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
Pseudoknowledge = AndrewC
M-PI wrote: "Evolutionists who assert things like this are kooks who should not be listened to:
"... at no very distant date..an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world", and "the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can a woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. ... We may also infer ...[that] the average of mental power in man must be above that of a woman". ~ Charles Darwin
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man... It is simply incredible [to think] that ... he will be able to successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not bites." ~ Thomas Huxley Darwin's best student - and the man most responsible for advancing macroevolution (Darwinianism)"
They [Darwininists] should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be taught to impressionable school children."
VadeRetro: "The dance goes on. On a thread about whether evolution happens in nature, you interject that material and then scream about ad hominem arguments. Then you have the nerve to deny what is there for all to see."
You sound exactly like the whiney DemocRATS who accuse Republicans of personally attacking them when all that happened was that their own words were being quoted.
I understand how embarrassing it is (for those who support the religious beliefs of the racist/sexist Darwin being taught in the public schools), to actually be reminded of the ugly, elitist ideas that motivated his "theory".
Stop trying to pretend it isn't relative. It was Darwin's bottom-line premise. His whole theory was built on it.
Racism and sexism was the premise for his elitist theory. Every racist/sexist elitist mentality who has ever lived since his time has embraced his "theory" and used it to justify all sorts of atrocities, both subtle and blatant.
You don't live in the real world. And I suspect you're afraid to.
When people question whether evolution happens, they are questioning whether variation and selection account for the diversity of life on Earth. For the purposes of that discussion, it doesn't matter if Darwin in his personal life kidnapped, killed, and ate babies. Ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevancy. Your posts are ad hominem and irrelevant. That you like to scream about ad hominem if I characterize Lubenow as a Young Earth Idiot--how you missed that in his writing I can't imagine--just adds irony.
Darwin nailed it on the Origin of Species. For the purposes of kicking and screaming, you pretend to misunderstand how science is argued or even what is being taught in science class. More Creation Science lessons.
Common descent via variation and natural selection. There's a lot of evidence for it.
"... at no very distant date..an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world", and "the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can a woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. ... We may also infer ...[that] the average of mental power in man must be above that of a woman". ~ Charles DarwinThis is from the same letter that your earlier out-of-context quote came from, and so I now present it in its context, with the part you posted shown in blue. The source is the same as the other part of this letter, in post 466, above:
Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. But I will write no more ...Funny, that's only part of what you "quoted." Where's the rest? Anyway, he is speaking here of war a few centuries earlier with the Turks. And he is not speaking of genocide, or racism, or anything else that you have attributed to him.
The next part of your "quote" comes from an entirely different source, The Descent of Man, chapter 19. I can't imagine why you ran an excerpt from a letter with an excerpt from a book. Just creation "science" at its best, I suppose. Anyway, this next part of your "quote" is shown in blue:
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman — whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius,' that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.Note that qualifier, which I've underlined. It was omitted in your "quote." Could it have any significance? Yes, for later in the same chapter, Darwin says:
In order that woman should reach the same standard as man, she ought, when nearly adult, to be trained to energy and perseverance, and to have her reason and imagination exercised to the highest point; and then she would probably transmit these qualities chiefly to her adult daughters.In other words, he attributes a great deal of the apparent superiority of men to training.
I don't have the time to track down your other "quotes." I'm confident that they're of an equal quality to those which I've already discussed. Out-of-context, meaning distorted, and even slapped together segments from different writings. All in all, not a great track record. But hey, this is creation research! Who cares about truth, accuracy, integrity, or any other human virtue?
VadeRetro: "The history of life on Earth and the mechanisms of biology do not depend upon whether somebody's writings can be subjected to Twist and Shout Quote ScienceTM."
Asolutely, which is why I previously posted the items below.
Can you explain why dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection - (which removes DNA information but does not add new information), wouldn't be critical flaws in the theory of macroevolution (Darwinianism) through gradual change, or do you believe they are?
The theory of biological evolution maintains that living things (plants, animals, humans, etc.) have descended with modifiction from shared common ancestors.
[1.] Macroevolution (Darwinianism) refers to large-scale changes - where one species transforms into another completely different species.
For example, birds are said to have evolved from dinosaurs.
This process would require the addition of new information to the genetic code. [DNA]
[NOTE: It is IMPOSSIBLE for "new information" to be naturally added to DNA, so that should end it right there for rational people who don't have an agenda.]
[1.-a] Gradualism refers to the theory that macroevolution proceeds through the slow and basically constant accumulation of many small changes in order to effect large changes. This theory predicts that the fossil record would provide abundant evidence of intermediary life forms as one species is progressively transformed into another.]
[2.] Microevolution refers to changes in the gene expressions of a given type of organism but does not produce a completely different species. This is perfectly normal and natural and is indeed what occurs.
For example, through selective breeding, dogs ranging from Great Danes to Chihuahuas have been produced from wolves. That process doesn't require new information because the changes are a function of the genetic makeup [DNA] already present in the gene pool of the species. [Note: No "new information" in the DNA is needed].
