Researchers Uncover Brain Patterns That Differentiate Humans From Chimpanzees

University of California, San Diego ^ | April 11, 2002 | Staff

[Nebullis]

A team of international researchers from Germany, the Netherlands and San Diego may have shed light on why chimps and humans are so genetically similar (nearly 99 percent of shared DNA sequences), and yet so mentally different.

In a study published in the April 12, 2002 issue of the journal Science, the scientists noted that the striking difference between these primate cousins is most evident in their brains. The disparity appears to be the result of evolutionary differences in gene and protein expression, the manner in which coded information in genes is activated in the brain, then converted into proteins that carry out many cellular functions.

The brain differences are more a matter of quantity than quality. Differences in the amount of gene and protein expression, rather than differences in the structure of the genes or proteins themselves, distinguish the two species.

More here

and here (login may be required).

[ASA Vet]

Hey! How did you get the photo of my ex-wife?

[fire and forget]

The argument is this: The ancestors of modern humans moved around a lot. They left Africa and the tropics for many varying regions and environs and were forced to find other means of survival. With opposable digits and walking upright, a marvelous ability to manipulate objects in the surrounding environments developed that no other species ever acquired. When tools came into the equation and fire and novel tactics for hunting and survival, the added complexities forced an excelerated enlargement of the brain. This enlargement was further hastened by the fact that humans are carnivores, unlike their African cousins, and high protein diets made larger brains possible. Ultimately language was invented for communication, coordination of activities and keeping everything straight, and with that, the evolutionary leap of early humans excelerated radically bringing us to where we are today.

That this might happen over millions of years seems plausible to me and best supported by the evidence. I've heard all the Creationists' arguments against evolution and I'm not impressed. That said, I will remain open to any realistic possibility for what brought the singular miracle of humanity into the world.

[Ahban]

I see now why few found their way to a similiar article I posted on the same research .. here

We Creationists are winning that one too.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[gore3000]

We Creationists are winning that one too.

Of course we are. Only a total ideologue without a scientific bone in his body like Darwin could have said that the difference between man and monkey is one only of degree. Unfortunately, many much smarter people, who know much better, such as those who made this research, are forced to prostitute themselves and their research and bend their knee to evolution. The source of the difference is beyond explanation, the speed of the differences arising is unexplainable also. The process is tremendously complex and certainly not subject to "random" origination. In addition, if the Darwinian god "selection" were the cause of this, why did not monkeys select for intelligence also?

[gore3000]

The idea is that our ancestors adopted throwing stones to hunt for food. In order to get accuracy it is necessary to release the stone at a precise time. This requires lots of neurons working together. Hence our large brains. He also discusses handedness.

And why did not monkeys learn the same way? Evolutionists really are grasping at straws when it comes to explain man. Let me ask you this one, what is the necessity of art? How come man is the only species that does art? Let's also note that art has been found from the earliest traces of homo sapiens in the caves of Southern France and Northern Spain.

[gore3000]

That said, I will remain open to any realistic possibility for what brought the singular miracle of humanity into the world.

Do you mean realistic or materialistic? It is two different things. The argument of necessity is totally bogus. Since supposedly both humans and monkeys arose from the same ancestry, why did not the same necessities operate on both? Further, the differences between the abilities of man and monkeys are huge in spite of the small genetic differences. The question that evolutionists need to answer is not whether there are material differences between man and other species, but how those differences could have arisen. This paper makes answering the question even more difficult.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

"And that, I suggest, is how we had come to possess the unique extra genes. It was in the image of the Anunnaki, not of bacteria, that Adam and Eve were fashioned."

But, we've known this for quite sometime. Haven't you seen 2001 A Space Odyssey or The History of the World: Part I ?

But more seriouly the debate about the difference between humans and animals hasn't changed much, nor have we progressed much in understanding it. But it makes for a very interesting study.

The first modern scientist, Aristotle, in various of his works points out at least three distinguishing characteristics between humans and other animals. He calls humans variously the political animal (perhaps city-dwelling animal would be a better translation since the word political has gained so much baggage over the years), the animal having reason (echon logon), and the imitative or image-making animal. This last distinction is quite interesting in the field of paleontology. Chesterton once pointed out that when the first caves of Neanderthal man were discovered (I believe in France), everyone immediately assumed that the drawings on the cave walls depicting some ancient deer were drawn not by a deer but by a man. Images are the signposts of man. Moreover, he continued, it is noteworthy that few scientists think that those drawings were made by a child in play or were the work of an ancient artist. Paleontologists assume that ancient man was a more like a beast than a man even though he alone of the prehistoric animals makes signs, the marks of man alone.

