurs to exist before man. So various day-age theories about the 7 days of creation don't fit. So what's left? Dinosaurs had to have co-existed with man. In the book of Job, two creatures are described that perfectly fit with a land-based dinosaur and a dragon-like, fire-breathing, sea monster (dinosaur). Plus, there are ancient drawings in caves in the Grand Canyon that depicts men and dinosaur-like beings together. As far as I know, these races of people did not draw things that they did not see. Where did they all go? Our scientists and archaeologists have claimed that only a global disaster could have wiped out so many of these creatures. Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?
Anyway, I could go on for hours, but since by now, most of you are flaming mad or getting bored with this post, I will stop. If you are interested in trying to find out more about any of this, then check out this site [apologeticspress.org]. Dr. Bert Thompson is a brilliant man who has devoted most of his life to the study of scientific "fact" versus Biblical "fact".
Music Gene? Did We Evolve to Like Music? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is it about appreciating music that is evolutionary important? Does loving music make one more fit for survival? If not, where are the music-insensitive humanoid species? Why were they wiped out if they ever existed? Was it war? Di the music lovers kill off the others? Is there something about a mutated music-loving gene that makes some of us violent and want to kill off non-music lovers?
Re:Rediculous claim and theory (Score:3, Interesting)
If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn?t each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn?t it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn?t at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don?t apply, I am talking physical, not social development.
Archaeopteryx is a bird with teeth and a lizard-like tail. That sounds like an intermediate between evolutionary stages to me. Also, a very small percentage of animals are fossilized, and a smaller percentage of that have been discovered so far. Intermediate stages are rarer still, considering Gould's punctuated equalibrium. So it isn't unusual that we don't have a complete record of every developmental stage of an animals evolutionary development.
As for humans being at different stages of evolution, until recently, (30,000 years ago) that was the case. But humans at our stage killed or out-competed the rest. Because that's the way evolution works. Survival of the fitest.
I'm not sure what you meant about each Entity being at its own stage of evolution. Evolution isn't like a pre-planned route with certain pre-planned stages to reach the "top stage" or anything like that. Essentially the rule is "Whatever survives survives." Simple as that. You need a population of a certain size with genes similar enough so that they can reproduce with each other. Scientist call them "species".
Relgious babble (Score:3, Interesting)
People using this argument aren't looking for missing links, they are looking for a frigging family tree.
And people who use this argument don't understand how unlikely fossilisation is. To be fossilised an animal not only had to die (a fairly likely occurence), it had to die in such a way that it's bones weren't exposed to the elements, scavengers, bacteria etc. The chances are one in millions if not billions. So yes, it's quite likely a whole group of animals lived and died without leaving a single identifiable fossil. And I think that religion exists because most people can't believe that life is as pointless as it is. You live, you breed (maybe), you die. Deal with it. No comment necessary I don't think. Ahhh, you've hit on something that real science has gone to work on. There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the great flood actually happened. Except it wasn't a world wide disaster, it didn't even happen to the ancestors of the Jews and there was no ark. It is most likely the flooding of the Black Sea after the last ice age. When all the ice melted, sea levels rose which left the black sea (which was then fresh water) seperated from the Mediterainian sea by a high dam of mountains. Eventually these gave way and flooded the black sea. The people who fled this kept the stories and became the Assyrians. The Jews got the story from them.Not exactly a world wide disaster but a good example of how an actual event becomes "biblical".
That is not research. Research requires you come up with a theory that fits with the evidence and then find more evidence to see if it's correct. If it's not then you throw out the theory and find a new one that better fits with the evidence. Christian "Science" works on the presumption that the bible is correct and then finds evidence to "prove" it. Thing is you can prove anything correct if you ignore enough of the evidence. No, something somebody wrote in a book a couple of thousand years ago cannot explain away the massive body of evidence to support evolution.