Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Genetic Mutations Allowed Humans To Be Artistic 433

Posted by Hemos from the changing-the-playing-field dept.
Makarand writes "Most anthropologists believe that the transformations which allowed humans to think and behave in a recognisably modern fashion happened gradually and were a result of demographic and cultural changes. However, according to an expert on human origins at Stanford University these transformations have a biological explanation and were not gradual. According to his theory 50,000 years ago genetic mutations resulted in a creativity gene that led to the development of the modern mind and started a cultural revolution by triggering biological changes in the brain and vastly improving the human ability to communicate. Evidence in support of such a theory has been found in the form of FOXP2, a gene proven to affect the ability of learning and processing language and which in its mutated form can result in speech and language impediments. Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetic Mutations Allowed Humans To Be Artistic More

Genetic Mutations Allowed Humans To Be Artistic

Comments Filter:

  • Tweaking the genome (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SteveAstro ( 209000 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:20AM (#5318430)
    Anybody remember the Arthur C Clarke stories with chimps with tweaked genomes. Rendezvous with Rama had one I think.

    Here we go again, from impossible to obvious in one generation.

    Steve

  • So did John Lennon or DaVinci have stronger genes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:23AM (#5318440)
    Could an "average" human be made more creative with gene therapy? Or enviroment still the important variable

    • Re:So did John Lennon or DaVinci have stronger gen (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:29AM (#5318665) Homepage Journal
      Maybe you can ensure that your children could be more creative, but I don't think a living person can be made more creative with gene therapy. That genes should have some influence on how the brain develops itself, or at least, the hemisfere related to creativity.

      For a grown up adult I suppose that only can be done with brain surgery (something more like what happens in "Flowers for Algernon") or maybe some "intelligent" drug. And, well, for children and not so young the environment, of course.

    • Brain overclocking looks quite tricky (Score:5, Informative)

      by ab762 ( 138582 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @09:49AM (#5319078) Homepage

      Way too many Star Trek episodes not withstanding, messing with an adult's genes is not going to restructure existing tissues. For example, a gene for longer bones won't make you grow taller, because your bones have already stopped growing. A gene for more body hair won't make you hairier, because what the gene really does is controls the development of follicles in the fetus.

      Some gene therapies for diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, work (or will work) because the tissues involved - lung tissue - have substantial continuous growth. Others work at the single protein level, sometimes creating a de facto extra organ in the form of altered cells or symbiotic bacteria. Some can be reapplied to active or inactivate existing structures. (Some male pattern baldness could be treated.)

      Recently, we've seen that the brain retains stem cells, but to upgrade your brain (or mine), we'd need to:

      • rework the genes in the brain stem cells
      • remove some brain tissue (to make room)
      • get the stem cells to regenerate upgraded brain
      • provide therapy to train the new brain tissue to work

      There's a couple of good SF novels in that ... of course, Bruce Sterling's Holy Fire has already covered a good deal of this territory.

      • Seems like the common solution in Sci-Fi is create/modify a virus that would make the changes. It doesn't sound to far from reality if we consider that we have the know how to modify these genes then we would have the know how to modify a virus to modify us. I can't remember any particular episode in TNG that did something like this, but I think I remember a few in Voyager that did this. Of course if Voyager had the idea, then it's probably impossible anyways.

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:24AM (#5318443)
    No wonder my army of monkeys haven't been writing anything worthwhile

    http://www.detroitluv.com

  • Funniest talk.origins joke evar!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:25AM (#5318446)
    A guy goes to a zoo and sees a gorilla with two books. The gorilla looks confused. One of the books is the Bible, the other Darwin. The guy asks the gorilla why he looks confused. The gorilla says "I can't figure out if I'm my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother!"

  • Breaking news! (Score:4, Funny)

    by borgdows ( 599861 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:31AM (#5318461)
    RIAA is trying to patent the 'artistic gene' !

  • it's language you moron (Score:3, Funny)

    by the_pooh_experience ( 596177 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:35AM (#5318469)
    best quote of the article:

    A study last year indicated that FOXP2 evolved "some time between last Tuesday and 200,000 years ago"

    no... really.

  • In related news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TrixX ( 187353 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:37AM (#5318477) Journal
    ...a black monolith of 1x4x9 dimensions has been found in Africa.

  • Creative mutants? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Garg ( 35772 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:41AM (#5318486) Homepage
    The newest X-Man... Kreativ!

    With the power to think outside the box!

    Garg
  • Terrence McKenna and others have postulated that the consumption of psychedelic mushrooms during the period around 50,000 years catalyzed the great leap from being near animal to accquiring language, technology and culture that we associate with humanity today.

    It would be very interesting to determine if the mutated FOXP2 gene and/or others involved in learning have an effect on the way a human or chimpanzee utilizes psyllocybin.

    It may very well be that the mutation was a natural selection among the hominids who consumed the psyllocybin-containing mushrooms.

