Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gene Mutation Said Linked to Evolution
Science - AP ^ | 2004-03-24 | JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA

Posted on 03/24/2004 11:53:42 AM PST by Junior

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last

1 posted on 03/24/2004 11:53:42 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Piltdown_Woman; RadioAstronomer; Ichneumon
Ping
2 posted on 03/24/2004 11:54:27 AM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Testing to see whether Law 1138 is in effect.
3 posted on 03/24/2004 11:55:44 AM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Yawn..

More straw clutching

4 posted on 03/24/2004 11:57:58 AM PST by Outer Limits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"The mutation would have reduced the Darwinian fitness of those individuals," said anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University. "It only would've become fixed if it coincided with mutations that reduced tooth size, jaw size and increased brain size. What are the chances of that?"

Interesting point. I wonder if anyone on this thread can come up with an explanation.

5 posted on 03/24/2004 11:58:50 AM PST by Modernman (Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Yes, it is. I read this far:

toward smaller, weaker jaws

and realized that I am a very advanced human. I have TMJ syndrome and wouldn't have much of chin without my beard inflating the poor thing.

6 posted on 03/24/2004 11:59:14 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Hmm... well I have noticed an inverse correlation between the size of a Democrat's mouth and their intelligence...
7 posted on 03/24/2004 11:59:51 AM PST by thoughtomator (Voting Bush because there is no reasonable alternative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Junior
>The provocative discovery suggests that this genetic twist — toward smaller, weaker jaws — unleashed a cascade of profound biological changes. The smaller jaws would allow for dramatic brain growth necessary for tool-making, language and other hallmarks of human evolution


8 posted on 03/24/2004 12:03:56 PM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Well, get your superior, gallbladerless intellect in gear and finish the article!
9 posted on 03/24/2004 12:04:20 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
I take it you're having a hard time swallowing this?
10 posted on 03/24/2004 12:05:26 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Surprised that we haven't heard from a band of screaming, Bible hurling fundamentalist Edenites from this post.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame37.html
11 posted on 03/24/2004 12:05:46 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I wonder if anyone on this thread can come up with an explanation.

The explanation is that it probably didn't make much, if any, practical difference to their ability to eat, and therefore had no impact on their ability to reproduce. Many people misconstrue evolutionary science to state that any mutation that is less clearly adaptive than another - however trivial and inconsequential to survival - will not perpetuate due to that initial reduction in fitness.

That is false. It's unfortunate that an anthropologist makes such an elementary error.

12 posted on 03/24/2004 12:06:13 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Junior
OK, I finished it. Doubt if I'll mention it at Show N' Tell.
13 posted on 03/24/2004 12:06:56 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Hmm... well I have noticed an inverse correlation between the size of a Democrat's mouth and their intelligence...

Close to the truth now, are we?

14 posted on 03/24/2004 12:07:17 PM PST by Ace's Dad ("There are more important things: Friendship, Bravery...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Gene Mutation !?!?!

I think my sister used to date him!

15 posted on 03/24/2004 12:08:40 PM PST by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
This is Reuter's version of the story:

LONDON (Reuters) - A genetic mutation that occurred 2.4 million years ago could be the reason why modern humans have such big brains and weak jaws, scientists said on Wednesday.

They discovered that a fault in a gene called MYH16 in modern humans happened at about the same time that their skulls started to change in shape from other primates, allowing their brains to increase in size.

But the trade-off was a smaller, less powerful jaw.

"The coincidence in time...may mean that the decrease in jaw muscle size and force eliminated stress on the skull which released an evolutionary constraint on brain growth," said Nancy Minugh-Purvis, a member of the team at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, that made the discovery.

All humans have the MYH16 mutation but other primates, including chimpanzees and macaques, still have the intact gene. Over the past few million years, since the genetic fault occurred, human skulls have grown three times in size and the outwardly elongated jaws have receded.

Pete Currie, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute in Sydney, believes the research published in the science journal Nature could be the first functional genetic difference between humans and apes.

