Human brain result of 'extraordinarily fast' evolution

The Guardian (UK) ^ | Wednesday December 29, 2004 | Alok Jha, science correspondent

[aculeus]

Emergence of society may have spurred growth

The sophistication of the human brain is not simply the result of steady evolution, according to new research. Instead, humans are truly privileged animals with brains that have developed in a type of extraordinarily fast evolution that is unique to the species.

"Simply put, evolution has been working very hard to produce us humans," said Bruce Lahn, an assistant professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

"Our study offers the first genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of life."

Professor Lahn's research, published this week in the journal Cell, suggests that humans evolved their cognitive abilities not owing to a few sporadic and accidental genetic mutations - as is the usual way with traits in living things - but rather from an enormous number of mutations in a short period of time, acquired though an intense selection process favouring complex cognitive abilities.

Evolutionary biologists generally argue that humans have evolved in much the same way as all other life on Earth. Mutations in genes from one generation to the next sometimes give rise to new adaptations to a creature's environment.

Those best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.

The evolution of a large brain in humans, then, can be seen as similar to the process that leads to longer tusks or bigger antlers. In general terms, and after scaling for body size, brains get bigger and more complex as animals get bigger.

But with humans, the relative size of the brain does not fit the trend - our brains are disproportionately big, much bigger even than the brains of other non-human primates, including our closest relatives, chimpanzees.

Prof Lahn's team examined the DNA of 214 genes involved in brain development in humans, macaques, rats and mice.

By comparing mutations that had no effect on the function of the genes with those mutations that did, they came up with a measure of the pressure of natural selection on those genes.

The scientists found that the human brain's genes had gone through an intense amount of evolution in a short amount of time - a process that far outstripped the evolution of the genes of other animals.

"We've proven that there is a big distinction," Prof Lahn said. "Human evolution is, in fact, a privileged process because it involves a large number of mutations in a large number of genes.

"To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time - a few tens of millions of years - requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."

As for how all of this happened, the professor suggests that the development of human society may be the reason.

In an increasingly social environment, greater cognitive abilities probably became more of an advantage.

"As humans become more social, differences in intelligence will translate into much greater differences in fitness, because you can manipulate your social structure to your advantage," he said.

"Even devoid of the social context, as humans become more intelligent, it might create a situation where being a little smarter matters a lot.

"The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that's unprecedented."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Matchett-PI]

"the following qualifiers [are] used to buttress the claims of evolution:...[snip]"

Those who use such wishy-washy qualifiers to buttress their claims, have no other legitimate choice.

According to Charles Darwin, himself, the ultimate purpose of macroevolution (Darwinianism)is survival: not the production of true beliefs.

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" ~ Charles Darwin

Patricia Churchland agrees with Darwin:

"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."

LOL

[PatrickHenry]

I love it! [Since viruses survive better than human beings, why did we bother to evolve?] So much better than the old "If we descended from apes how come apes still exist?"

Next time you try to get amorous with your wife, instead of claiming a headache, maybe she'll say: "We'd better not do this any more; after all, viruses are so much better than we are."

[VadeRetro]

As I say, "Twist and Shout." I'd post a rebuttal, but the rebuttals are already in the material you're twisting.

Worse, you aren't even doing creation science wrong. You're doing it right.

[VadeRetro]

Darwinist / macroevolutionist, Marvin Lubenow

Absoultely wrong. Young Earth Idiot, "Bones of Contention" author Marvin Lubenow.

[VadeRetro]

Absoultely wrong.

Maybe not "absoultely."

[PatrickHenry]

According to Charles Darwin, himself, the ultimate purpose of macroevolution (Darwinianism)is survival: not the production of true beliefs.

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" ~ Charles Darwin

Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote, a splendid example of creationoid "research." Here is that same sentence fragment (shown in blue) with the surrounding text included:

... there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of energy-of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
From a letter to W. GRAHAM, dated July 3rd, 1881. Source: here.