    • That would also explain why LSD (ergot) and psyllocybin are so safe.

      There's also the legend of a bread like mushroom that makes urine red (think water into wine).

      Was Jesus a drug dealer?

    • Re:Psychedelic Logos (Score:2, Informative)

      by solidox ( 650158 )
      i've listened to some of McKenna's stuff and it's quite intresting. i agree with what he says, evolution and "intellegence" could of been caused by hallucinogens. the possibility of an animal eating some mushrooms and becoming self aware is more than credible. the question is... will the next stage in human evolution come around as the result of hallucinogenics? McKenna has certainly hinted towards and experienced mushrooms causing ESP. how long will it be until humans evolve into a higher form and ESP becomes common place among all, another 50,000 years perhaps?

      • Re:Psychedelic Logos (Score:2, Insightful)

        by julesh ( 229690 )
        McKenna has certainly hinted towards and experienced mushrooms causing ESP

        But usually only when its the 'observer' of the ESP experiment taking them.

        'Wow - how did you know he was going to do ... that... I think you must be psychichic...'
      • I don't know if I buy all of this. Certainly I think that the case for what is commonly called "ESP" is inconclusive at best, and certainly no double-blind test has ever confirmed the ability in normal or "chemically enhanced" individuals. That said, if you define the term a little more generally, perhaps call it "altered sensory perception," which may include the ability to hear higher or lower frequencies, or view a greater spectrum of light waves, or perhaps even "tune in" to certain ideas which might exist in some sort of "noosphere" -- I think there might be a reasonable case here.

      • Psychedelic timeline (Score:3, Interesting)

        by whig ( 6869 )
        I think it's also worth realizing how quickly our knowledge of "hallucinogens" has expanded recently. While primitive societies long used such things as "magic mushrooms" they were actually not (re)discovered by Western researchers until lately.

        60 years ago, the central activity of LSD was discovered by Hoffman. It was only after this that lysergic amides were realized to be present in morning glory seeds. DMT was first synthesized about ten years before that, and later realized to be present in many plants and even animal and human brains (yes, some argue this makes your brain illegal). Salvia divinorum was used traditionally for hundreds of years, but salvinorin was only really isolated and identified as the active principle about ten years ago, and its mechanism of action discovered as recently as last year.

        If it is true that these substances can lead to an evolution of consciousness, then can you imagine what sorts of changes could occur in the next hundred years?

        (Of course, if you really buy into McKenna's ideas, maybe I should say, in the next 10 years....)
      • I personally think ESP is mostly people assigning
        significance to coincidences and sometime fraud.
        Yet even if you assume that ESP in some form
        exists, it is highly doubious that it is an
        evolutionary advantage, or that being having it
        are in any way superior to regular humans.
        Different - yes, superior - says who?
        The one ability that would really make a huge
        change for the better is better complexity
        management. Simply having the brain wired to
        hold more information and be able to analyze more
        info at once. Right now a human cannot do the
        simplest things like visualize something like a
        DNA molecule on an atomic level. As a scientist
        I often see people put forth a theory which
        eventually gets shot down due to an unphysical
        complication. A member of a superior race would
        be able to see many more consequences from the
        get go. And speaking of Go, a superior race
        should be able to beat humans easily in a game
        where complexity management is key. Compared to
        this advantage, ESP pales in comparison.
        • what about in physical combat? Knowing where your opponent is striking will help you avoid it. Depending on the strength of the ESP, knowing when and where your opponent is pulling the trigger or pushing the button will help you counter. Just a thought.

          psxndc

      • Whenever I get real drunk I feel like I have this connection with everybody. It's like I feel this bond with my friends like we are brothers or something. Damn your on to something!

    • Re:Psychedelic Logos (Score:3, Informative)

      by Speed88 ( 135645 )
      links:

      http://members.aol.com/discord23/mckenna.htm [aol.com]

      the Mckenna book "Food of the Gods"

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553371304/ ref%3Dsim%5Fbooks/103-2380334-3906266 [amazon.com]

      a review

      http://cerebrex.com/bkfog.htm [cerebrex.com]

      and the fusion anomaly

      http://fusionanomaly.net/evolution.html [fusionanomaly.net]

      more on Mckenna from lycaeum

      http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/McKenna/ [lycaeum.org]

    • Burning Bush, too (Score:3, Interesting)

      by whig ( 6869 )
      Much of Western civilization clearly followed from the teachings of Moses, following his encounter with a burning bush, supposedly an Acacia. It is known that many Acacias contain the potent hallucinogenic substance dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is active when smoked and inhaled. Could it be that this is how Moses "found God?"

      Sadly, those wishing to partake of similar transformational experiences today are prohibited by law from doing so. Both psilocybin and DMT are Schedule 1 drugs in the United States, and illegal in most other jurisdictions as well. This is despite a lack of evidence of addiction or physical harm caused by these substances.

