[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...

[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

[Junior]

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

[Junior]

Ping.