Research Suggests Apes and Humans Separated By a Single Gene 243
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."
Uh huh. (Score:5, Funny)
And some are separated by less.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I was gonna says it's the Hy-gene, but ...you're right.
Damn smelly geeks
Re:Uh huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Oook?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to know what you consider witty. The banter before WWF matches? Videos on YouTube of dogs eating their own shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Ook, ook!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
After watching human beings for over 3 decades, that gene is rare. Very rare.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, 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 c
Re:Uh huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh huh. (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.
Re:Uh huh. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the scientific theory of eugenics. It was all the craze less then a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
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 rec
Re:Uh huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Metric, or Imperial?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 [urbandictionary.com].
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..
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
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"?
Re: (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"?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The gene position, of course, is (Score:2)
Re:The gene position, of course, is (Score:4, Funny)
To be pedantic, there are actually a pair of genes at that location.
Uhh, Rise of the Planet of the Something-er-Others (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:The gene position, of course, is (Score:5, Insightful)
Gorillas such as Koko [wikipedia.org], when taught sign language are scary smart, even without the gene.
Re: (Score:3)
No, all of Japans trans species genetic experiments involve actual physical breeding. Just ask the squid monster.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's ask Japan, they have probably already done some work towards catgirls.
I am intrigued, please post further details immediately.
Re:The gene position, of course, is (Score:5, 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.
Re:The gene position, of course, is (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"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).
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't realize that you were a man of the cloth.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Didn't realize that you were a man of the cloth.
501? Man of the cloth? Are we talking about Levis?
Re: (Score:2)
Man of Cloth is the colloquial idiom for a priest.
Movies of interest: "Contact" (Jodie Foster), "The Mission" (Robert De Niro)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think it must be 42.
Uplift (Score:5, 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.)
Re: Uplift (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'll be a monkeys uncle!
Re: (Score:2)
No no, a monkey's your uncle!
No, he's a monkey's distant cousin, and a closer cousin to apes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uplift (Score:5, 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.
Re:Uplift (Score:4)
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....)
Re:Uplift (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. :)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
To the anonymous submitter: (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you link to the original article [nature.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you link to the original article [nature.com]?
Thanks AC, the original link was quite horrible.
Re:To the anonymous submitter: (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."
Re:To the anonymous submitter: (Score:4, 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.
Well, THAT explains my in-laws (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you intend to insult your spouse, or was s/he just incidental damage?
I see why now.. (Score:5, Funny)
a group of baboons is called a Congress...
Re:I see why now.. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know if that's right. A group of baboons can usually accomplish something.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a collective noun for "congressmen"? I proffer "baboon": a baboon of congressmen.
These folks [all-sorts.org] have some similar suggestions. These folks [hintsandthings.co.uk], too.
Misleading summary (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.
Re:Misleading summary (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
This is like surprising at realizing that two branches of a tree are separated at the beginning by a single micron.
Hum... (Score:2)
Recalling my experience when trying to socialize with people so far, I believe this gene in a significant proportion of humanity works only partially...
Now this really should get people to think about.. (Score:2, Insightful)
... what GMO food they eat....
Must be ... (Score:2)
Feel sorry for the first mutant (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.
Re: (Score:2)
The shopping gene (Score:2)
Not a "single gene" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I'm not so sure ... (Score:3)
I'll give it some more thought after the NFL games are over today.
I suppose this is the equivalent... (Score:2)
I wonder how long it will be before someone tries splicing this into a chimp or great ape genome and see what happens... :-)
Humans aren't apes? (Score:2)
I'm shocked that humans aren't considered apes.
Re: (Score:2)
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 re
The Gene where apes and humanity meet is... (Score:2)
... Gene Simmons
Dress code? (Score:2)
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.
Humans ARE apes. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:What about the "ape family"? (Score:5, 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.
Re:What about the "ape family"? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
*that
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The missing link between humans and republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
From the point of view of the world outside America, Democrats are the missing link between humans and Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 acc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:nonsense. - ah, a racist asshole (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:See, God DID have a plan! (flamebait) (Score:2)
If this wasn't a flamebait answer, I don't know what what...