Did a Genome Copying Mistake Lead To Human Intelligence? 381
A new study suggests that the sophistication of the human brain may be due to a mistake in cell division long ago. From the article: "A copyediting error appears to be responsible for critical features of the human brain that distinguish us from our closest primate kin, new research finds.
When tested out in mice, researchers found this 'error' caused the rodents' brain cells to move into place faster and enabled more connections between brain cells."
Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Isnt this the whole point of evolution?
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "point" of evolution is survival. Evolution does not lead towards more intelligent creatures unless intelligence itself better ensures survival. There are many cases of evolution leading to simpler or dumber creatures that have other traits that give them an edge in their environment. It's not a thinking, planning system.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Way to miss the point completely.
Not at all; completely on point (Score:4, Informative)
Mice and other critters may well have evolved the same mutation many times, but it had no survival benefit without other mutations which only humans (or primates) had.
Human speech, for instance, requires physical changes to vocal cords and the throat, in addition to brain changes, or so I have read. Got to change them all to get actual speech.
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there was that incident over at the NIMH.
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:4, Interesting)
Your point is absolutely correct.
But the idea of the parent posting was different. It did not ask whether evolution has a point itself, but instead pointed out that evolution itself is simply the consequence of alterations to successive organisms -- mostly via their genome. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that successive alterations of our genome were responsible for the lion's share of our intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
The article isn't about whether evolution happened, but whether the trait known as intelligence was the result of a specific error which created an extra copy of a specific gene. It's the difference between saying "I missed the target," and "I missed the target by 2 inches because of a 6 MPH crosswind as opposed to a misaligned sight,"
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. The article is emphasizing that a "mistake" is what lead to human intelligence. ALL changes to the genome are "mistakes", it's not some exciting new concept.
To look at it another way, the copying system can't be too perfect in a given species, because it will mean that evolution doesn't happen. If your species completely eliminates mutations, you will be outcompeted by a species which retains the capacity to adapt.
Words like "mistake", when applied to biological processes, are highly misleading. It reinforces the same folk teleology which leads second-rate science journalists to report that trait X evolved in order to accomplish goal Y, as if there was some kin
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:4, Interesting)
Surely some vocalization would occur, though? Light can't pass through or around objects, so sound has an inherent evolutionary advantage. Of course, there is the whole rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, and I suppose it is possible for some species "out there" to be communicating with part of the spectrum that passes through solid objects.
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they use sign language because predators are too good at following sound.
Yeah, I thought of that - but it seems that most critters make sounds anyway. Lightning bugs seem to be an exception, along with some kinds of sea life. And the glowing that they do would obviously (and does!) attract predators. Many animals use elaborate visual displays - mostly for mating. But most of those animals also make sounds. Even rabbits can make sounds.
Re: (Score:3)
dr who comic relief episode with Rowan Atkinson as the dr featured that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do-wDPoC6GM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
True, however using light as a non-line-of-sight communication medium requires that you overcome the considerable "background noise" generated by the local star. That could mean being strictly nocturnal or subterranean, generating a *massively* intense light source, or developing *extremely* good visual detection and interpretation of slight variations in light. I see all those, with the possible exception of the last, having some serious drawbacks on the timescales that would likely be involved in evolvi
Re:Not at all; completely on point (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to change them all to get actual speech.
And then on the other side of the coin, you have many birds that quite clearly have the required physiology for human-style speech, but haven't evolved the mental faculties.
Re: (Score:3)
Ding, ding, winner. The most common form of DNA change is gene expression, which has been the leading theory for the evolution of intelligence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are many cases of evolution leading to simpler or dumber creatures that have other traits that give them an edge in their environment. It's not a thinking, planning system.
Well.... that explains Sarah Palin and a whole bunch of her friends and followers.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the only point of evolution is successful reproduction. It makes no difference how long you survive. If your genes aren't passed to offspring, any evolutionary change you may have had dies with you. Likewise, it makes no difference if you die after producing self-sustaining offspring - your contribution to the gene pool carries on.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't matter, meatbag. Only your genes do. You're merely a tool used by them to survive. And reproduction proven to be a far better survival strategy than having a single host live forever.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Informative)
"The only "point" of evolution is survival." No, the only point of evolution is successful reproduction.