    • Re:Psychedelic Logos (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ubrayj02 ( 513476 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:41AM (#5318712) Homepage Journal
      I cannot believe that this has been modded up to 5, Informative. Our ancestors ate magic mushrooms and so developed a capacity for language and sophisticated technology?! Please!

      I didn't go to grad school, but I did get a bachelors degree in Anthropology - and I like to think that I am pretty well read in the field. I can guarantee that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence linking proto-humans, or physically modern humans, to any sort of psychedelic chemical that facilitated brain development. The material evidence does not exist.

      Further, I don't see how a single class of substances can be linked to brain development. There are a whole host of chemicals in the human body, the consumption of which is evolutionarily invisible. Why should magic mushrooms be so special?

      This post, and this theory, sound more like an attempt to fit any Associated-Press level ideas to a world-view that embraces drug use. Anthropology has been littered with things like this for generations (e.g. social darwinism, innate criminality, race, skull volume=intelligence, aquatic evolution, and the list goes on). I say, take your agenda elsewhere.
      • Yep, I pretty much agree, polus the idea that a non-mutagenic chemical would alter someone (And their descendents) genetic code is absurd.
        Now, radioactive mushrooms.....
        Will create a 50-ft tall super human! (if 50's era sci-fi flicks have taught me anything)
      • Well thank you for your insight. With your bachelor's degree in Anthropology, nobody should doubt that you know precisely how cultures did or did not evolve. For instance, I'm sure there is also no truth to the idea that bread was invented as a byproduct of discovering fermentation to produce psychoactive (alcoholic) beverages.

        Drugs are bad, m'kay? Except for legal drugs. Those are ok. Wait, when alcohol was illegal, it wasn't ok. When cocaine was legal, I guess it was ok. Or maybe anything that affects the mind or body should be illegal. Like, food, for instance.

        What is a drug, exactly?

      • Re:Psychedelic Logos (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bodrius ( 191265 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @10:29AM (#5319318) Homepage
        Actually, the motivation for the bias may be what you claim, but the error seems to a rather common, and completely unconscious, misunderstanding of causal relationships. The same kind that makes people believe in astrology, telepathy or what-have-you because of a single unrepeated coincidence in their life.

        It's rather likely that psychedelics were present, and influential, in the birth of culture.

        After all, currently the main use of our advanced and transgenerational communication skills is to communicate pleasurable, strong, preferably ecstatic sensorial experiences (in either the mystical sense or as an epiphany): we spend more time and effort discussing about movies, books, music, computer games than the technology that makes them possible. Religion is a major part of our culture, and separate (if complementary) of government mainly because of its capacity to induce altered states of mind.

        Without the infrastructure that permits these in their modern forms, other extreme experiences have to take their place or support their primitive equivalents. Psycheledics seem to provide one hell of an interesting experience, since drug-induced altered states of mind so commonly an integral part of religions and traditions of cultures with simpler infrastructure (and depending on how integral you consider the Happy Hour, modern ones too).

        So it's very likely, and there's apparently evidence, of a close relationship between increasing complexity of culture and use of psychedelics if they're available in the same area. It's not like they could get excited about neoplatonistic philosophy right off the bat.

        But unless there's an experiment showing sign-language-skilled primates developing new cultural infrastructure when they're stoned, it's remarkably idiotic to see a causal connection.

        It's a much simpler hypothesis that once humans could develop a culture and talk about interesting things, and drug consumption being an available and much more interesting thing than watching the grass grow, they would do it a lot, talk about it a lot, and use it a lot as an element in their cultures.


      • > I didn't go to grad school, but I did get a bachelors degree in Anthropology - and I like to think that I am pretty well read in the field. I can guarantee that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence linking proto-humans, or physically modern humans, to any sort of psychedelic chemical that facilitated brain development.

        Surely you're not saying you got a degree in the Liberal Arts without the help of a few magic mushrooms along the way? Whatever has this world come to! Next we'll be hearing that Drama students can be straight and Art majors wear clothes at parties.

      • Dude, have you ever done shrooms? Obviously not. :-)
      • Further, I don't see how a single class of substances can be linked to brain development. There are a whole host of chemicals in the human body, the consumption of which is evolutionarily invisible. Why should magic mushrooms be so special?

        Without having germ-line effects, a substance can cause profound effects upon consciousness, attention, creativity, and a whole host of brain functions. Magic mushrooms are not "special" in this respect. Take, for example, the class of nootropic substances, such as piracetam, dmae, hydergine (an ergoloid closely related to LSD by the way, and also discovered by Hoffman). These have been demonstrated to improve performance on a variety of aptitude tests in double-blind random sampled trials. Some of these have been proven useful in reversing the mental deterioration of Alzheimer's and senile dementia.

        Yes, it's "evolutionarily invisible" in a biological sense, but certainly need not be in a cultural/technological sense.

    • Eating various mushrooms will either give you the ability to grow tall or shoot fireballs.