The inherent relationship among these three distinguishing aspects of humans is also very interesting. In Greek the word logos means speach, reason, word, and even thought. The relationship between speech and thought and their relationship to the world is also very fascinating. Is the word an image of the things, or the things an image of ideas? A debate we have left to collect dust on the bookshelves in the writings of the ancients and medievals, testimonies of ages past when correct reasoning was thought an art of most worthy pursuit, having ourselves advanced to the art of brain picking, literally. But to continue, in Greek the word for image or look (eidos -- whence our word idol, which means image) is the the root for the word idea (idea). In any case, these three distinguishing characteristics of man, viz. the political, the having speech/reason, and the imitative animal, are very closely linked. For speech is an image of things or visa versa, we only learn and develop speech and thought from others in the home and society, and society is an image of certain reasonings or speech, esp. speech concerning what is right and wrong.

In any case, just thought I'ld contribute to, in the words of Walker Percy, symbol-mongering.

[January24th]

I clicked on this thread hoping to find what I found: Homer Simpson and the monkey-woman. It's nice to know that some things can be counted on!! LOL! Thanks!

:o)

[gcruse]

You obviously are a person of taste. :)

[Nebullis]

That number of "alien genes" has already dwindled to some 41. There is evidence of gene transfer from prokaryotes to eukaryotes but the ones that are confirmed transfered did so at a unicellular stage. The more organisms tested, the smaller the number of exclusively human-bacterial similarities survive. Widespread gene loss seems a much better explanation for many of these genes.

[fire and forget]

With all respect for your point of view: I was raised an absolute believer in Creationism. I was certain the world was roughly 6,000 years old. Early in HS I began asking questions concerning the age of the Earth and literal points of the Bible. These were never satisfactorily answered. Eventually I asked myself if God gave us minds to discern our environment and universe and to puzzle through questions of physics, the cosmos, our own origins, independent from what was written down by someone before, why would common sense reasoning so frequently find itself at odds with the Bible (and I purposely exclude the Bible's moral teachings, particularly in the New Testiment)? Surely God wouldn't expect us to believe many empiracally impossible things without driving us practically nuts reaching for plausible explanations for what logic would all but rule impossible.

I've read the arguments on all sides. I've argued extensively and very civilly, primarily with "Creationists" within my own family, always qualifying that I don't know the answers. Aside from making unsupportable by basic standards and strained, to say the least, conclusions purely on the basis of faith, the Creationist argument for the age of the Earth and a world-encompassing flood about four thousand years ago, our God-given logic strongly suggests otherwise. The Bible may be all it's stacked up to be, but I highly doubt it is if it was meant to be interpreted literally.

[fire and forget]

I suppose the Sumerians and the Akkadians might have had a tenth-planet answer to the questions we're pondering today in connection with our origins. Or maybe we're still a long way from completing the puzzle even if we've managed to eliminate various possibilities with the same empirical science that has put us today in command of great technologies and a vastly better grasp of our universe. (Notice please my deliberate ommittance of any tin hat references) :). All I know is that I just don't know. Hopefully we'll work it out in my lifetime.

[gore3000]

With all respect for your point of view: I was raised an absolute believer in Creationism. I was certain the world was roughly 6,000 years old.

It sounds to me that you are rejecting more than just an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You seem to be rejecting the whole point of the Bible, the spiritual point. The point that man is a special creation of God and has a special relationship with God. This point is completely inimical to the materialism of evolution. Also, let me point out that as far as I know there is no such Christian denomination as "Creationists". That is a name invented by evolutionists to bash Christians without mentioning the word Christian.

[Virginia-American]

And why did not monkeys learn the same way?

The obvious answer is that our ancestors took to the plains and savanahs, and the other apes' [not monkeys, the ape-monkey split predates the ape-human split] ancestors stayed in the jungle.

Evolutionists really are grasping at straws when it comes to explain man.

Explain what you mean here. Have you ever read The Descent of Woman by Elaine Morgan? It is speculation (scientific speculation, based on facts of anatomy and behavior) that some of our ancestors were semi-aquatic. Fascinating.