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
Hehehehe, "semi-literate boobery". That defintely wins the Prose of the Week Award. Keep em coming!
"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."
You pointed out no such thing. This is exactly and precisely what you wrote:
Therefore what I wrote still stands: "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." ~ Matchett-PI
"Finally, since you seem so enthralled by logical fallacies, I'll point out a couple. When these are made by your creationist cohorts, as I am sure they will be, I trust you'll be as enthusiastic to point them out as you were in my case:
"Appeal to Authority: "If the Bible says the Flood happened, then it happened." Appeal to fear: "If you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, you're going to hell." ......blah, blah, blah ....Again, these are just a few of the standard creationist logical fallacies. I trust you'll point them out as they pop up."
Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.
I've noticed that. It is surprising how many self-described 'bible Christians' know so little about the Hebrew scriptures, aside from the most well-known narrative portions, mostly in Genesis, Exodus and the books of Kings.
I think He was warning us not to see Him as something separate and disconnected from the events of the Old Testament, but as an EMBODIMENT thereof, a parallel extension of God's love for Israel.
Can you go into this in greater depth? How does this relate to the belief that he "fulfilled the Law", and what, specifically, does it mean to say that he "fulfilled the Law"?
What are your thoughts on Daniel 9, specifically 9:25?
Heheh. Daniel is the "Old Testament" equivalent of the Book of Revelation. Be highly skeptical of anyone who claims to have it all figured out. ;o)
Needless to say, Christians and Jews differ on how they calculate the weeks, and what events they think were prophecied.
Before I respond further on this passage, can you tell me which translation you are using?
Funny, I don't recall being nasty to you. Perhaps you should take your own admonitions against ad hominem to heart.
That said, was I somehow wrong in my assessment of your stand on the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, perhaps you could correct me (as opposed to simply ducking and dodging).
Are you under the impression that the theory of evolution posits, for example, a cat just up and giving birth one day to a hyena?
I'm under the impression that for something to "evolve" the baby had to be different than the mother.
And Vade provides (as usual) a perfect example. Although I expect that you will object because, despite the differences from one generation to the next, humans are still humans and double-tailed goldfish are still goldfish. But ... one step at a time.
The posting on the dog/bear relationship includes:
Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Is it your position that this creature was unrelated to either dogs or bears and was a unique species created by "intelligent design"?
Evolutionists believe that it is an ancestor of both dogs and bears. Are they wrong? You seem to have ignored the most important data and complained because other date is missing.
What relationship, if any, do you believe this species has to dogs and/or bears?
Matthew 5:17 -- Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. -- The "or" conjunction makes it clear that the Law and the Prophets are two different issues under discussion. As for the Law, I think He was referring primarily to the requirement for blood sacrifice as atonement for sin. Jesus's innocent life and coming death were literally the fulfillment of that central element of the Law. As for His fulfillment of "the prophets," I see the primary meaning to be, quite simply, that He was indeed the fulfillment of their Messianic prophecies. And as already noted, I think it's also a reminder to future Christians that the entire Bible is important.
Daniel 9:25 -- Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
This is one of the coolest verses in all the Bible to me. Using 360-day (12 x 30-day months) biblical years and seven-year "weeks" yields...
7 x 7 x 360 = 17,640 days
62 x 7 x 360 = 156,240 days
Total = 173,880 days
Exactly 173,880 days after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued, Jesus rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on what we now celebrate as Palm Sunday. It was the one and only day during which he allowed Himself to be treated like royalty. Gives me goosebumps.
How do you interpret/calculate Daniel 9:25?
Interesting trivia question that you probably know the answer to: What ultra-common phrase of our modern lexicon came down through the ages from Daniel 5?
MM
Eating meat and radiation make a great compbination.
I DON'T KNOW!....
and neither does anybody else.
We will learn the answer in the next existence!
Interesting. But don't those examples still appear to suggest more of a culturally-driven phenomenon?
It seems we'll always see ups and downs in the # and expression of great minds, depending on the circumstances in which men live.
Bears yes, dogs no.
Creation yes, Intelligent Design no.
Francis Bacon, the philosopher. Little knowledge resulteth in atheism, while much knowledge leads to belief. I don't use quotes because I don't have the exact saying at hand. On the subject of "rapid evolution," I just don't know if I can buy the selective reshaping of human organs in response to differing circumstances. I tend to poo-poo Darwinism because of its uncanny power to act as a substitute religion for the congenital atheist. This is not quite enough, I realize, so I look for transitions in my bumbling layman manner. Now, if one looks at dogs, one realizes that some mammals are capable of endless permutation, given selective breeding, and one might find a "transition" in a wolf-dog offspring, so I don't consider myself as closed minded. It goes without saying that this phenomenon is not a transition proper, but things of this nature keep me from closing the door on evolution.
Don't embarrass yourself
My only embarrassing moment in recent memory was being forced to admit to a friend who is a moderate voter that some conservatives actually do want to teach a 4000-year-old Mesopotamian creation myth as fact in science class, and that the people who espoused this belief were not children.
* * *
"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."
You pointed out no such thing.
Yes, I did. If you didn't understand it, then that shows that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, not that I didn't point out the silliness in Reverend Fast Eddie's article.
Did I state, "The two most ridiculous thing in this source are..."?? No. I just went ahead and criticized it by pointing out the two most ridiculous things in it: citing to Chuck Colson and Jay Gould's fantastic "quantum jump" theory. Why are they ridiculous? Anyone who doesn't already know that Chuck Colson and Jay Gould have absolutely no authority to discuss the merits of an argument on evolution should seriously consider reading a science book...
***
Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.
Some definitely are. Creationists who assert, as historical fact, that the Earth was created on a Wednesday morning in October of 4004, B.C. are religious kooks. But you're right, not all creationists are religious kooks.
But every creationist does argue from an unproven and unprovable premise: that God or some supernatural creative power exists. That takes "creationism" out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion. If you want to have a theological debate, that's one thing. But don't assert that the science of evolution is factually incorrect because it offends your religious sensibilities, and don't force the state to spread your doctrine in schools.
And as for whether I am a "blind-faith Darwinist": I have neither discussed by faith, my views on Darwinism, nor such things as the work of people such as Mayr, Gould, Eldredge and Dawkins. So you can not know that I am "blind-faith Darwinist". You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.
That is also committing a logical fallacy. It's called talking out of your ass.
Oooops!! Kinda big slip-up there for a so-called Christian to make. "Your" faith means it's not something you are a part of. Which is obvious to us, but it's nice to see you acknowledge it.
Leave the Christians alone. Grow up. Get a life.
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.