  • I thought that darwin said... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:43AM (#5318493)
    ... that life is a genetic mutation!

    But then again, Jimmy Hendrix said that life is but a joke.
  • FOXP2? Sounds scarily like FoxDie, the genetic virus from Metal Gear Solid that kills off kickass genetically modified main characters! Perhaps the aliens who put us here* are planning to kill off the creative geniuses, leaving us with only mindless Windows-using rednecks to defend the planet from invasion!

    * See UFO: Enemy Unknown, PC/Amiga 1992.

  • Patent it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by The_Mutato ( 631710 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:44AM (#5318496)
    You can patent the gene and sue everybody on earth for copying it! Except for all the pop bands out there, that is...

  • Single view (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zwets ( 645911 )

    There's an enormous amount of work to be done on this.

    ...and an enormous amount of funding needed, I would guess. Too bad the article doesn't show any opposing views, just the opinion of the guy who thought it up and hence needs to promote it at all costs.

    Granted, it's an interesting idea, but I'm wondering how sharp this supposed 'creativity boundary' really is. I find it unlikely that something so complex and essential to human society would be linked to only a handful of genes - that's ignoring a very large part of the evolution of the primate mind.

    • Re: Single view (Score:5, Informative)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:14AM (#5318596)


      > Granted, it's an interesting idea, but I'm wondering how sharp this supposed 'creativity boundary' really is. I find it unlikely that something so complex and essential to human society would be linked to only a handful of genes - that's ignoring a very large part of the evolution of the primate mind.

      FWIW, there was a discussion of this [google.com] (not the article, but the purported 50,000 YBP quantum leap) on talk.origins about a month ago, and lots of the better informed regular posters weighed in against the idea.

      E.g., this one [google.com]:

      >
      a) Was there a "quantum leap" in human technology around 50,000 years ago?

      No. It appeared as a quantum leap in a Europe-dominated archeological record. But as more and more sites in Africa from the right time frame are investigated, the "leap" becomes much more gradual. Here's a nice review:

      McBrearty, S & Brooks, A (2000) 'The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior', J Hum Evo 39:453-563
      and this one [google.com]
      >
      New types of stone tools designed for specific tasks appear, and bone becomes a preferred material for manufacturing tools. Ivory beads, pendants, and other ornaments invested with social or symbolic meaning adorn the bodies of the living and the dead. And people begin to represent elements of their world in portable figurines, engravings on rocks, and paintings on the walls of limestone caves. While fossils indicate that humans looking just like us had already existed for the previous 60,000 years, only with the advent of Upper Paleolithic technology, it seems, did they start acting like us.

      Outside of Europe the border of the Upper Paleolithic is gradual and indistinct, and substantially older than in Europe. As stated elsewhere, similar technologies are known from as long ago as 80,000 years ago in Africa.
      There's lots of other interesting stuff in the thread too.
  • Genetically modified animals become creative and evolve to/past human level?... ...but I wouldn't worry so much as Disney will have all talking mice executed out of copyright. :-)

  • Scientists Discover Troll gene (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheLoneCabbage ( 323135 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:48AM (#5318504) Homepage

    It is thought to have originated in humans over 25 years ago, and can be plainly seen in the explosion of Troll posts, on primitive BBS's across North America.

    The gene, FW324D342, is not found in other primates, but is often found in worms, ferrets, and aboriginal tree slugs.

    Scientists are hoping to develop a test to isolate individuals suffering with this gene and beat the ever living fsck out of them.

    Symptoms include:

    Routinely spouting on world politics when it realy has nothing to do with the thread.

    Saying things like "First Post"

    Writing assinine playoffs of the parrent topic.

    Saying things like "Linux/Windows Sucks!"

    Or "Poor me, I'm a descriminated Windows user who just blew 10 grand on an MCSE cert"

    Have patience and faith, scientists are working hard to wipe out this world wide web plauge
    • ... it has been found that another related gene is linked to people forgetting to spell-check their posts. It is also highly believed that the same gene is also related to others constantly pointing this fact out again and again and again.
      >Writing assinine playoffs of the parrent topic ...
      >Or "Poor me, I'm a descriminated Windows user who just blew 10 grand on an MCSE cert"

  • Sceptical (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Marcus Brody ( 320463 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @07:50AM (#5318510) Homepage
    first off, we have an anthrapologist suggesting a biological explanation, which is rather novel if not erroneous.

    And i'm not sure he knows what he is talking about - Just because when this one gene is mutated it affects language etc. it doesnt mean it is solely (or even partially) responsible for these things.

    Although there certainly are biological elements of creativity - we have the basic framework for it, most other animals dont - the biological part isnt necessarily that interesting. Its the actual social constructs - i.e. the sociocultural framework of art - which is far more interesting and tells us far more about ourselves than the minor evolution of some gene at some point in history.