No, there is no point to evolution. It is simply a side effect of an imperfectly self replicating system (such as amino acid chemistry) in an environment that is non homogeneous.
Re:Purpose of Life (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, notwithstanding the number 42, and ignoring the more popular question 'What is the meaning of life?' ( which by the way has been long settled with the answer to be found in any dictionary under the entry for 'life' ), it seems that it might be interesting to consider 'What is the purpose of life?' since evolution pertains mostly to life here on Earth.
I'll venture that the purpose of life seems to me to be responsible for creating the most entropy possible. The prevalent M.O. seems to be for life to extract the Gibbs Free Energy from the environs to produce offspring, and then to die. By dying, one creates disorder, which is the purpose of life. However, by first creating offspring, the life form is responsible not only for the entropy directly created by it's own demise but indirectly for the disorder created by any offspring and their offspring. Use Gibbs Free Energy to Copy then Die.
Is there another strategy for producing entropy that could be more successful than life?
It would seem not, though I don't know for sure. Evolution has produced many variations on the theme, suited to different niches, but life seems to stick to this general gameplan.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
"The only "point" of evolution is survival."
No, the only point of evolution is successful reproduction. It makes no difference how long you survive. If your genes aren't passed to offspring, any evolutionary change you may have had dies with you. Likewise, it makes no difference if you die after producing self-sustaining offspring - your contribution to the gene pool carries on.
Not necessarily. If you have no kids, but help other people's kids based on some criteria, you are inserting that criteria into the evolutionary selection pressure. If you take care of your nieces and nephews, you are promulgating kids who share some of your genes even if you don't reproduce. Even if the kids you care for have no genetic similarity, the fact that you were put into a position to care for them may select kids who are in some way similar to you (ie. probably share some genetic patterns). A strong society will likely raise stronger kids who happen to share a disproportionate number of genes with you.
Good point (Score:3)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "point" of evolution is survival. Evolution does not lead towards more intelligent creatures unless intelligence itself better ensures survival.
Exactly. This is the thing that always puzzles me about many people's pondering of extraterrestrial life. No doubt there's plenty of it out there --nothing about that seems very unlikely, but there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming requirement for sentient intelligence. Look what a good run the dinosaurs had without understanding how to build a fire or use an iPhone. Seems like the best meeting of Drake and Occam, IMHO.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond this, once sufficient intelligence appears on some world, technology is almost inevitable if the species continues existence long enough (though I imagine some would disagree). The problem with technology is that it magnifies the fundamental asymmetry between the difficulty of creation and ease of destruction. In our own case it is clear that advanced technology enables an ever smaller group to destroy an ever larger portion of people; in the limit, eventually a single person will be able to destroy all of humanity. Reactive protections against such disaster is always at a significant disadvantage and it only has to fail once for all to be lost. The alternative, pervasive monitoring of every individual at all times without exception also brings issues (I mean beyond the ideological issues of freedom), in that it creates a much more highly integrated social system, and large complex systems are prone to catastrophic failure, as discussed, funny enough, in a slashdot article not long ago. I would be surprised if there is still civilization 500 years from now.
Keep in mind the old argument that galactic colonization is an exponential process, as each colony sends out a ship, the expansion rate grows. Even with each colony sending out ships at a fairly low constant rate, say every 500 years, it only takes a few million years to colonize the whole galaxy. Yet this clearly has not happened, even though intelligence would have to have arisen only once. With the two major factors I listed above, I don't think the first one alone is sufficient to decimate the chance of this happening as much. It's more likely than not that, given the sheer number of planets in the galaxy, intelligence has appeared before on occasion. But couple in the second factor, and the likelihood is that no one has made it far into space.
Re: (Score:3)
It might not be an overwhelming requirement, but it's certainly an overwhelming survival advantage.
Perhaps with huge intelligence gains comes a massive advantage, but clearly small gains are not a survival advantage or animals would be constantly evolving more intelligence in an on-going arms race. It's very likely that the cost of increased intelligence offsets any potential gains.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternate headline: Did a Genome Copying Mistake Lead To Arms and Legs in Humans?
Answer: Yes - genome copying mistakes lead to everything in humans.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly. Copying mistake suggests a meiosis or mitosis failure. However, there is also the potential for DNA to be altered and then copied accurately.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have heard that our improved understanding of genetics and other details of inheritance mean that Darwin's ideas have to be flawed because they did not yet contain this understanding; much like Newton's theories were supplanted by Einstein's and his in turn by parts of Quantum Theory.
But this is neither strictly not loosely true. Newton's theories are flawed, because they indeed overlooked an integral property of physical reality. Its formulas simply lead to values that are not correct in our universe. But, and here's the important difference to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection: Darwin never stated any formulas leading to precise predictions. He never explained the principle driving the changes needed by Natural Selection.
What he did was more subtle. He looked at the world and identified the obvious end-result: Species change, compete, cause their predecessors to perish (or change) and then finally perish themselves. Species are not static and unchanging. Instead, each organism is different from the one it sprung forth from. Given enough time, these subtle changes lead to large differences; so large that you'd not immediately see that they are related.
As such, Darwin's point was that Variations, Families, Races and Species are just "grouping terms". They fluidly flow into each other. Small individual changes lead to large cross-species differences.
This point is clearly not flawed. It is quite obviously true, if you look at the historical record and current progress. And that is his entire theory. He never stated what the principle behind the system was, as he could only suspect, not prove. This, he left for later generations. He freely admitted that, if no such system could be found, that his theory would have a huge problem. Thankfully, modern biological sciences has found this principle in all its differentiated glory from genetics, epigenetics, vertical and horizontal inheritance, retro-viral modification, genetic absorption, etc. pp. So instead of not accepting his model, they actually and knowingly vindicated it!
Of course, some of Darwin's larger speculations turned out to be wrong, but these were not the core of his theory of Natural Selection and clearly labeled by him as pretty much unsubstantiated speculation. Just go ahead and read "The Origin of Species" and you will see how careful Darwin was by stating exactly what could break his actual theories' back, which points he though could be proven beyond doubt and which are more doubtful.
So, tl;dr: His theory is actually vindicated by modern science; but it's not the theory of evolution but the theory of natural selection, as these two are quite distinct beasts.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
His theory is actually vindicated by modern science; but it's not the theory of evolution but the theory of natural selection, as these two are quite distinct beasts.
His theory of evolution is well supported by modern science. Please recall that natural selection is but a third of evolution. We also have copious evidence both of inheritable traits that affect survivability and propagation of that organism's progeny, and variation of those traits over subsequent generations, the two things that need to be added to the theory of natural selection to get the theory of evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Natural selection handwaved away a lot of genetic specialization
I believe the term for phrases like this is "not even wrong".
Natural selection says nothing about how traits are inherited. It claims rather that there are events or processes in the natural world which winnow organisms and prevent some organisms from passing on their traits to subsequent generations.
You wouldn't expect a theory of natural selection to have much to say about "genetic specialization" or the particular nuts and bolts of how traits are passed on (aside from that the process isn't always
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing Darwin missed was a method of heredibility. That is a flaw, no doubt, but as Stephen R. Gould wrote, the overarching theory still works. The Modern Synthesis is just Darwinian selection married to genetics. In other words, both complement the other.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing Darwin missed was a method of heredibility. That is a flaw, no doubt, but as Stephen R. Gould wrote, the overarching theory still works. The Modern Synthesis is just Darwinian selection married to genetics. In other words, both complement the other.
He didn't claim to have found the actual method of inheritability. He didn't miss it, he had no evidence upon which to build a hypothesis and he pointed this out. The word "flaw" is inappropriate. Recognizing the gaps in knowledge that remain after drawing all the conclusions that the evidence suggests, and leaving suggestions to others for future investigation is one of the beauties of science. It is not a flaw.
Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the discovery is the exact mechanism which prompts the rise of higher intelligence? Intelligent animals anyone?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe animals "Uplifted" to human levels of intelligence won't be to far away..?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Animals are already at the level of Ted Haggard, Jerry Fallwell, Creationists et al..
Animals without a central nervous system are not bothered by this remark.
Animals with single-digit IQs suspect you've just insulted their intelligence.
Animals with an IQ or 10 or more are certain of it, and they're utterly livid.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are Black or Hispanic, this is a static property of your biology. It will never change. If you are religious, odds are that you inherited it from your parents, but it is still a choice. Not necessarily an easy one if it stems from childhood indoctrination, but it is still a choice, and therefore it's socially acceptable to make fun of it.