In the actual letter, Darwin isn't discussing macro-evolution at all. Not even close. He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions. This is irrelevant to macro-evolution. Further, note how the bogus quote falsely begins in mid-sentence, in an attempt to disguise that it is snatched from a larger bit of writing. All creation "science" is fraudulent.

[DennisR]

"The sophistication of the human brain is not simply the result of steady evolution, according to new research. Instead, humans are truly privileged animals with brains that have developed in a type of extraordinarily fast evolution that is unique to the species."

Hm...sounds kind of like "And God made man in His own image."

[AndrewC]

Science 101

Lateral transfer was first mentioned on this thread in post 453.

That's all one needs to understand when *the lawyers who lie with truth* start waving bacterial lateral transfer around to dazzle the jury.

Evolution makes no distinction as to what life is being considered. One of the statements concerning reproductive rates mentioned only the asexual method of reproduction.

Single-celled eukaryotes reproduce faster than multi-cellular eukaryotes, but bacteria are in another league. Screamingly fast with streamlined, all-gene-no-junk DNA. And bacteria have lateral transfer and eukaryotes don't.

However here is science.

Lateral transfer in natural populations of eukaryotes.

Consistent with general observations of phylogenetic regularity, the limited molecular evidence suggests that lateral transfer of eukaryotic genomic sequences is at best very rare. However, due to limited data, the possibility of rare transfers that could have considerable evolutionary significance cannot be ruled out.

But expect to be entertained by more tap-dancing Darwinians employing the tactic of projection.

Bacteria, all-gene-no-junk(hmm not even a psuedogene to use as a workshop), the fugu fish of life

Darn, it takes years to make bread because of those stupid eukaryotes.

[free_life]

If evolution is a lie and there is no evidence to support it, please explain how we can watch it with our own eyes as viruses evolve in a matter of months to build resistence to the newest antibiotics.

---

And virus cell evolved from __________? There was nothing and then something happened [insert theory like big bang] and then their was life! Ya right! Wake up and smell the Coffee Maker!

Picture a man standing before the Living God and trying to explain, but God You can't be I explained You away scientifically! What puny little brains evolvtionists must have.

[AndrewC]

psuedogene = pseudogene

[bondserv]

All creation "science" is fraudulent.

Keep saying it if it makes you feel better. Reminds me of: "Bush stole the 2000 election."

The rest of us continue to enjoy the marvels of creation.

[Matchett-PI]

M-PI:"...Darwinist / macroevolutionist, Marvin Lubenow"

VadeRetro: "Absoultely wrong. Young Earth Idiot, "Bones of Contention" author Marvin Lubenow."

I think the scientific evidence for an "old earth" is much more persuasive that that offered by "young earth" proponents, but by using ad hominem ("idiot") you diminish your credibility with everyone other than moral relativists and / or the intellectualy dishonest.

That aside, I have rectified your correct objections here:

"If the unfit survived indefinately, they would continure to infect the fit with their genes. The result is that the more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes and evolution could not take place. The concept of evolution demands death. Death is thus as natural to evolution as it is foreign to biblical creation. The Bible teaches that death is a foreigner, a condition superimposed upon humans and nature after creation." ~ Marvin Lubenow - graphically portraying the consequences of Darwinianism / macroevolution ie: Darwin's racist / sexist beliefs about Negroes and women being unfit/inferior and that is is as crucial that the unfit die as it is that the fittest survive.

[VadeRetro]

... by using ad hominem ("idiot") you diminish your credibility with everyone other than moral relativists and / or the intellectualy dishonest.

But the argument that evolution cannot be a historical process because supposedly* wicked men have embraced it seems to be worth making. Such statements on a thread about whether evolution happens would be what fallacy?

* One of your "wicked men" is a foaming-at-the-mouth antievolutionist. The others are just Victorian Englishmen whose view of race was no worse than, and generally the same as, that of their society and their time.

[PatrickHenry]

Marvin Lubenow - graphically portraying the consequences of Darwinianism / macroevolution ie: Darwin's racist / sexist beliefs about Negroes and women being unfit/inferior ...