    That is what anthropology is all about, so it is wierd to see an anthropologist talking genetics

    • Re:Sceptical (Score:4, Informative)

      by nat5an ( 558057 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:23AM (#5318643) Homepage
      FWIW, there's actually a whole branch of anthropology called -- get this -- Bioanthropology, filled with people who are quite interested in things like genetics, protein folding, etc. Of course, these scientists are interested in how these things affect human culture, society and evolution, but it's not surprising to see an anthropolgist talking genetics.

    • Re:Sceptical (Score:5, Informative)

      by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @11:06AM (#5319558) Homepage
      As an anthropologist, I can assure you that there is are entire branches of anthropology which have strong ties to biology. Among them, biological anthropology, medical anthropology and genetic anthropology.

      What you are thinking of is my specialization, sociocultural anthropology. However, there are others in my department who spend their days (and months and years) at microscopes and working on genetics problems. The differences are generally that biologists are interested in mechanism (i.e. what can we make genetics do for us) and the present (i.e.what can genetics do for us now) while anthropologists are primarily interested in history (i.e. what do genetics tell us about our past) and demography (i.e. what do genetics tell us about human populations now).

      Hope this helps.

    • Bzzt, wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by pantherace ( 165052 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @11:27AM (#5319707)
      I assume your ignorance of the subject is because of not studying anthropology.

      Anthropology has roughly four main categories: Biologicial(Physical), Cultural, Archaeological, and Linguistic. Ideally researchers take into account all 4 when doing research, but many specialize in specific ones.

      You are refering to one specific sub-field of Cultural Anthropology. Please read about anthropology more if you think "an anthrapologist suggesting a biological explanation, which is rather novel if not erroneous." A good place to start would be the American Anthropological Association [aaanet.org].

  • One would presume that testing this theory would be feasible by creating a human being with a non-mutated version of this gene. For obvious reasons that would not be possible... For the same reasons creating, say, a chimp with our version of the gene wouldn't be sensible either.

    So, how does one test this theory?

  • How did it spread? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
    The article doesn't discuss how a single mutation would have spread through the population. In prehistoric times what advantage would there be in a gene that makes you carve useless bone trinkets?

    Even if there were an advantage in having this gene it could not have suddenly spread through the whole human population. The more artistic humans would have to gradually displace their stupider cousins. And we could expect to see surviving tribes in remote areas still lacking the creativity gene.
    • Are you seriously asking for an explanation on how creativity and intelligence can increase the survival rate of a population? I have no idea how it would have spread so quickly though...
      • The gene is related of language, and art, like language, is a way of communication. If you communicate better, then your group (and the children you have in it) have better chances to survive.

        And, of course, to be the only artist between a bunch of boring people should give some advantage with womens.

      • Re:How did it spread? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
        But if you are the only person to have language, what good does it do you? How can you impress women with your guitar playing skills if they have no appreciation of music?

        Biologists do say that the spread of a gene in a population can follow a pattern where it increases slowly for a long time, then passes a threshold and shoots up rapidly to almost the whole population. Perhaps the creativity gene was like that.
        • "But if you are the only person to have language, what good does it do you?"

          Well, if it's a dominant trait then you'll pass it on to some of your offspring. Then they will be able to talk to you and each other, forming a stronger tribe that rapidly grows due to the power of group organization.

          I can also imagine benefits from language even in a single person. When I write quickly, my handwriting is nearly illegible to anyone else. But the notes in my day planner and shopping list certainly improve my efficiency by augmenting memory alone.

          AlpineR

          • To talk to your children you would need to have a language to teach them, of course... this thing could take a long time to get going. But I agree that if the mutated form is dominant then you could get a reasonable clump of people grunting at each other within a few generations.

  • Folly (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sdprenzl ( 149571 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:05AM (#5318558) Homepage
    This is the same insanity that pervades the entire genetic engineering field, i.e., the belief that certain traits can be traced back to a single gene. The obvious conclusion of such idiots is that we'll just find a way to tweak gene #123, and reap the benefits. Wrong! Genes and the realities they induce are far, far more complex than anyone can imagine today. Imagine holographic data storage. I'm totally convinced genes work together in a similar fashion to produce traits, and NOT the simplistic one gene-one trait model we currently have. Of course, we understand that sometimes many genes combine to affect a trait, but I'm sure there are very many orders of magnitude of interplay going on that we can't even begin to understand. But the fools will tinker like a boy tearing up a car engine for the first time. Sometime in the distant future we'll begin to understand just how networked genes are, how much of a "systems thing" genetics really are--at the individual level, and at an even more mysterious community level. At some point the stuff C.G. Jung was saying will become understood in a genetic way. But until then we'll undoubtedly wreak chaos....
    • If we're ever to actually know what genetics are about, there is simply no way around experimentation.

      Scientific models are just that, models. They are built as a best guess of what going on from the information gleaned from experiments. When a given model is no long adaquate to work with the data collected, it is either modified or discarded in favor of a better model.

      Mistakes will be made but willful ignorance is not the path to enlightenment.

