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

Skip to comments.

Human brain result of 'extraordinarily fast' evolution
The Guardian (UK) ^ | Wednesday December 29, 2004 | Alok Jha, science correspondent

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


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: brain; creation; crevo; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 541-549 next last
To: HamiltonJay
Should macro evolution be proven beyond a reasonable doubt tommorrow it no more negates God than the fact evil in the world exist would negate God nor creation. Intelligent Design and Evolution are NOT in conflict and only the most aethist scientist or radical fundamentalists believe they are.

It would not affect my faith but if the foundation of your belief is that the Bible is literally true, it would upset your faith in the Bible.

141 posted on 12/29/2004 11:47:56 AM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Doesn't matter who you are. If you're reading these words, YOU will take a knee before the Creator, and with your mouth you will acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Boy, are you going to be surprised when you meet King Osiris in the afterlife....

142 posted on 12/29/2004 11:49:51 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Well, the latter part of that period gave us the first representative fossils of almost all major animal divisions (I forget, are those families, or phyla, or what?), and yet we have absolutely NO fossils representing evolutionary forms of animals between those major groups. Evidence for macroevolution (between major classes of animals)? There just isn't any.

I've read a good bit on it, but I'm no expert and I don't have any emotional commitment to answering the question one way or another. But, I will say to those who see man as a natural evolution from the animal world, that I'll start thinking there may be something to it when some species other than man, ANY species, writes a novel, builds a monument, or splits the atom (I figure that if any species other than ours splits the atom, it will be the house cats, and when they do, we're ALL in trouble. ;)) I mean, haven't the animals had even longer to evolve than we have? What's up with that? To my eyes they all seem just stuck, spinning their wheels. You would think that by now there would have arisen another intelligent species to challenge and compete with us.

Take care-- like I said, I'm not an expert, and I really AM bowing out of this discussion now. These discussions NEVER prosper, which is a sure sign to me that evolution really is just as much as religious belief as any belief in any god.


143 posted on 12/29/2004 11:50:04 AM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Honor above all
As opposed to the Evolutionist's hobby horse? Or is their religious devotion to science somehow superior?

Yawn.

144 posted on 12/29/2004 11:50:23 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
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.

Who gets in and who doesn't. You mean that no one is in heaven yet?

145 posted on 12/29/2004 11:53:31 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: valuesvaluesvalues
The Word of God ... nothing is more reliable or more true.

You do realize that the 6000 year old Earth is based solely on man's (fallible) interpretation of the Bible, right?

146 posted on 12/29/2004 11:54:26 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
If man was smarter and more capable in the Garden, where are the archeological finds of their hospitals, highway systems, medical research labs, airplane hangers, computers, etc...

Were they more physically capable? Most likely. Today, through the use of our minds we no longer have to use stone tools, sticks, and bare hands for all of lifes needs.

Fossile evidence shows that from the time man 'discovered' he could sharpen a rock to make a crude knife/blade with it it took thousands more years for man to 'discover' that he could make far greater use of it by putting it on the end of a stick.

147 posted on 12/29/2004 11:54:55 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Just my way of poking the high and mighties and reminding them that though they think it the case, they might be rejected when the time comes.


148 posted on 12/29/2004 11:57:02 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: PFC
It would not affect my faith but if the foundation of your belief is that the Bible is literally true, it would upset your faith in the Bible.

Yes, obviously if you believe the Bible is 100% literal, than anything that says Adam and all the animals that ever were were simply poofed into existence and brought to Adam for naming, and then God took his rib to make him a wife, then yea, Evolution doesn't really jive with that.

Of course if you believe the Bible is at all times 100% literal, basically the fossile record destroys this notion with or without evolution... as Millions of animals existed long before man walked the earth, so it would have been impossible for Adam to have been brought all of them for naming.

Like I said, only Atheists and Radical Fundamentalists are the ones that argue that evolution is in conflict with God.

Remember, Science at its BEST can only answer "HOW" God works or has worked in the Universe, it does not answer, and can never answer "WHY". Spirituality is about WHY... Science is about HOW.

149 posted on 12/29/2004 11:57:22 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: PFC; Matchett-PI
[I]f the foundation of your belief is that the Bible is literally true, it would upset your faith in the Bible.

Not according to Matchett-PI, since his contention is that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate both an old earth and a recently created earth, as the following quote from one of his posts on this thread demonstrates:

It is likely that scientific research in the next ten or twenty years will tip the weight of evidence decisively toward either a young earth or an old earth view, and the weight of Christian scholarly opinion (from both biblical scholars and scientists) will begin to shift decisively in one direction or another.

This should not cause alarm to advocates of either position, because the truthfulmess of Scripture is not threatened our interpretations of Genesis 1 have enough uncertainty that either position is possible). Both sides need to grow in the knowledge of the truth, even if this means abandoning a long-held position.

Presumably, Matchett-PI would also concur with the idea that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate evolution as well.

150 posted on 12/29/2004 11:58:01 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
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?

I'm speaking of being Jewish as being a member of the Jewish race. If you practice the Jewish religion, however, without accepting Christ, then yes, there's obviously a conflict.

MM

151 posted on 12/29/2004 11:59:02 AM PST by MississippiMan (Americans should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Seriously, you should read The Bible if you want answers. Why not? If you wanted to know about science, you would read a science book.

You don't have to read the whole thing. Just start with the Books of Matthew and John from The New Testament. You will get more answers than you can ever imagine.

152 posted on 12/29/2004 11:59:47 AM PST by NewLand (I'm a Generation Jones'er and WE elected President Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
I believe men were SMARTER and more PHYSICALLY CAPABLE in the past, all things being equal, like diet, etc.

There is, of course, no evidence for this belief whatsoever.

153 posted on 12/29/2004 12:00:48 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Jews are a race?

I'll let my wife and her family know that FReeper MississippiMan has informed me that they are all going to hell. I am sure they will be most appreciative of the news.

Of course, unless your Mormon you are going to hell too. South Park said so.

154 posted on 12/29/2004 12:01:44 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

It is hard to the show evolutionary tree of a non-existant animal. What, exactly, is your point?


155 posted on 12/29/2004 12:02:05 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
I'm speaking of being Jewish as being a member of the Jewish race.

There is no such thing as a Jewish race, anymore than there is a Protestant race.

156 posted on 12/29/2004 12:02:58 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
Ok, so this explains RATS brains.

Well, they do appear for all intensive purposes to be "rush jobs"...

157 posted on 12/29/2004 12:04:45 PM PST by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

C'mon....lighten up. I was just kidding around.


158 posted on 12/29/2004 12:06:05 PM PST by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Almost any fact can be explained in retrospect in the context of evolutionary biology.

I believe some call it the Law of Retrospective Astonishment.

159 posted on 12/29/2004 12:07:03 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: walden

Walden,

Believe me I am no expert, and I don't subscribe to the Evolutionary theory as "god" group myself. It has issues, that one day may or may not be resolved.

The point I am trying to make though is to those who dismiss it out of spirituality concerns. Even if Macro Evolution were shown to be 100% correct, this would not remotely invalidate God.

Hell even if the String theorists are correct, and we live on a membrane surrounded by other membranes and it was the collision of our membrane with another membrane that released the energy that created our universe... St Thomas Acquinas arguments for the existence of God still hold true.

After all, for change to happen, something must have instigated the first change... for things to exist, something prior to it must exist to create it... You take both of these statements back to their ultimate beginning and you are left with SOMETHING out of NOTHING... And that something that willed something from nothing is God.


160 posted on 12/29/2004 12:07:45 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 541-549 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