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
So are you saying it's Venus' tool, or the King of Babylon's tool?
The verse in question just doesn't sound as clear to me as it does to you. I wasn't saying you were preaching. I wanted to point out that often times when secular people hear a Christian person say Jews are going to Hell they think the Christian is sadistic and actually likes the thought of them suffering. I know this because that is what I used to think. It doesn't occur to them that the Christian is sincerely concerned for their soul and wants to help them. Fear of Hell does help convert, but exposure to Christians who actually walk the walk is extremely helpful. I have not written off the idea of my mother ever becoming a Christian, but it is going to be difficult because she is an atheist.
Can you tell me what convinces you "dogs no".
I'm unfamiliar with the details and it won't help me to understand your position to read "facts" explained by those who believe this is a common ancestor of bears and dogs.
Since I was young, the argument that evolution is unproven because there are no fossils of "missing links" has been quite popular. This purported ancestor is considered by evolutionists to be the "missing link" for dogs and bears. But you are not convinced. How is it lacking?
Given the incredible number of intermediate "species" which must exist to support evolution, it would seem to me extremely unlikely that the exact "missing link" would be found for dogs and bears. It seems more likely that a specimen somewhat along the line of dogs or bears would be found. This would shift the similarity in one direction or the other.
An alternative, and perhaps more likely, explanation is that the ancestor is actually somewhere along some dead end that branched prior to the actual branching into dogs and bears.
I find it amusing that "creationists" find themselves trying to reduce the miraculous nature of their beliefs. If an omnipotent Creator wished to create ALL of the evidence of evolution needed to snare the skeptic and test the faith of the faithful, such a Creator could do it.
If the Creator included among His creations some positive proof that alternative explanations for the universe were false, there would be less need for faith.
I have a recently retired friend who is active in the effort to provide scientific explanations for Biblical events. It was entertaining to hear his explanation that only some pure examples of domesticated animals, which species had been made impure by contact with man, were invited onto the Ark. The impure examples were destroyed in the flood and non-domesticated animals were spared from the ravages of the local flood and didn't need protecting.
No. You asked for evidence that "supports" creationism and I gave some examples evolutionism does not care to address. As with any adherent of evolution, it would be best simply to box it up and sit on it. That's all the theory is good for.
You're surely right in that walking the walk is a HUGE help. No doubt. Best prayers for your mother.
MM
This article also provides an opening to the alien intervention theories one hears on the Art Bell/ Coast to Coast show. Zacharia Sitchin is a proponent of alien creatures manipulating the genetics of pre-humans to make human beings.
I think you are suggesting the cart pulling the horse. Culture is created by brain power--the more complex and mentally stimulating the culture, the more brain power evidenced by those who created it.
Of course, through the generations, there is an ongoing interaction. And the culture will certainly influence how the individual develops. (That is only to recognize that both nature and nurture are factors in human development. However, based upon the studies of twins, nature accounts for from 2/3 to 3/4 of the ultimate result.)
A good practical example, is in the effect of the Welfare State in dumbing down the American population, by subsidizing the breeding habits at the bottom of the social structure, while causing a taxation burden, which makes many middle class couples limit their child bearing. Thus there has been a considerable fall off in average scholastic aptitudes since the middle of the past century, even though much more has been spent on cultural stimulation, etc., via various programs--admittedly not always well thought out.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Me: It's Lucifer's tool for the egotistically inclined.
You: So are you saying it's Venus' tool, or the King of Babylon's tool?
Me: HUH? Are you unfamiliar with Lucifer? Since when is Lucifer, Venus? Or the "tool of the King of Babylon? Lucifer is LUCIFER. Do a search on him and educate yourself. Geesh!
My faith is just fine.
How about you?
Have you nothing to look forward to?
I can't tell you what happens after death. I wouldn't know what to look forward to. But if it's a nonphysical existence, unlike earth, then I want to be prepared by not being so attached to earthly things. That's the best way I know how to prepare.
I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't questioning your faith at all. I was speaking in that post to WildTurkey, who was posing as a Christian while attempting to shake the other Christian's faith.
He was busted by calling Christianity "your faith" instead of "our faith" - it's kind of like a troll saying "you Freepers" -- a big giveaway.
Me, I'm just a Buddhist who sticks up for Christians.
Okay, I located an online MKJV, so I can use that as a baseline for comparison.
First, in the Hebrew text, mashiach is a title, not a proper name. Translating it as "Messiah, the Prince" renders a much different reading than the more literal "an anointed, a prince".
There is neither logic, precedent nor scriptural foundation for using a so-called 360 day "prophetic year". It is a deus ex machina introduced to force the desired result.
Christians commonly begin their "counting" from the "decree to rebuild Jerusalem" in 444 BCE, again in order to make the dates work out. The decree by Artaxerxes, though, is not the original one. Jewish interpretation of the passage favors the decree of Cyrus in 537 BCE, forty-nine years after the destruction of the temple. The scriptural basis for this is:
who says of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and shall do all My pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, You shall be built; and to the temple, Your foundation shall be laid.
So says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1 MKJV)
Continuing the Jewish interpretation, the 'anointed' of verse 25 and the 'anointed' of verse 26 are two different people. A Jewish translation of verse 25 reads:
Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. (1917 JPS translation -- I don't have access to my new JPS at the moment).
As you'll note, the punctuation is rendered slightly differently, making the difference between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks more clear.
Counting, then, from the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE, to the decree of Cyrus in 537 BCE, is 49 years, or "seven weeks" of years. The end of the 62 weeks coincides with the accession to the high priesthood of Alexander Yannai (or Jannaeus), the last significant figure of the Hasmonean line. Being high priest, he was 'anointed', and was indeed "cut off" as punishment for his violent and corrupt rule. The "but not for himself" of verse 26 is a mistranslation. A more accurate rendering would be "and be no more" or "and shall have nothing".
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?
Are you thinking of "weighed in the balance, and found wanting"?
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.
Well, blood sacrifice was normative for many types of sins, but it wasn't absolutely required in all circumstances, nor could all sins be atoned for through blood sacrifice. Even so, there were commandments concerning what could be sacrificed, and where.
To me, "fulfilling the Law" makes sense only in the context of obeying it. The problem being that one can obey the Law for oneself, but cannot do so on another's behalf.
Well, that's probably more than enough fodder for now! ;o)
Follow the link I provided you with and educate yourself. You know, this one. Lucifer was Venus and/or the King of Babylon since when it was first written. Until one of the writers of the King James Bible misunderstood Jerome's translation of the earlier translations into Latin.
However, I have a question. I could google it but what the hell, I'll ask you.
Does brain cavity size correlate to time and societal pressure?
I sincerely appreciate the explanations. We have irreconcilable interpretations, which doesn't come as a surprise, but it's certainly been informative and interesting.
Trivia: The phrase I was thinking of is "the writing is on the wall." Came all the way down through time from Daniel 5, methinks. Very cool.
MM
Interesting. But don't those examples still appear to suggest more of a culturally-driven phenomenon?You reply,
It seems we'll always see ups and downs in the # and expression of great minds, depending on the circumstances in which men live.
I think you are suggesting the cart pulling the horse. Culture is created by brain power--the more complex and mentally stimulating the culture, the more brain power evidenced by those who created it.
C'mon evolution. Work!
Just how does one gain this valuable (I assume) status???
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.