or this:
Posted on 12/29/2004 9:14:28 AM PST by 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
That post left open the possibility that science would shift to proving that the earth was only 6000 years old. To me that is a stupid thing to say.
I think you're biting off far more than is prudent in one bite; we have far more people here on this thread who cannot explain the basics of how their computer works (down from application level, through to OS calls, down through to memory and disk accesses to the actuation of individual logic 'gates' in tri-state buss drivers, instruction decode and ALU units) or their modern day car (replete with computer controlled FI systems let alone the simpler carburtored systems of yesterday worked) attempting arguments that cross at least a half dozen specialize fields of study - if not more.
Given a nearly infinite time frame - nearly infinite 'things' are possible.
Let me pose a question to you: If the world is only 6,000 years old, and the 'making' of it also employed means to 'make' it look like it is eons old, why the charade with the the atom?
Why is all matter made up of something just over 100 some different 'elements', never mind that the majority of us are only made up primarily of a dozen or so 'common' elements, and, of course, elements are made up of (basically) electrons, protrons and neutrons -
- once again, why this huge 'charade' if, from The Creator's purpose, he could have simply made dogs out of 'dog' stuff, cows out of 'cow' stuff and people out of 'people' stuff?
Maybe the WHOLE PICTURE is a whole lot more complicated than any of us little puny humans can imagine?
The best argument for the evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved.
As the poster of the article let me tell you why I think this belongs in News.
It reports an important published research finding that appeared in a major newspaper.
Things being what they are on FR, it has attracted creationists who ride their usual hobby horse.
This article no more belongs in Chat than does any other report of scientific research.
PS: You can always skip threads you don't like.
That's because Judgment Day ain't here yet.
MM
I didn't bring up the issue of "micro" and "macro" evolution, you did. And I merely asked you to explain what you meant by "micro" and "macro" evolution, since it is your contention (not mine) that there is a "major" difference between the two.
I take it from you response that you are incapable of providing such an explanation.
or this:
As opposed to the Evolutionist's hobby horse? Or is their religious devotion to science somehow superior?
"Are we not men? We are DEVO."
Being Jewish is no reason for anyone to go to hell. Rejecting Christ, however, is. Nothing else matters.
MM
>>There is no Physical evidence to support the Theory.
You mean aside from the fossil record, DNA...?
While there is plenty of evidence to support Creation.
Namely?<<
For starters, DNA...
And where are these conditions drawn from? The Old Testament, or does Judaism draw on some other texts for messianic prophecy? If the OT, do you know specific passages?
Thanks...
MM
>>And the next generation of humans appears to be dumber than the prior generation. Evolution in in reverse now?<<
I say this with absolute seriousness: I believe man has, in a sense, "de-evolved" since the garden. I believe men were SMARTER and more PHYSICALLY CAPABLE in the past, all things being equal, like diet, etc.
MississippiMan: That's because Judgment Day ain't here yet.
And when Judgement Day does come there will be many surprised, shocked, and dismayed people when they learn who gets in and who doesn't.
What makes one species lesser while another is superior? Furthermore, what makes you think that the TOE has anything to do with "lesser" versus "superior" species?
Um, as had been said about a million times on these threads, the TOE does not cover where life came from.
But to be Jewish doesn't one have to reject the idea that Jesus is the son of God and the saviour?
And if you do accept Jesus as the son of God and the saviour how can you be jewish?
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.