It's the same mechanism by which people who choose to be religious justify hating homosexuals.
Re: (Score:3)
If evolutionary theory is to be believed, then you don't have any choice as to whether you will be religious or not, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I vote for those adorable tiny monkeys!
Only problem is they'd waste that 200 mensa IQ on more accurate and long distance flinging poo devices.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. The use of the word "mistake" implies that there was some sort of intelligence designing the genome and it make a mistake. This just sounds like "random mutation + natural selection = evolution". No need to call it a "mistake"
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there is a pretty good reason to call it a 'mistake'. You get more press.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
By that definition, all evolution comes from mistakes. Except for man-made evolution. That is to say, when men deliberately splice genomes, say in corn for example, to improve a life form, that is not a mistake.
This begs the question then, is it evolution when men deliberately evolve life around them?
Re: (Score:3)
Boy, I've seen that said so many times here today. I'm surprised that Slashdot readers don't know better.
Your understanding of evolution is too elementary. It's more complicated than mutations+selection. The majority of the driving force behind evolutionary change is gene expression. We are starting to understad the enormous implications of epigenetic factors. Actual DNA copying errors are a minority part of what causes evolutionary change, which was the point of this article. It's not that humans are smart
Re: (Score:3)
A "task" assumes a goal, which is a concept that only makes sense in the context of an intelligent agent. Here, the mechanism just is; an inexact copy is no less valid than an exact copy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A rather narrow definition. I would say that cell division includes the task of gene replication, e.i.making a copy, even if there is no intelligent agent directing the copying toward a purpose.
Tell that to the parents of a child with cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, or muscular dystrophy.
Re: (Score:3)
The mechanism failed in its task, no matter whether that mechanism itself was designed or evolved
If the mechanism was designed, it was designed to fail sometimes so that humans would result--an intentional failure is not a mistake.
If the mechanism evolved, it evolved to fail sometimes since once in a while those failures are beneficial mutations which is a mechanism that would have already proven its usefulness via natural selection--again this is not a mistake.
The term "mistake" is probably attention-grabbing journalistic crap (the article is titled "Did a Copying Mistake Make Humans So Smart?") since
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
The subtitle also has a stylistic difference from the article text--it has no comma or other punctuation. Every sentence of comparable length in the rest of the article (around 15 of them) has a comma, colon, dash, etc., with only one exception, supporting my "someone else wrote the title and subtitle" theory, perhaps someone more interested in page views than providing information.
This is why I love Slashdot - we'd rather spend ages analysing a secondary popular science article to death than talking about the interesting findings of the primary research! The author and/or editor deserve a break for trying to engage the attention of a general audience about a piece of significant work, and succeed in presenting the key points in relatively non-technical language. Both 'mistake' and 'error' are in any case used quite frequently by biologists when discussing mutations - a quick pubmed search will find many examples in the scientific literature (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14616055 [nih.gov] - this does not imply that the DNA polymerase is intelligent!).
Speaking of 'mistakes', this research discovered an interesting error in the human genome reference sequence. It turns out that the duplication event was previously obscured by 'mis-assembly' of the closely related copied sequences (the SRGAP2 gene was copied so recently in evolutionary terms that the copies hadn't diverged enough to be easily distinguishable). The researchers did some of their own sequencing using DNA from a 'hydatidiform mole' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatidiform_mole [wikipedia.org] ), a non-viable pregnancy that only contains genetic material from the father - the lack of confounding allelic variation makes it easier to get clear cut results.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look in your handbook of popular science journalism, this rule should be on the s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Informative)
I think Richard Dawkins made it okay to use these quasi-anthropomorphic terms to describe processes of evolution when he titled his book "The Selfish Gene," so long as you constantly remind people, as he does laboriously in his text, that genes do not have wants, intentions, or consciously-implemented strategies. It's like saying photons are both a wave and a particle, I've read many physicists who point out that we use the wave-particle duality as a means of conceptualizing something so alien to our macro-reality into something we can understand so the non-expert can enjoy the wonder as well. So too do we attribute all sorts of human concepts to the algorithm of natural selection to make it easier to understand.
Still, your criticism is a valid one and something people need to be reminded that we are talking about inanimate processes.
