Mutation in creativity gene 'led to rise of Man'

The Independent ^ | 2/17/03 | Steve Connor

[CalConservative]

Mutation in creativity gene 'led to rise of Man'

By Steve Connor, Science Editor, in Denver

17 February 2003

A single mutation in a "creativity" gene less than 100,000 years ago led to the rapid development of art and culture and the ascent of Man, according to a controversial view of our early evolutionary history.

The mutation in a gene called "foxp2" – identified by British scientists in 2001 – caused an explosion in the complexity of language which underpinned the social and cultural revolution leading to the spread of Homo sapiens.

Richard Klein, professor of anthropological sciences at Stanford University in California, told the meeting that changes in the foxp2 gene – which plays a prominent role in the brain for language development – could explain the sudden change in human culture.

This became apparent about 50,000 years ago when early humans went from a stone-based culture to one that included finer tools and ornaments made from ivory, bone and shell, which indicated the development of art and ritual.

"I think there was a biological change, a genetic mutation that promoted the fully modern ability to create and innovate,'' Professor Klein said. "Suddenly, modern-looking people began to behave in a modern way, producing art and jewellery and doing a variety of other things they hadn't done before.''

The foxp2 gene was discovered by scientists at Oxford University and the Institute of Child Health in London.

[Junior]

Does it crack you up because you can't or won't understand it?

[Junior]

Ping.

[PatrickHenry]

Ping to 2d half of my list, to avoid overlaps with Junior's list.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Oberon]

Where did the information specifying the new enzyme come from?

Excellent question. What's your answer?

[balrog666]

Genes are not neutral matter...they carry information. Where did the information - the instructions - come from? Did the blueprint suddenly, magically appear? The reality is, that is impossible.

Maybe your god put it there. You know, magic.

[LiteKeeper]

Exactly!

[garbanzo]

Genes are not neutral matter

For all this time I thought they were subunits of deoxyribonucleic acid.

[Damocles]

Maybe your god put it there. You know, mutation.

[LiteKeeper]

They are matter - the information / instructions they cary must be written by something or someone capable of intelligent thought.

[Bernard Marx]

Sounds like a programming upgrade, to me.

Hmmmm. Who wrote the program?

[SauronOfMordor]

What life changing events do you think Mozart went through when he started mastered his first musical composition in 30 minutes at age 5 and wrote his first symphony at age 9? Savants are evidence that there is more than 'life experiences' behind creativity and exceptional intellectual acumen.

The Left doesn't like the idea of savants, because the phenomenon demonstrates that intellectual abilities can have a strong genetic basis. If you grant that genes can influence intellectual ability, then it logically follows that different ethnic/racial groups can have different natural levels of intellectual ability (among other characteristics).

[JNB]

There are plenty of brillant people who are not well off, some , such as in the research feild, actually barely make ends meet, same with teachers, or even so called "starving artists". To me, yes, hard work and intelligence at times makes people well off, but also, people born to well off families, or being in the right place at the right time are also big factors as well.

As for Mozart doing a composition at 5 years old, who knows, but trying to find the genetic clue for creativity is I feel, going to result in a dead end. If it was indeed genetic, then why have the sons and daughters of people who have been called brillant in the feilds of science and art, and leadership, more often than not turn out so ordinary?

[JNB]

I am not saying anything about dominant gov. growth. I am simpily stating that, especially since I saw the dot com madness first hand, that it made me realise just become somone does have a large sum of money in their name, does not mean they have intelligence/common sense, especially considering how obvious that the dot coms had no real business plan, no real way to make money, etc....

As for vilification of technology, no, but people have to take a technology in question for what it is and what it is not. The Dot Coms amounted to a electronic catalouge, not a revelution. I agree, the people who create the most wealth have a good balannce of risk taking and COMMON SENSE.

[garbanzo]

They are matter which undergoes chemical reactions. Change the reactants you change the products of the reaction. There's no more need for intellegent thougt than there is for any other chemical reaction.

[JNB]

The left does not like the idea that growing up in enviroments where no one takes personal responsibility for their own actions leads to welfare and crime. As for Savants, to call them creative is a bit much, their brain is a malfunction that focus' all of their mental functions on one aspect of their outside lives. The Savants I have seen are more or less excellent at re creation of things of what they have seen or heard, not creation.

[Moonman62]

The Dot Coms amounted to a electronic catalouge, not a revelution.

Don't you think it would be better to be more specific? After all, the surviving dot-coms are doing quite well compared to the rest of the economy.