"Remarkably, the timing of the appearance of this genetic alteration, or mutation, roughly coincides with the appearance of "human-like" characteristics in the hominid fossil record," Currie said in a commentary in the journal.

Minugh-Purvis along with Hansell Stedman and other experts at the university pieced together the complicated puzzle after discovering that the gene was intact in primates but mutated in all humans.

A genetic fault is often linked with some type of inherited disease but the scientists were puzzled about what type of disease was common in all humans throughout the world.

Further research revealed that MYH16 was associated with muscles involved in chewing and biting and it encoded a protein in primate jaw muscles. This led the researchers to suspect the so-called disease in humans was a weaker bite.

Stedman and his colleague said the weaker bite would have lessened the force on the skull so it could grow larger and provide more space for a bigger brain.

"We can only hope that this study represents the vanguard of a new wave of analyzes that focus on the genetic basis of human evolution," Currie added.

A genetic mutation that occurred 2.4 million years ago could be the reason why modern humans have such big brains and weak jaws, scientists said Wednesday.

They discovered that a fault in a gene called MYH16 in modern humans happened at about the same time that their skulls started to change in shape from other primates, allowing their brains to increase in size.

But the trade-off was a smaller, less powerful jaw.

"The coincidence in time...may mean that the decrease in jaw muscle size and force eliminated stress on the skull which released an evolutionary constraint on brain growth," said Nancy Minugh-Purvis, a member of the team at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, that made the discovery.

All humans have the MYH16 mutation but other primates, including chimpanzees and macaques, still have the intact gene. Over the past few million years, since the genetic fault occurred, human skulls have grown three times in size and the outwardly elongated jaws have receded.

Pete Currie, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute in Sydney, believes the research published in the science journal Nature could be the first functional genetic difference between humans and apes.

"Remarkably, the timing of the appearance of this genetic alteration, or mutation, roughly coincides with the appearance of "human-like" characteristics in the hominid fossil record," Currie said in a commentary in the journal.

Minugh-Purvis along with Hansell Stedman and other experts at the university pieced together the complicated puzzle after discovering that the gene was intact in primates but mutated in all humans.

A genetic fault is often linked with some type of inherited disease but the scientists were puzzled about what type of disease was common in all humans throughout the world.

Further research revealed that MYH16 was associated with muscles involved in chewing and biting and it encoded a protein in primate jaw muscles. This led the researchers to suspect the so-called disease in humans was a weaker bite.

Stedman and his colleague said the weaker bite would have lessened the force on the skull so it could grow larger and provide more space for a bigger brain.

"We can only hope that this study represents the vanguard of a new wave of analyzes that focus on the genetic basis of human evolution," Currie added.

16 posted on 03/24/2004 12:09:54 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw
>Gene Mutation !?!?! I think my sister used to date him!


17 posted on 03/24/2004 12:10:01 PM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Many people misconstrue evolutionary science to state that any mutation that is less clearly adaptive than another - however trivial and inconsequential to survival - will not perpetuate due to that initial reduction in fitness.

Survival of the adequate? Actually, I see your point. If no other mutations were to ever occur, the primates with the stronger jaws would probably outlast the primates with the weaker jaw, over a number of generations. However, since other mutations do occur, the primates with the weaker jaws are in a position to profit from them, in the genetic long-run.

18 posted on 03/24/2004 12:11:13 PM PST by Modernman (Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
THAT's the guy! lol
19 posted on 03/24/2004 12:11:36 PM PST by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
One may also posit that since increased intelligence is such an obvious evolutionary advantage, that the primates with weaker jaws would swiftly begin evolving larger brains in relatively few generations time. Those weak-jawed primates born with larger brains would have a higher probability of surviving to reproduction than those weak-jawed primates with smaller brains (independent of the jaw-strength) and so once the genetic provision was made that allowed for larger brains, they would quickly expand to fill the available space and thus become the norm.
20 posted on 03/24/2004 12:19:43 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson