The Human Mutation 339
eldavojohn writes "Scientists in China have announced finding the gene that makes us human. The article explains that prior work has shown that humans, as compared with the great apes from which we diverged over 5 million years ago, have a longer form of a protein (type II neuropsin) located in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. From the article: 'Gene sequencing revealed a mutation specific to humans that triggers a change in the splicing pattern of the neuropsin gene, creating a new splicing site and a longer protein. Introducing this mutation into chimpanzee DNA resulted in the creation of type II neuropsin. "Hence, the human-specific mutation is not only necessary but also sufficient in creating the novel splice form," the authors state.' The team is urging further analysis of the extra 45 amino acids in type II neuropsin since they believe that chain may cause protein structural and functional changes. The research didn't link anything with this protein, simply identifying it as a very distinct difference between us and our closest cousins."
Re:Tag this article deathofcreationism (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:So lemme get this straight.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm assuming here that the mutation is involved in communication, as I know that the wiring in the front of the brain is linked to autism, which impacts the brain's I/O channels, and I/O is a major difference between apes and humans. However, this is an assumption and should be taken as such.
We know that the ability to filter information has changed over time. Some of that has been changes elsewhere in the brain, but there is no advantage in a brain adapting to process information it hasn't got. Whereas, we already know from tetrachromats and synesthetes that there IS a usable advantage in getting information that would not normally be processed. If this gene is responsible for improving I/O bandwidth, then we should see a series of minor mutations over time that correspond to known I/O improvements within the brain.
Could this be useful in some other way? Well, provided (a) it is involved in I/O enhancements, and (b) we can understand the relationship between changes within it and those enhancements, it should be possible to induce mutations that can improve the brain further, provided the change did not exceed the brain's ability to adapt.
Re:Obligatory Planet of the Apes (Score:5, Interesting)
What if we produce a subspecies (I think that line is awfully close), are responsible for its care and preventing its extinction?
Now:
What if we create a subspecies with limited intellect and self awareness, but capable of simple tasks: dig here, carry this from here to there, turn the red lever sideways, turn the blue lever up and down, etc.
What now? What rights do they have? do we allow them to work in mines and nuclear plants? are they disposable? or better yet: are humans (homo sapiens) less disposable?
This worries me no end and has nothing to do with religion.
-nB
Re:Tag this article deathofcreationism (Score:0, Interesting)
Oh, no. They can just claim that God designed this gene.
I gotta hand it to them -- no matter what the evidence, they can sidestep it...
We don't have to claim because it is implied. God set in motion the rules of physics and chemistry for the universe and created everything you see (and don't see). We aren't a result of the universe. It is a result of us. It didn't come from us but it is here for us to exist. Show me conclusive evidence for evolution and we'll talk. As it stands, the fact that multiple species share genes doesn't mean anything other than they share genes. Showing incomplete frames of "evolution" and filling in the gaps to fit a theory is creating evidence where none exists. You act like only one side of a debate ever does the sidestepping. Look in the mirror. I gotta hand it to you, no matter what the lack of evidence, you can still follow the wrong people.
You need to start thinking for yourself for once and not believe that everything you read is true. You conveniently forgot that scientists make mistakes (even the smart ones) and others take up the slack to correct incomplete and errored theories. Evolution is only a theory and doesn't even make predictions about the world; its existence relies on imperfect and biased humans making guesses about a time period when they weren't alive in order to fit their *own* theory. Biased? Nah, of course not. It's interesting how a few skeletons (why only a few? where was everyone else?) can be used to create a fully detailed timeline of human history. Seems some scientists are looking a little too hard to find what they want to find.
Re:Tag this article deathofcreationism (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't believe in god, but I'll be damned if some of you atheist evangelicals aren't just as fucking annoying as the Christian variety.
You know those annoying assholes who mention god every time they open their mouths? Yeah, that's the way some of you atheists sound too. Ever seen the way some people slobber all over Dawkins like he was fucking Billy Graham?
Re:Tag this article deathofcreationism (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Less profitable if they can breed. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're talking about the "terminator gene" [wikipedia.org], Monsanto has pledged not to use it.
They wouldn't want anyone breeding their own after delivery; they'd want you to go back to the source for another fresh batch of clones.
They might want repeat business? I may die of shock!
Underpeople (Score:5, Interesting)
Also see "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells, and "The Last Castle" by Jack Vance.
Re:Obligatory Planet of the Apes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory Planet of the Apes (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't any sort of counterargument — I think your claim is wildly speculative, and not currently provable or falsifiabl — but I thought I'd mention it as it also concerns human evolution and the capacity for religious thought.
In The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris suggests that religious impulses are a residual remnant from a more hierarchical social structure earlier in our primate ancestry. We moved from a model where we spent most of our time munching fruit in trees and an alpha male led the monkey troop to a model where we supplemented our diet with small game (as chimps to now) which required greater collaboration and necessitated a more egalitarian social structure. There might still be an alpha male, but one with less power. I quote:
Now, this claim isn't provable either, and I think that since The Naked Ape there has been a lot of rethinking about how much of a role collaborative hunting really played in hominid social structure. But it's some food for thought.
Re:Tag this article deathofcreationism (Score:3, Interesting)
Religious people and organizations can and do make predictions about reality based on their faith. Time and again, science has proven these religious predictions to be false. The religious people make a big fuss, end up looking like fools, and ultimately, dozens or hundreds of years later, change their beliefs, all the while pretending that their creed is unchanging, eternal, and infallible. Even if you could ever find two "Christians" who believe the exact same things, their beliefs would be very different from Christians from the 1st Century. Religion evolves much more quickly than complex organisms do.
Re:Less profitable if they can breed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, sure. My (poorly made) point was that public pressure can make a difference. At the very least it gave us a few more years before such technology will be used, that way we're more prepared for it. On the other hand, it might just demonstrate that the customers are the ones dictating what companies end up doing.