Something that occurred to me reading the article was that when I saw the term "cell division" I immediately pictured a developing embryo, but that would be a somatic mutation rather than a germinal mutation [ndsu.edu]. It's important to remember that all these evolutionary mutations didn't happen in the animals, they happened in the animals' gametes, the sperm and eggs. A mutation that occurs in the cell division of a developing embryo wouldn't have any affect on the individual's gametes, the mutation had to occur in the sperm or egg first.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really think that it is appropriate at all to place our (society based) way of thinking onto the natural world, in fact, the way that neo-darwinists conceptualise natural selection algorithmically is very heavily based on the economic theory of Victorian England, and competition is seen as the key driving agent of the whole process.
If only you hadn't provided such a remarkably poor example to illustrate your point. There's a natural and deep synergy between the concepts of evolution and those of economic theory (even of the Victorian era). This goes even to the point that one can apply economic theory to key aspects of the Earth's ecosystem such as parasite communities on a host, pollination, and carrion feeding.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
One type of error is duplication, when the DNA-copying machinery accidentally copies a section of the genome twice. The second copy can be changed in future copies — gaining mutations or losing parts. The researchers scanned the human genome for these duplications, and found that many of them seem to play a role in the developing brain.
[...]
An extra copy of a gene gives evolution something to work with: Like modeling clay, this gene isn't essential like the original copy, so changes can be made to it without damaging the resulting organism.
Re: (Score:3)
I know nobody reads TFA, but at least you could read the summary:
When tested out in mice, researchers found this 'error' caused the rodents' brain cells to move into place faster and enabled more connections between brain cells."
Just because the submitter gave it a stupid title doesn't mean the research was in vain.
Re: (Score:3)
I happen to know one of the authors of the paper, and she was herself rather frustrated about exaggerations and misinterpretations she is seeing of her work in 'journalistic' literature.
She pointed to what she feels is a much more relevant summary of the paper here : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/04/a-duplicated-gene-shaped-human-brain-evolution%E2%80%A6-and-why-the-genome-project-missed-it/ [discovermagazine.com]
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh it's not *that* hard to come up with a scenario of some kind, if you really have to believe for some reason.
Some people call these copy errors a "bug", God calls it a "feature". Add a dash of natural selection, and you've got a self-maintaining and self-optimizing system for life to diversify and adapt. None of this having to re-create a whole bunch of things when extinction happens. We're talking low maintenance. The "lazy man's" creation. Like a garden that grows and trims itself. Beautiful really.
But if you mean a scheme where God says *poof* and life is created perfectly all at once, yeah, that's utterly ridiculous. Like believing in a flat Earth or phlogiston.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, laugh at and belittle the faith of others. If it makes you feel big, go ahead. Or take a lesson and show respect for others, and instead of laughing at them or belittling them for their faith, why not try to find common ground with them and see how you can work with them to make this world a little better place to live than how it is now? But, that takes more work, doesn't it? It's much more fun to laugh at them for putting their belief into traditions that have held civilizations together for tho
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I talk to YECs all the time. It sounds to me like you are not talking to YECs, though. Sounds like you are actually referring to plain old "stupid" people. There are lots of them, so it's not hard to run into them. People come out with those types of statements regarding your chances of salvation don't even understand their own scriptures. Part of that is because 99.999% of them haven't actually read them. They have absorbed snippets of them over the years, but lack understanding of what information t
Re: (Score:3)
I think you overlooked a group: those who simply seek to understand the universe. The question of how life in general and we in particular came to exist is a fascinating one, as deserving of research as any other branch. So called "blue sky research", with no obvious benefit has always been a vital component of science. You can learn all sorts of useful things by seeking to understand the mechanisms governing the behavior of things you can meddle with, allowing for all sorts of new technologies, but to
Isn't that kind of expected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is a mistake in the copy process. Or mutation. Of course, it had been established that those mistakes are, in fact, important and the result of such is called Evolution. Not that we didn't know that already.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'd like to know what the alternate theory was. Did we think it might have changed on purpose? Science has only just now discovered that we are not the result of an intelligent designer? WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that somewhat the expected process of evolution in general? Genetic mistake happens; proves to actually be useful to reproduction/beating the competition (as opposed to the vast majority that are either useless or detrimental); and then due to being in the most successful breeders, becomes "standard".
