Human Brain Still Evolving

Forbes.com ^ | 9/8/2005 | Alan Mozes

[Mike Bates]

The evolution of the human brain is not quite a done deal, say researchers who've uncovered genetic evidence that man's mysterious gray matter is still undergoing beneficial change.

The scientists make their claim based on the recent evolutionary history of two genes -- microcephalin and abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated (ASPM) -- which appear to regulate brain size.

Over thousands of years, both genes seem to be generating new and improved versions of themselves -- beneficial mutations that are spreading rapidly among the human population to reshape and strengthen brain capacity.

"I think a lot of people might consider humans to be at the pinnacle of evolutionary lineage -- that we have achieved an advanced state as a species, and we have basically become the end-game," said study co-author Bruce T. Lahn, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and assistant professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago. "But what we found indicates that the species -- particularly when it comes to the brain, which is perhaps our most defining feature -- is still evolving."

In the Sept. 9 issue of Science, Lahn and his colleagues report on the results of two genetic analyses -- the first conducted among 90 men and women and a chimpanzee, and the second among almost 1,200 men and women. The participant pools were drawn from 59 ethnic groups from all over the world.

[Junior]

Noah's Ark dropped him off.

[stm]

You catch on quickly, grassahoppah! Dementacrats are knuckledraggers! I was not sure if anyone would catch that one.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If everything tends to go to a state of disorder,"

It doesn't. :)

I was talking about the REAL 2nd law, not the creationist rewrite. What about the real 2nd law is in conflict with evolution?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes--guitarman. I am an engineer. Which definition do you subscribe to? There appear to be many:"

I am referring to the one that is not a creationist rewrite.

"What is your agenda in this debate?"

Science. What is yours?

[AntiGuv]

Have you ever asked yourself why no one has bothered to publish a scientific treatise establishing the glaring contradiction between evolution and thermodynamics? I mean, since it's so self-evident to so many brilliant and educated creationists, you would think that'd be an obvious route for, say, the Discovery Institute to get some actual credentials?

[Agamemnon]

Mind elaborating on how evolution proposes such a thing?

As I told you before, answer my questions first and you will have the answer to yours.

[balrog666]

Astonishingly self-evident placemarker.

[Vision]

What "scientists in general" have said this?

I mean scientists in general. A few times a week there is a story from some group of scientists, labeled as "scientists" from somewhere in the news that produce some results the media broadcasts that seem backward. Like when you read that "scientists" from somewhere believe global warming is coming from methane from dairy cows. Or "scientists" just concluded a study that says fetus's can't feel pain.

This is an old viewpoint. If you remember the movie "The Thing" the scientists there were so void of common sense they were willing to die.

That's why they have the reputation of being pinheads

[Vision]

So I'm curious, do you believe human beings are done evolving?

[Quark2005]

Thermodynamics forbids evolution? I love this one. Makes us physicists laugh out loud every time. You have no idea how far in over your head you are trying to use this as a defense for creationism.

To apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the system of life on earth in the way creationists try to, you would need to prove that the entropy of the entire earth-sun system is lower than the entropy of the earth-sun system supposedly was several billion years ago. You can't even prove the entropy of a human is lower than an equivalent mass of bacteria! The systems are too complex. Entropy is a difficult enough concept to apply to even simple, self-contained systems - it is a useless concept in the context you're trying to use it in.

Stop telling lies about science. Bearing false witness isn't a very Christian thing to do.

[Modernman]

As I told you before, answer my questions first and you will have the answer to yours.

Your questions are based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. There is a giant nuclear reactor called the sun outside of the system that pumps more or less an endless supply of new energy into the system.

[PatrickHenry]

The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. There is a giant nuclear reactor called the sun outside of the system that pumps more or less an endless supply of new energy into the system.

To stick with this one, the creationists have to deny the existence of the sun -- or at least its effect on the earth.

[Right Wing Professor]

Does the premise of evolution propose that order in the physical and chemical properties of the universe may arise from an initial statsis defined by randomness and disorder inherent within the physical and chemical componenets of that universe

No, it does not. The local universe is anything but disordered. The sun is an immensely large ordered object whose entropy is continuously increasing by nuclear reactions.

You can't handwave thermodynamics, son. You have to learn it.

If your answer to the above question is "yes," you have answered correctly.

You're incompetent to make that claim.

[SkyPilot]

Truth.

[AntiGuv]

You can't handle the truth.

[atlaw]

Nah. They're too busy complaining about the conspiracy to prevent them from publishing the research they aren't doing to actually do the research they aren't publishing.

[Quark2005]

That's why they have the reputation of being pinheads

Many of these problems come from the press misinterpreting the results or significance of results that scientists present to them. An example would be that since scientists say global warming could cause a trend of an increase in storm systems that the press runs a headline "Did Global Warming Cause Katrina?!"; or that since scientists say red wine has antioxidant effects that all of the sudden "red wine is good for you" while failing to mention that drinking a bottle of red wine a night would probably shut your liver down permanently.

Other problems are caused by the press publicizing a finding before it has undergone significant peer review. Examples of this include the cold fusion fiasco or National Geographic magazine showing an example of a feathered dinosaur fossil that turned out to be a composite (though other such fossils have been authenticated).

Either way, you should be wary of any "sudden discovery" touted too loudly by the press. Scientists sure aren't perfect, but as most people on FR would agree, it's the media that are the real "pinheads" most of the time.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Truth."

The best way to approach Truth is science.


And the 2nd Law doesn't need a creationist rewrite. :)

[Vision]

Scientists sure aren't perfect, but as most people on FR would agree, it's the media that are the real "pinheads" most of the time

I agree about the media, but certain groups do have an agenda. Look at the the association of physicians or whoever they are. They are so anti-gun they have destroyed their creditability. Ok, they're not true scientists, but the example is close to what we are talking about.

[Dimensio]

As I told you before, answer my questions first and you will have the answer to yours.

Your questions were "do you agree?" How can I agree if you won't explain that to which I am agreeing?