A grotesque perversion of Darwin's thinking. Typical creationoid conduct. This is from the final chapter of The Descent of Man. It's not the writing of a racist who imagines that his group is somehow divinely distinct from all others (underlining added by me):

I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure, — the union of each pair in marriage, — the dissemination of each seed, — and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.
[snip]
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind — such were our ancestors. ... [Snip]... He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.
[Snip]
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system — with all these exalted powers — Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

[Matchett-PI]

Patrick Henry: "Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote, a splendid example of creationoid "research."

The Darwin quote I posted has everything to do with the subject I was addressing. Your red herring won't work.

And you embarrass yourself. The most outrageous "out-of-context" quote can be found on YOUR profile page where you attempt to prove that even "the pope" agrees with you and Darwin.

This is what you posted "out of context":

"The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution: Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:"

"It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences."

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

*

Below are the quotes you left out that show the pope doesn't agree with yours and Darwin's atheistic ideas of natural selection and random chance.

Quoting the Pope: "....to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. ...man... was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). ...

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."

HERE: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp

And here's even more you won't like from 1986:

"....... Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience on 24 January 1986, addressed the issue and said that "The theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis."

Conflicts between the truths of science and the truths of faith, in other words, are only apparent, never real, for both science and faith, the natural world accessible to reason, and the "world" of revelation accessible to faith, have the same author: God.

It makes no difference to faith what precise mechanisms the Creator chose to carry out his divine plan of creation. Being all powerful, and having created everything out of nothing, God could have literally and directly created man out of the slime of the earth, as Genesis describes, or he could have used evolutionary mechanisms which he himself had set in motion.

It makes no difference to faith whether or not man is descended from some apelike creature, so long as we understand that there had to be what Pope John Paul II calls an "ontological leap" between that creature and the first human person.

In other words, God, in the Pope's and the Church's teaching, would have to have intervened directly in the creation of man because each rational soul is created out of nothing. The soul of man could not have arisen from nature as an accident of evolutionary processes." February 23, 2003 Science and Faith

196 posted on 12/29/2004 4:16:56 PM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310267/posts?page=196#196

[PatrickHenry]

The most outrageous "out-of-context" quote can be found on YOUR profile page where you attempt to prove that even "the pope" agrees with you and Darwin.

I make no claim that the Pope agrees with me, and not even with Darwin, except to say that: "Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity." (Those are my words on my homepage.)

Unlike your out-of-context quote, which was indeed out of context until I supplied it, in my freeper homepage I give a link to the material which I excerpted, so that the rational reader can see the whole thing and arrive at his own conclusion -- which in most cases won't be the same as yours.

[Matchett-PI]

"But the argument that evolution cannot be a historical process because supposedly* wicked men have embraced it .."

I make no such argument, and you know it. You aren't able to answer valid arguments so you set up strawman and drag red herrings across the trail hoping to distract those capable of falling for it.

What are your disagreements with Darwin and macroevolution?

[Matchett-PI]

Hahahaha

[VadeRetro]

But the argument that evolution cannot be a historical process because supposedly* wicked men have embraced it ..

I make no such argument, and you know it.

They should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be taught to impressionable school children.

The dance goes on. On a thread about whether evolution happens in nature, you interject that material and then scream about ad hominem arguments. Then you have the nerve to deny what is there for all to see.

You, too, are doing creation science at about par. Then again, no creationist is below par.

[VadeRetro]

Didn't mean to forget this.

What are your disagreements with Darwin and macroevolution?

Virtually none with Darwin and macroevolution is not seriously deniable by sane people familiar with the evidence. I do not espouse his views on race, but he was not a racist as 1859 London would have detected it. For similar reasons, I do not know or care what Isaac Newton's views on race would be, either.

Darwin gets a few details wrong, mostly in The Descent of Man where he gets into the kind of specifics that go out of date. I thought I saw a mistake or two in Origin, but forget what or where exactly.

He pretty well nails it, even anticipating punctuated equilibrium rather more than Gould or Eldredge seem to have credited.