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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 541-549 next last
To: Matchett-PI
Well heck, that gets me back to the very first question I asked of you -- the one you in-artfully dodged by telling me to go look up the answer on my own.

That question was -- please explain the difference between "macro" evolution and "micro" evolution. Creationists came up with the notion of "macro" and "micro", but creationists are all over the map on what the difference is between them and where one stops and the other begins. I'd like to know what you perceive to be the difference, and where you perceive one to stop and the other to begin.

The question directly relates to your comment about the "uncertainties" in Genesis, because you clearly believe that those uncertainties are sufficient to accommodate "micro" evolution. I'm just curious how far out you put the line when distinguishing between micro and macro evolution, and how flexible you perceive Genesis to be in accommodating a "little bit of evolution, but not too much."
261 posted on 12/29/2004 2:44:13 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Interesting, but probably misleading. The evidence over the past 2,500 years--admittedly a very short sample--is that man is devolving, not evolving--in terms of brain power.

Compare the tendency to produce the higher levels of genius, today, in any population group, with Sir Francis Galton's example of the population of Attica about 2400 years ago, where 90,000 produced a dozen men who throughout all history since, have remained at or near the top in their respective disciplines. Or contrast even the top 25% of the voting population of America today, with those who were persuaded to ratify the Constitution, by reading the scholarly disertations in the Federalist Papers, to witness the dumbing down of our own population.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

262 posted on 12/29/2004 2:44:22 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
G Larry said: "No species transition. "

Freeper Alter Kaker supplied some information in post 51 concerning common lineage of bears and dogs.

How is this insufficient to support species transition? Is there something key missing?

263 posted on 12/29/2004 2:51:59 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

in fact it was almost .. instantaneous ...


264 posted on 12/29/2004 2:53:41 PM PST by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
"Interesting source. Not only did it cite to Watergate-era jailbird Chuck Colson, but to 19th Century financier Jay Gould and his amazing theory of the "quantum jump." What a scientific lineup."

The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief.

If a controversial claim could be established as true because it is supported by experts, then contradictory beliefs would be true, which is absurd.

Do you know what a genetic fallacy is? One can't legitimately judge a proposition or belief by the person who is stating it, rather, one must judge it through the arguments for and against it. Please don't expect those capable of critical thought to take you seriously if you use ad hominem in place of valid argumentation.

265 posted on 12/29/2004 3:02:41 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

>And how do you reconcile Biblical admonitions against dishonesty with the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods to unsuspecting students?<

Nothing to reconcile.
It is evolution which is false.
I only assert creation.

more later.


266 posted on 12/29/2004 3:05:44 PM PST by G Larry (Admiral James Woolsey as National Intelligence Director)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
"I'm just curious how far out you put the line when distinguishing between micro and macro evolution, and how flexible you perceive Genesis to be in accommodating a "little bit of evolution, but not too much."

For the 4th time, now

267 posted on 12/29/2004 3:08:10 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
For the sake of argument, assume that there is a God and he did create the heavens and the earth: is anyone really expecting a multi-volume encyclopedic description of math, physics, chemistry, and biology to be in that God's Prophet's account of creation? One that could only be slightly grasped by a few--if any--Einstien types, and not at all by the vast majority of everyone?

A true, but concise, account, one that anyone could grasp, would be much preferred. It says else where in the bible that a thousand years are like a day to God, and I doubt that the languages of the time had words to express hundreds of thousands or millions. A thousand meant a lot.
268 posted on 12/29/2004 3:17:48 PM PST by WmDonovan (http://www.geocities.com/thelawndaletimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Honor above all

You are all off base. Everyone knows that Odin created the first man Aske from an Ash tree, and Embla (first woman) from an Elm tree and endowed them with life and souls.

I get very upset that the local schools teach this junk science of evololution instead of the truth. How do I know this, it's written in the Eddas for all to see plain as day.

Are we to believe we are descended from monkeys? The Ash tree is our true ancestor.