    • Re:Folly (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nfk ( 570056 )
      One gene-one trait is not the model we currently have. It works for some genes, and that's why Mendel was successful and a lot was discovered about how genetics work, but like you say it's usually more complex. I do agree with you that some people try to make things more simple than they are, I read about FOXP2 and I honestly don't know if there's reason to link it to creativity or if it's just speculation. Models are always simplified versions of reality, or they would be useless, but of course you have to find a balance.
    • You are not a scientist! If you were you would not have so many certainties. You are simply stating that genes form networks which has been known for some time. But then you go into an even more mysterious community level. Sure, buddy, little pixies are all over the place.

    • Alright, here's a counter-argument...

      Evolution is dumb. It can only make minor changes, over and over.

      Therefore, for evolution to actually work, minor changes must have minor effects. There must be a level of mutation which is acceptably unlikely to cause problems, but which creates enough variation to keep things moving.

      So genetic codes may in fact be self-simplifying to some degree; something which can be modified easily can be optimised quickly by evolution.

      • minor changes must have minor effects
        Try that on the edge of a cliff.
        Thrashing was discovered on a time-sharing system when adding one more user caused system response time for everybody to become incredibly slow.
        Super-cooled solution. One speck of dust and it freezes.
    • This is the same insanity that pervades the entire genetic engineering field, i.e., the belief that certain traits can be traced back to a single gene.

      If I remember correctly, genes were first discovered (?) by Mendel when he was changing the colors of his peapods or something similar. And the color of a flower can be represented by one gene. It isn't *that* much of a stretch here. Though I agree that the interplay of these things isincredibly compliated.

    • Re:Folly (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bodrius ( 191265 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @09:50AM (#5319090) Homepage
      You might want to try reading the articles before ranting against the "entire genetic engineering field" if you want to talk about folly.

      They specifically say that the "trait" they're talking about may include "as few as 10 or as many as 10,000" genes.

      They never claimed this gene was responsible for that trait.

      They specifically said this was just one remarkable breakthrough among many that suggests that our current language skills depend on recent genes, more recent than what we normally call "the human species".

      In other words, their hypothesis is that it was impossible for anatomically correct humans lacking MANY SIMULTANEOUS mutated genes to develop complex languages and cultures, and have what we would consider a normal human psychology. And they claim that these mutations are probably recent.

      No one claims to have pinpointed the origin of "culture" in the genome and how it worked, or even expect to at any foreseeable future.

      They just say if you can show anatomically correct humans have problems developing complex cultures if a few genes are not "normal", and the "normal" versions of the genes can be proven to be recent, then it follows that it might have been difficult for anatomically correct humans lacking those genes, as a set, to develop complex culture, and it would be reasonable to say they were necessary for that process.

      That's a much more timid, reasonable claim than "the stuff C.G. Jung was saying will become understood in a genetic way", by the way.

    • The author of the article, and the researcher about whom it's talking, don't seem to agree with your assessment of they think. Note the carefully qualified conclusion:
      An explosion of art, culture and individual expression that took place in Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago
      may have been triggered by biological changes in the human brain, according to Richard Klein.
      And a single gene? Not the researchers' claim:
      Professor Klein said that a suite of language and creativity genes,
      perhaps as few as ten or as many as 10,000, developed as a result of random mutations, giving rise to a new pattern of human culture.
      It looks like the real upshot of the research is, "Hey, we found this one gene that seems somehow related to language and/or creativity, and even though we don't understand it completely and it's not a full explanation for anything, it's at least evidence that the human cultural explosion could have been a genetic rather than social change."

      It looks like what you need to be railing against is not researchers but readers who draw absurd, overly strong conclusions.
    • You are totally convinced, eh? Let me guess: you are not a geneticist, nor even a biologist. Well, of course that grants you the expertise necessary to discount hundreds of scientists who for the most part all agree that what they are currently doing is the most likely possibility (but, like real scientists, are not sworn to uphold some idea that they've been using but hasn't been proven). The fact that you are totally convinced means nothing to anyone, considering the fact that the extent of your expertise is a book you may or may not have finished about a "systems thing."

      Troll.
  • ... does someone make the leap from finding "a gene proven to affect the ability of learning and processing language" to deciding that it is "an artistic gene" ? At best, all we know is that it affects learning and language. But somehow connecting this (tenuously shown) function to "artistic" abilities, and the building of cathedrals ?

    I don't know who should be blamed more for the very tenuous conclusions that smack of headline-whoring: the scientists behind the study, the guy who posted the ludicrous conclusions (his own ?) or the /. editor who allowed it to go through without editing.

  • Um... (Score:5, Informative)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:18AM (#5318614) Homepage Journal
    Actually instant evolution is a misnomer. I know someone who does Alife simulations on simple biological structures. And what he found is that, although there are epochs where new genes are introduced, there is a long and gradual period of "preparation". This is where the ancestors end up (arbitrarily) putting in the genetic support structure for said gene (as all previous attempts to enter the gene usually results in some "bad things").