The general public seems blithely unaware that no transitions from one species to another [known as macroevolution / Darwinianism) exist, even though it is common knowledge among paleontologists. That's why novel theories ---[ involving Archaeopteryx (false links between reptiles and birds), pro-avises (pure figment of someone's imagination;science fiction), and punctuated equilibrium (a new species appears all at once fully formed aka the theory of the "hopeful monster") ]--- are constantly "evolving".
Your complaints about "out-of-context" quotes doesn't nullify the fact that Darwin believed that some races were superior to others. Hitler, et.al., agreed with him.
In his "Descent of Man" - subtitled, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life", he wrote of how the "lower races" will have been "eliminated" by the higher "civilized" races throughout the world.
Darwin's biggest promoter, Thomas Huxley, was a major-league racist as were people like H. F. Osborn - (very prominent American anthropologist) - who said: "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the 11-year-old youth of _____the species_____ Homo sapiens."
And on and on, ad infinitum.
These are the same people that have the faith to believe that something can come from nothing.
They are not critical flaws in anything but your understanding. If you don't know anything about evolution, how do you know it's wrong? Let's just zoom in on part of that.
natural selection - (which removes DNA information but does not add new information)
This supposed objection amounts to saying that natural selection--a process of competition--is not variation. (Specifically, if you want increases of information, "mutation.") While it is *true* that selection is not mutation, it is not a *logical objection* that selection is not mutation. We have mutation for that.
First, you have to want to learn. Then you can learn. Then you can make sense.
[NOTE: It is IMPOSSIBLE for "new information" to be naturally added to DNA, so that should end it right there for rational people who don't have an agenda.]
Source?
[1.-a] Gradualism refers to the theory that macroevolution proceeds through the slow and basically constant accumulation of many small changes in order to effect large changes. This theory predicts that the fossil record would provide abundant evidence of intermediary life forms as one species is progressively transformed into another.]
A Sampling of Known Vertebrate Transitionals as of About 1997.
[2.] Microevolution refers to changes in the gene expressions of a given type of organism but does not produce a completely different species. This is perfectly normal and natural and is indeed what occurs.
That's very nice. Now identify a limit to how far initially identical populations can diverge under such a process. Please be the first creationist ever to understand the question and actually point out a mechanism which would stop divergence before it became something that looked macro. If you won't do that, at least identify what the major created kinds are.
The general public seems blithely unaware that no transitions from one species to another [known as macroevolution / Darwinianism) exist, even though it is common knowledge among paleontologists.
Maybe the general public is actually ahead of you on something.
You mean Hey-zeus?
Your scholarship is based upon an absolute disregard for your sources. There is no good excuse for this. Then again, your attempted excuse wouldn't be good for anything anyway.
Verbal gymnastices are the typical refuge for evolutionists caught in their own trap.
Aren't they? Or do you ignore reality everywhere you see it?
Hitler, et.al., agreed with him.
So what, so did the Pope.
In his "Descent of Man" - subtitled, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life", he wrote of how the "lower races" will have been "eliminated" by the higher "civilized" races throughout the world.
So? Have you over looked how many species have rendered extinct by man in the last 100 years?
Darwin's biggest promoter, Thomas Huxley, was a major-league racist as were people like H. F. Osborn - (very prominent American anthropologist) - who said: "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the 11-year-old youth of _____the species_____ Homo sapiens."
So what? Stupid and ignorant people tend to predominate the earth - look in a mirror for a confirmation.
And on and on, ad infinitum.
You mean that stupid people like you are incapable of learning the obvious?
These are the same people that have the faith to believe that something can come from nothing.
let me get out my tine violin. Doobie-doobie-doo, you're an idiot, doobie-doo...
You need to start cribbing from somebody who can read if not write.
D@MN! Next time post over coffee instead of scotch, ya drunken bastard!
It does take work. And that's why, having chased down a few of his "quotes," I'm confident that my opinion of his track record is justified. His posts are rubbish. Purest creationoid trash. And like a typical 'noid, he learns nothing, and never apologizes for his errors. No need to bother with the rest of his "quotes." Or with any of his future postings. I'm familiar with the type.
In truth, I've read enough of Darwin's writings to know that he wasn't the beast these creationoids claim he was. That's why it's so easy to spot a garbage "quote" when it shows up.
Darwin was, of course, a Victorian Englishman of his class, and I'm sure he had some of the opinions common to such men. As they traveled the world, and compared distant lands to their England, how could they help but have a high opinion of themselves?
But as someone else said recently, either in this thread or one of the others ... so what? Edison was probably as biased as any other American of his generation. Newton was undoubedly as creepy (to our sensibilities) as any other well-bred Englishman of the mid 1600s, and probably creepier. We're talking about their work, not their private lives.
The 'noids, however, in their endless confusion, imagine that Darwin is the founder of a cult, which they term "Darwinism," so they think that if they can -- by any dishonest means they can find -- show he was flawed, the cult topples. Right. And if Edison were a rapist, suddenly all our electric lights would cease to function. Sheesh!
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.