269 posted on 12/29/2004 3:18:06 PM PST by Ignatius J Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gdani



As some have been doing......


270 posted on 12/29/2004 3:18:26 PM PST by devolve (http://pro.lookingat.us/ElvisChristmas.html http://pro.lookingat.us/TheKing.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ignatius J Reilly

I'm guessing that you are trying to make a point....


271 posted on 12/29/2004 3:20:52 PM PST by Honor above all (I'm only here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
You take wrong. I am trying to help you get your questions answered directly. If you are truly sincere or interested, you would go directly to the source.

Is there something you fear about reading The Bible?

272 posted on 12/29/2004 3:22:35 PM PST by NewLand (I'm a Generation Jones'er and WE elected President Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
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.

Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick knew about this 40 years ago.

273 posted on 12/29/2004 3:26:31 PM PST by Moonman62 (Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geopyg
I don't get this either. It would seem that by being in a society the dumb ones would be able to survive because of the kindness of their relatives and neighbors. Out in the jungle/savannah whatever by yourself - if your're dumb you die.

I think (personally, based on my own anthropology reading) that it was the *kind* of society which formed that made the difference. In chimp and gorilla groups, there's no nuclear family. Males may "own" a group but there's no real individual loyalty to one female & her offspring.

At some point proto-hominids transitioned to people (probably 150,000 or so years ago.) It may have been something so simple as pair-bonding between male and female, with the male being *responsible* for the female and her offspring.

One thing you can say for sure about *modern* primitive hunters is that the men don't hunt in a "vacuum." Even though the women don't hunt, they have huge jobs to fulfill - like taking care of the camps, processing the kill, preserving the meat, doing all the sewing and preparing of hides, as well as a good portion of the artwork (decorating hides.) So development of the brain occurred in *both* sexes, without the gross sexual differences in size and behavior seen in the great apes.

This situation is optimal for language development. Males "needed" language to work cooperatively with other men; to persuade a woman to set up a partnership (marriage) with him. Females "needed" language to pass their arts on to other females; to bond with their mates and probably most important - as a means of better raising infants. At some point the survival value of being *talked to* and *communicated with* as an infant had to be phenomenal.

274 posted on 12/29/2004 3:44:30 PM PST by valkyrieanne (card-carrying South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Is there something you fear about reading The Bible?

Is there something you fear about answering my question?

275 posted on 12/29/2004 3:50:37 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Where cAN WE READ ABOUT THESE PROPHECIES?

See http://members.aol.com/just1crzyju/falseprophet.htm

276 posted on 12/29/2004 3:59:44 PM PST by qam1 (Anyone who was born in New Jersey should not be allowed to drive at night or on hills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

That's silly. Please tell me Homer Simpson thought that up! Please God!


277 posted on 12/29/2004 4:01:04 PM PST by Lady Jag (All I want is a kind word, a warm bed, and unlimited power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Not those transitionals, you silly evotard. We want the dog with wings, the whale with feathers, the bird with wheels ... Get with the program!

Dogs with wings? Yep, there are those and more.

278 posted on 12/29/2004 4:10:15 PM PST by jennyp (Latest creation/evolution news: http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
If you don't agree with the evidence, that's fine, its those that dismiss evolution as though its somehow an affront to God.

This works both ways. It should be obvious that one cannot use science knowledge to infer religious truths anymore than one can use religious knowledge to deduce scientific truths.

It is those, such as R. Dawkins, who perform reductionism (materialism scientism) while claiming they're not reductionists because there's nothing to reduce. This is an affront to anyone persuing knowledge transcending the narrow sphere of science.

Evolution has had a greater impact OUTSIDE biology. This should tell us that it is being used far outside it's limited - and rightly questioned - area of knowledge.

279 posted on 12/29/2004 4:25:09 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: LtKerst
While there is plenty of evidence to support Creation.

Oh this is going to be good.....

Please, bestow us with your knowledge of the evidence that supports creationism.
280 posted on 12/29/2004 4:33:51 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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