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.

[CalConservative]

Does this mean if we looked at the DNA of Henry Ford we would find a V-8 gene? Maybe Thomas Edison had a light bulb gene, even. This stuff just cracks me up.

[CalConservative]

**ping**

[tubebender]

...or Levi Strauss had a jean gene ???

[Bogey78O]

Why does it crack you up? Don't understand it?

[LiteKeeper]

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. But I would be interested in the explanation that someone who believes this report has.

[ffusco]

Perhaps a mutation in primitve homo erectus led to an increase in brain size, the cerebral cortex. Examples of brain diversity today: Idiot savants, geniuses, That guy who beat big blue at chess, and so on.

[Gunslingr3]

Does this mean if we looked at the DNA of Henry Ford we would find a V-8 gene? Maybe Thomas Edison had a light bulb gene, even. This stuff just cracks me up.

You misunderstood the article, and perhaps even the concept behind it. A startling amount of our makeup is genetic. Just as some humans are genetically damaged and therefore intellectually or physically dimmed (retardation, deformities), others are quite gifted. Breakthroughs in the understanding of the genetic code are happening at a breathtaking pace. Within our lifetimes we'll see 'bugs' in our own code identified and corrected. Coincident with this will be efforts to enhance the code in a quicker and more deliberate manner than the simple evolutionary means of picking a mate, creating offspring that is a random combination of the parent genetic material, and then ceding the world (through death) to the next generation to repeat the process. That method has gotten us this far, but we're watching the The Will step in and begin consciously directing this process. I don't laugh at it, I'm just in awe...

[Gunslingr3]

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. But I would be interested in the explanation that someone who believes this report has.

We'll learn more when we have the opportunity to explore more habitats, but it's quite possible that Life another force of the universe like gravity or electromagnetic force. Did these things suddenly, magically appear? Who knows? No mystics try to explain how their gods suddenly, magically appear. They seem able to accept that those have always existed, but not the universe itself, even though we have evidence of the universe, but not their gods...

[Mike Darancette]

Within our lifetimes we'll see 'bugs' in our own code identified and corrected.

You left out the word that frightens most people and that word is 'optimized'.

Problem is that one man's 'bug' may be another man's endearing trait. When I look at the obvious medical hell that Michael Jackson went through just to modify about 5% of his physical appearance I wonder what will parents or, for that matter, governments do to create superior children?

[Southack]

"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. But I would be interested in the explanation that someone who believes this report has."

Sounds like a programming upgrade, to me.

[Gunslingr3]

Problem is that one man's 'bug' may be another man's endearing trait. When I look at the obvious medical hell that Michael Jackson went through just to modify about 5% of his physical appearance I wonder what will parents or, for that matter, governments do to create superior children?

You think parents right now make no consideration for looks? I joke with my friends about it. We call it the Master Race of Money. I first really noticed it when I had a job as a valet. The children of the rich are more often than not what most would consider beautiful. Rich (more often than not a byproduct of intelligence) men find beautiful women. They tend to have beautiful, intelligent children. Just an observation. :)

The fascination with appearance the Michael Jackson's of the world have isn't what interests me, or I imagine the scientists. What interests me are things like this 'creativity' gene. The code behind the development of a cerebral cortex to accompany the amygdala and the limbic brain is going to be understood. If scientists could crack Enigma, they can crack the code that is behind our own development. What they'll be able to achieve when we apply our Wills to evolutionary development is an exciting prospect.

[JNB]

People who are well off are more often than not intelligent? I used to think that and accept that, but based on the idiocy of the dot com explosion, and the venture capital money(mostly coming from "established families"), I re evealuated my opinion. Money opens doors, it allows people to cover up their own or their childrens own shortcomings, but it does not make, by any way, shape or form, someone more intelligent.

I suspect that science is going to find more dead ends than open doors when they further study the genetic code. There are too many x factors involved, life changing events a person may or may not go though, and sheer luck that grant people creativity. Much in the way Secular Humanism is proving itself unworkable in the context of being able to hold a society together past 2 generations, the reduction of a human into a formula will not hold any water on the physical level either.

[JNB]

To further this, one can not "program" greatness. Greatness is not a genetic trait that is passed down from generation to generation, and if one is well read in history, and sadly many in science are not, it comes about, chance, inspired drive, and being in the right place at the right time. What made Joe Montana the best QB in NFL history, certainly was not the most phsyical player around, what inspired Bill Gates, or Henry Ford? While Gates grew up in a comfortable enviroment he could have done what the vast majority of people who grow up like him did, and just coast, while Ford was a child of the working class. If a gene for greatness was passed on, then clinics would not be filled with the children of rich people with various anti social problems.

[Moonman62]

People who are well off are more often than not intelligent? I used to think that and accept that, but based on the idiocy of the dot com explosion, and the venture capital money(mostly coming from "established families"), I re evealuated my opinion.

I find the return of dominant government growth, and the villification of technology, risk taking, and private investment to be the ultimate in idiocy. Speaking of risk taking, my observations are that the people who create the most wealth have a good balance of risk taking, intelligence, and work ethic.

[Fledermaus]

You misunderstood the article, and perhaps even the concept behind it. A startling amount of our makeup is genetic. Just as some humans are genetically damaged and therefore intellectually or physically dimmed

I knew the Democrats were mutations!

[PropheticZero]

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.

Is it just me or is there a tendency to present such research with that "according to" placed at the end, after you've told how it is. I think this type of research has the possiblity of being very beneficial, but why do they have to try to make into a sort of fact. In my opinion every article about ongoing research and guesswork-conclusions like this should start with the the sentence.."Thers a good chance this is all bull-s*** but this is what I believe even though theres really no way of knowing since I wasn't there."

Facts are nice, but people, especially casual paper reading folk aren't aren't necessarily being constantly aware of where the line is between actual facts and aome scienties interpreation of what those facts mean

[Stirner]

"I would be interested in the explanation that someone who believes this report has."

I'm dubious about a single mutation making all that difference, but it could be true. What is definitely true, from the record of the artifacts that have been dug up and dated, is that our ancestors had an unbelievably stable level of technology for about 500,000 years. They used stone tools whose method of manufacture did not vary at all over thousands of generations. Today, we would find such stability inconceivable. We spontaneously vary things, but those ancestors did not. Then, about 100,000 years ago, we suddenly find in the archaelogical record radically new ways of working stone, the incorporation of shaped shells and bones, and objects clearly designed for art and decoration rather than pure utility. We have seemingly been change prone ever since, with constantly varying styles of just about everthing. There must have been some causes for this really big change. These researchers present one hypothesis. One way to try to knock it down would be to find people who have different forms of the gene and see if some of them are extremely literal minded and not prone to change things that work well enough. Then find some human bone from half a million years ago, extract the marrow, amplify the DNA, and compare genes.

[Gunslingr3]

People who are well off are more often than not intelligent?

Just over 80% of American millionaires are "first generation rich." I didn't say money makes someone more intelligent, just pointed out that the more intelligent make more money.

I suspect that science is going to find more dead ends than open doors when they further study the genetic code.

That's why you're not doing any of the research. Differences in genetic code are what seperate you from a lizard. Maybe you think we're at the peak, and further progress isn't possible, I set no such limitations for Life.

There are too many x factors involved, life changing events a person may or may not go though, and sheer luck that grant people creativity.

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 reduction of a human into a formula will not hold any water on the physical level either.

You can choose to see it as a reduction, I see it simply as greater understanding.