Yet. In fact, the machine learning system I've evolved to recognise speech and images of postures WOULD NOT have been trainable nearly as quickly if I had not EXPLICITLY introduced errors in the genetic copying program. Multiple neural networks compete, they are selected against based on group performance, and the 256 top performers then get to "breed" via genetic program. Zero mutations means that the traits simply shift around in the network, and you can reach an somewhat optimal configuration of the C
Obvious to most (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're with the intelligent designers, it is pretty that all advances made in evolution from the simplest prokaryote to Einstein were made by random errors in gene copying or recombining previous errors.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you mean like what happened during the Summer of Love.
Super-intelligent mice? (Score:4, Funny)
More proof that copying is BAD! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, the articles on copyright and intellectual property still have me spinning a little. Something out there was making genome copies which are not legitimate and the result is there for all to see. If people didn't get so smart, there wouldn't be so much copying going on either.
Okay, okay, more on topic. The crowd is already saying "it's evolution." Okay, let's just get this behind us, "DUH!" Okay, that was short for "yes, they are explaining that evolution led to the changes which produced humans and human intelligence. But you are seeing the forest and forgetting to notice the trees. What aspects and details of human evolution have had striking results? One of many answers is this thing that happened which enabled the brain to grow in complexity and power."
Now that said, there are lots more. I think one of the more interesting details is that our eyes show white in the corners so that other people can see what we are looking at. That's huge in terms of human communication. There are lots of things in human evolution which have led us to where we are today. But if one were to go back to a single thing -- a single point of divergence -- it might be the one in the article.
Re:More proof that copying is BAD! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, e.g., Rap.
Re:More proof that copying is BAD! (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if you had somesimple computer-generated music into which random mutations were introduced. These could be presented to listeners who would decide through an online vote the 'fitness' of the new segment over the original. Any mutations deemed favourable could be recombined into the 'genome' of the track. Would it be possible for a basic track to evolve gradually over time into a complex piece of music that sounds better at each stage?
It's Not a Bug... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a feature!
.
.
.
I'll get my coat now...
isn't this the start of a movie plot? (Score:5, Funny)
scientist 1: "We figured out the secret to human intelligence!"
scientist 2: "Let try it on those animals in the cage and see if we can make them super smart!"
scientist 1: "Good idea! I can't imagine any scenario where that could go wrong."
scientist 1&2: "Yay!"
in the background:
chimp 1: "Pass me some more smart drink"
chimp 2: "You got it buddy. Once we're smart enough to get this cage open, we are so gonna fuck them up..."
Re: (Score:3)
A book too. Mrs Frisby and the Rats of Nihm. Amazing book as I remember when I was 8.
Re: (Score:3)
Tree of Knowledge (Score:3)
Re:Tree of Knowledge (Score:4, Informative)
Does this mean we can pinpoint the time and place of Eden, when Adam and Eve bit the apple that led to this cell division?
Well, using mitochondrial DNA, they have already found that all humans have a common mother some 200,000 years ago. As for the place, most scientist believe it was the eastern part of Africa. Probably not the answer you were looking for, though.
Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nihm, part deux (Score:3)
Perhaps scientists are breeding the next super-race. A few super smart engineered rats get away and bam.... competition with the humans.
Mad Science Time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, cats: Wiskers "More Super-Pop, Marshmallow, I feel like a brain-wave coming on." Marshmallow: "Muhahahahahah...just wait until we get opposable thumbs, then we can drive el dorko's car can get our own treats."
Re: (Score:2)
Pinky: Brain.... (Score:3)
Brain: What we do everyday Pinky.....try to take over the world!!!
Well, duh. (Score:2)
Uplift (Score:3)
Hurry we need to get to work on Chimps and Fins so when the Galactics show up we will already be patrons.
I've always wondered why we're so "smart" (Score:3)
Not to mention we have no natural predators besides viruses, which allows us to reproduce very unnaturally, and starts to favor very strange traits - traits that don't benefit the species but work because we have modern conveniences such as electricity, indoor lighting, cooling, heating, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have expected the intelligence specialty to have appeared before now, possible to greater extent, barring some biological reason preventing reptiles or dinosaurs from having complex abstract thinking.
Flowers for Algernon? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nearly 90 posts, and no Flowers for Algernon reference yet? Illiterate bastards.
Re:Brain (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's still down for me.