    It's not like a bunch of neanderthals were sitting around a fire and then Bob Dylan popped out.
  • So if we switch the FOXP gene on in animals, will they gain speech and art and stuff?

    No I didn't read the article, what fun is that?


  • This article is fucking stupid. Completely fucking stupid.

    Genetic "mutation" is responsible for EVERYTHING, people.. Bicycles, warheads, cheese in a can, dry wall, chess, television, and a fine selection of ladies' footwear. Saying genetic mutation is responsible for humans being artistic is like saying "NEWS FLASH : GENETIC MUTATION ALLOWS COW TO EAT AND POO"

    Genetic mutation is also responsible for making the moron(s) who thought this post was an earth-shattering scientific revelation packed with keen insight into the structure of life.

    Jesus fuckin fouth & inches Christ, at least we know Slashdot editors arent chosen on the basis of IQ..

    • Bingo! (Score:2)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      And give the man a prize. Relatedly I hate the term "back to nature." Whenever I hear someone use that phrase I tend to respond, " Excuse me? Can you tell where and when you managed to *leave* it in the first place?"

      While we continue to make strides uncovering fact after fact in just about every field the quality of scientific *thinking* these days is pathetic.

      There would be no harm, other than the stress of annoyance, in that, if it weren't for the fact that some incredibly wooly thinking is being used as a "scientific" basis for legislation.

      Bah! I'm going to go get a cabin out in the woods of Montana if this keeps up (with a broadband connection). I'll call this " Back to Civilization."

      Ummmmmm, no. No manifesto will be forthcoming. Thank you very much. I like technology, it's idiots I can't stand.

      KFG
    • "Genetic 'mutation' is responsible for EVERYTHING, people."

      Genes are responsible for everything? Like democracy came from a "democracy gene"? Currency emerged from a "money gene"? The Wright brothers were the first carriers of a "flight gene"? The Internet couldn't be invented until some scientist stood too close to a microwave and mutated an "HTTP gene"?

      All these technologies came into being as a result of social and scientific development. Presumably we've all had the mental capacity for these things since prehistoric times, but it took communication and the cumulative work of generations to create them. This is in contrast with physiological changes like "mostly hairless body" that require genetic mutation, not just new ideas.

      I think the conventional wisdom is that language was like these technologies -- early homo sapiens had the capacity, but it took time for grunts to be gradually refined into words. This research suggests that language wasn't possible until a special genetic change occurred, putting it in the same category as "most hairless body" mutation rather than the unleashing of a dormant capacity.

      AlpineR

    • Let see how this type of evolution works:

      1. A scientist makes an in depth study of the relationships of certain genes, their affects on humans, and the results of their changes. He discovers that a single gene controls a surprisingly large amount of characteristic of human artistic ability. This alters a prior hypothesis about the time it took to develop these characteristics.
      2. In an attempt to summarize this complex relationship for general reading, much of the original concept is left out of the title and some is placed in the actual text of the article. However a clever and informed person might be able to discover it by applying interpretaion of the text and the general knowledge of science.
      3. Some Blow Job Pimp comes along and reads the title, thinking that is enough to understand the whole thing. He rants on about how the title was so obvious and stupid. He flames and trolls about how the title doesn't tell him anything he didn't already know, and how the world is so stupid to even care about anything.
      4. Blow Job Pimp eventaully reads the whole article and discovers there is a lot more to the discovery than just the title. Maybe something informative was actually discovered.

      I'm still waiting for step 4 to happen. It might be a long evolutionary process, or it might happen quickly. Such an interesting scientific observation to see it happen in real time, right in front of us.... But only to those willing to learn.

  • Fitted? (Score:3, Funny)

    by two_ply ( 610736 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @08:53AM (#5318775)
    From the article: Biological explanations had normally been rejected in the past, but actually fitted much better with the known facts. "I think there was a biological change -- a genetic mutation of some kind that promoted the fully modern ability to create and innovate."

    Methinks that a dictionary could have fitted much gooder in that hands of the editor who readed the story...

    And in a story about a language gene... i.r.o.n.y.

  • Cats must have it too then. (Score:5, Funny)

    by tjwhaynes ( 114792 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @09:08AM (#5318832)

    Cats are pretty creative. Not only can they persuade you to part with a significant portion of the food on your plate, they insinuate themselves to the point of displacing you from your favourite chair. And then, just to rub salt in the wounds a little more, they also paint [monpa.com] and dance [monpa.com].

    Cheers,

    Toby Haynes

    P.S. I have no connection to these books/websites but I did fall off my chair laughing the first time I saw the website :-)

  • It's Both!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Most anthropologists believe that the transformations which allowed humans to think and behave in a recognisably modern fashion happened gradually and were a result of demographic and cultural changes.

    However, according to an expert on human origins at Stanford University these transformations have a biological explanation and were not gradual."

