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
Cows and dogs need eyes, ability to move around, intelligenceSo ... we invent "eye-stuff" and "foot-stuff". It's not that hard to imagine ... ancient man once thought that there were only four types of 'matter' - fire, earth, air and water - so we will, if you object to a dog simply being made out of just 'dog-stuff' - we will invent "eye-stuff" and anything else required ...
God, in planning his world could have taken this step as well, and indeed, I don't remember anything in the Bible that runs counter to what I writing at the moment either ...
Well, first of all, glass is used in a great many automotive structural parts. Second, you seem to be suggesting that God is nothing more than a lazy (or at least unimaginative) shop mechanic? Kind of demeaning for the omnipotent master of the universe, isn't it?
There was a big push over a year ago by a small gang of deranged posters to try to get all the science threads tossed off this website. That group is mostly all banned now, but one or two still linger on, presumably bitter that the Dark Ages haven't yet been restored. They failed, in part because they were flat-out crazy, and in part, I believe, because Jim Robinson recognizes that the scope of this website is bigger than just the daily nuts and bolts of politics. It's vitally important to attract educated, science-literate people to this website, and it's also important not to repel them from the Republican party. We need to demonstrate to the lurking world that -- contrary to liberal propaganda -- we conservatives aren't all a bunch of flat-earthers.
Matt 12:39 "He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Matthew 10:26
“So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
Matthew 13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Precisely, and that his arrival will herald (is the beginning of) the 'last days'. There is a difference of opinion (probably analogous to that between pre-, post- and a- millenial Christians) about the timeframe between the arrival of mashiach and the 'end of days'.
I always thought man was evolving into apes
LOL!!!! Exactly my first thought, too.
That makes no sense, so perhaps the meaning is elsewhere.
>You mean aside from the fossil record<
LOL!
Yup, fossils of cats turning into dogs, seals & walrus turning into whales.
After millions of years cite mud fish and some toothy bird as "proof".
Ask them about mid-transition fossils and see the laughable examples they come up with.
bravo!
Like these?
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Yes, transitional fossils exist.
Fossil whale with legs. Land animal to whale transitional fossil.
Feathered Dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx. Reptile-to- bird transitional fossil.
Observed Instances of Speciation. That's right ... observed!
Ring Species. We can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them.
Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress. A Classic Example of Darwinian Evolution.
Now, I've seen some rather LARGE fossil skulls, such as the Triceratops. Therefore, one of two things are possible: A. You are a mythical giant, with commensurately humongous furniture - able to fit a very large amount of fossils onto your shelves; or B. You're statement was inaccurate. I chose the more humorous of the two.
Okay. I appreciate the dialog. Is there a specific reference that you base the single-coming belief on, or is based on an absence of specific reference to multiple "comings?" Hope that makes sense, LOL.
MM
That's not answering the question, nor was the question asked of you!
Have you ever been to the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh? They have some skeletons bigger than most houses. You can get a fairly complete collection of plaster or plastic copies of the significant proto-human fossil skulls for a a discouraging amount of money, and that collection would not even take up one shelf.
What makes you think that the pope agrees with Darwin's atheistic ideas of natural selection and random chance? That he would agree with Darwin that humans are the result of a random, purposeless, materialist universe, slowly being accidentally changed from an amoeba.?
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
* "Again, Evolution (in all things) is observable evidence that God exists. Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses this issue long before Darwin ever existed or proposed his theory of evolution. 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."
You are woefully uninformed if you think that Darwinianism (macro evolution) will be proven. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.
And you will only embarrass yourself if you continue to insist on using the RCC to back you up:
"....... 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
"Intelligent Design and Evolution are NOT in conflict and only the most aethist scientist or radical fundamentalists believe they are."
Intelligent Design and Darwinianism definately ARE in conflict. Educate yourself
(an appeal to Authority)
I have asked these questions of a number of creationists, and I have yet to get any answers. Perhaps you will accommodate me.
(1) What is the goal when you (and I use "you" collectively here to denote creationists in general) fabricate a fictional attribute of evolutionary theory, and then dismiss the theory because the fictional attribute has not been, and indeed cannot be, supported by evidence?
(2) Do you think it would be appropriate to use this technique of fabricating non-existence attributes when teaching evolutionary theory in the classroom?
(3) If yes to (2), then how would you reconcile Biblical admonitions against dishonesty with a deliberate dissemination of false information to unsuspecting students?
Intelligent Design and Darwinianism definately ARE in conflict.I suppose, if you need a bogey man to throw stones at ...
HMmmmm.... I have doubts: why do you say it's a 'myth'
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.