    It's both, people!

    It's important to remember that evolution is not JUST about genes. Learned and emergent behaviors are also very important, and can eventually lead to genetic changes!

    For instance, say a particular creature survives by eating bugs off the ground. Then, global climate changes make these bugs scarce. Many of the creatures die. One day a creature accidently knocks over a rock and finds bugs to eat under it. Other creatures learn this, and pass the behavior to offspring who observe their parents flipping over rocks.

    Creatures with some random difference that allows them to flip rocks better, say, longer claws, have an advantage for survival, and pass these traits to offspring.

    Also, if any creatures have genetic differences that cause them to tend to flip rocks instinctively, they will also have a survival advantage.

    THIS is how changes happen. Mutations are random, but certain of them are favored by environmental factors.

    "Creativity" by itself may seem useless for survival. What does decorating your body have to do with survival? Well, the same thing that makes us creative may allow us to communicate better (and therefore coordinate hunting attacks better) or to solve puzzles such as how to squeeze water out of a plant, for example. It's all interconnected!

    So, it's POSSIBLE that this "creativity gene" mutation was simply favored AFTER humans started to learn how to do a few "creative" things.

  • Bullshit! (Score:2, Funny)

    by vogon jeltz ( 257131 )
    "Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."

    We all know that the earth is actually run by mice!

  • FOXP2 gene (Score:3, Funny)

    by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Monday February 17, 2003 @10:00AM (#5319144)
    From the post: "Also, the human FOXP2 differs only slightly from similar genes in chimpanzees, mice and other animals."

    That's why my million monkeys with typewriters haven't churned out any Shakespearian prose yet...Looks like I'll be doing a little gene therapy first, then look out literary world, here I come! ;)

  • 50,000 year is enough? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gilh ( 103338 )
    Assuming a life-span of about 30 to 35 years per generation, is 1,500 generations enough for a gene to be selected in order to become _so_ widespread?

    I had thought that Natural Selection was a process that took substantially longer.

  • One gene != one trait (Score:4, Informative)

    by aswang ( 92825 ) <aswang AT fatoprofugus DOT net> on Monday February 17, 2003 @11:17AM (#5319633) Homepage
    FOXP2 is a transcription factor (specifically a member of the forkhead family of transcription factors which can be found in organisms as unrelated as fruit flies) which can be found active pretty much only in the brain. So far, no one has figured out exactly which genes FOXP2's gene product actually regulates, and there is some disagreement as to whether its function is limited only to language and other high level capabilities. The individuals in whom some researchers first found a mutation that disrupted, speech and grammar capabilities also have other mental disabilities such as deficits in spatial perception and difficulty with making any sort of purposeful sound, and while some individuals have normal intelligence, others have low intelligence.

    So while it has been demonstrated that without two functional copies of FOXP2, an individual will definitely have problems with generating speech, it does not mean that having just two functional copies will guarantee having speech capabilties. Clearly, even if there was some mutation that gave a selective advantage, the framework for language must have already laid down in the genetic code prior to changes in FOXP2.

    And FOXP2 seems to mostly affect the basal ganglia, which is a subcortical structure that handles all fine motor movements, affected by movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. The key to language seems more likely to be found in the specialized language centers of the brain, specifically Broca's area and Wernicke's area in the cerebral cortex. For example, which genes are responsible for these areas' particular structure? What genes cause the asymmetry between the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere? The left, which contains the language centers, is larger in almost everyone, regardless of whether they are right or left handed, and in the remaining few, both sides are at least symmetrical--no one has a larger right side. And these features are not limited to humans.

  • 50,000 years ago the mutation created (or improved) the "creativity" gen. It is well known fact that a mutation will be eliminated without being supported by selection. 50,000 years ago the creativity was essential to survive.

    But what I know from the last 2,000 years of the history - more creative people had more chances to dye earlier and/or to dye leaving less children than less creative people.

    Jesus Christ - the victim of Jews. Scientists - victims of Christian Church. All kind of intelligent Russians - victims of Stallin repressions. You name them.

    If the trend will persist longer then we'll degrade down to the level of absolute dumbnessity. No need to wait 50,000 more years, the degrade process usually goes faster them upgrade.

    Of course we are trying to compensate that degradation by better level of education. Or are we? Has we really improved the education in last 50 years. Somehow I doubt so.

    Of course we are trying to compensate the lack of creativity by job instructions. As a result... look at typical top managers.

    I think if UNESCO won't do anything about it we'll finish the civilization being very dumb.


  • How long will Humans keep Thinking
    they came from Monkeys...?

    Maybe the Monkeys came from Us?

    john [earthlink.net]


  • Human populations that previously had produced similar functional tools suddenly began to make artefacts that looked very different according to local style, and to create symbolic objects with no practical function at all. That idiosyncratic creativity is generally accepted as the defining quality of the modern human mind.

    You are human because you create crap.

Slashdot Top Deals

The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.

Close