Scientists find brain evolution gene

If this is borne out with further study, it will help answer some questions about what makes a human a human, and not a chimp.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816/ap_on_sc/brain_evolution

I was talking with Nosy about this and sent him a link to the article as it appears at livescience. He had mentioned the small segments in a discussion here some time ago and IIRC had said it would be interesting to see what developed in their study.There is another article today about some new ifformation about the process that turns on some of our activity daile. It can be read at Livesciences as well.The LiveSciences report on the gene segments can be found here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have no background in biology but I've never completely bought the explanations of why the evolutionary process has seemed so erratic. From a strictly common sense point of view it would seem to me that evolution would occur gradually and evenly throughout time if it was stictly a natural process with no external intervention.Here is an article that has a biologist saying that, "he has a hard time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's not part of normal evolution."It seems to me that this would at least make him think that just maybe there might be a metaphysical explanation. That in my view would seem like a reasonable POV but he then says that it must have been the stress of leaving the trees and walking on two legs. If speciation or micro-evolution is the only evolutionary process, as I have heard argued on this forum, then why would there be any stress involved. Sounds like he is really grasping at straws.Either there is a creator or there isn't. Is evolution part of a great design by a metaphysical designer or is it all random chance and natural selection. Is the evolutionary process manipulated along the way. There are intelligent people on both sides of all of these questions. It seems to me that Theists will often allow their biases to totally disregard very strong evidence that is contrary to some of their specific beliefs, (like evolution vs Biblical literalism), but that Atheists do exactly the same thing, as in this case, in support of their faith.It seems to me that instances like this would at least cause an atheistic biologist to consider the metaphysical even from a Deist POV. Edited by GDR, : typo

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

GDR Well there are always random chemical and other effects that can render new complexities in the function of a given process in any animal. That a single gene expression can produce a profoundly different outcome is not that surprising since it does not take much to change the properties of things at the smallest scales of life any more than it does with the difference in properties of atoms being so diverse when they are essentially made of of the same 3 basic parts.

Well, as a theist and Christian, I see nothing there that hints of design. In fact, I see just the opposite. What I see is an indication that small changes can have major results. Also, I see an example of why we might see major changes over relatively short periods of time that seem astounding if all we look at is the physical remains.Each mutation is by definition "unusual". Here we see a first glimpse into one possible such unusual change. Also, we are looking back at a history of what happened. To look at it and say "Wow, something designed us to be smart" makes as little sense to me as saying "Wow, look how something designed the universe to be perfect for us."The other thing you mention is "stress". Remember, there are at least two sides to evolution. There are the changes, but there is also the filter. In this instance I read the mention of "stress" as relating to the filter, the screening part of evolution. Often these two side can become a series of driving forces. When some early primate moved out of its normal ecological niche those with slightly larger brains may have done better which allowed some of them to move into yet another niche where the filter was different and only some with a still larger brain got through which allowed them to move into yet another niche where ...Systems can be self reinforcing. There can be positve feedback that leads to very rapid change. In this case I see examples of just that, a rapid increase in brain size accompanied by rapid expansion into a variety of ecological and geographic niche and a rapid development of ancilary inventions such as tools, religion, domesticated animals, art and food sources.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi jar. We are both Theistic so I'll start off with it a given that there is a creator that you and I call God. What we are trying to come to an opinion on here is "where does God fit into the evolutionary process".As Christians we believe that Christ is God incarnate. Once we accept that as truth we have accepted the fact that God does intervene physically in his creation. Why would you not consider the possibility that God intervened in the evolutionary process at this point?I go back to the quote from the article: "he has a hard time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's not part of normal evolution."If it's not part of normal evolution I think that it is fine to look for a naturalistic solution which may or may not be correct, but I also believe that a metaphysical solution should be agreed to as a possibility. I'll be the first to admit that as a Theist the first thing that occurs to me is to see God in the process whereas a Deist or Atheist would see anything but.They seem to have discovered a point in the evolutionary process where humans seem to have evolved in an entirely different direction than any previous or subsequent species. The discoverer states that it isn't part of normal evolution. We not only have developed to have a much higher intelligence than any other species but we also have a much more highly developed consciousness. (We may be the only life form with consciousness, but personally I don't hold to that.)Once again you can go back to the weak anthropic principle and come up with naturalistic solutions as to why this occurred but I still maintain that it is very reasonable to assert that God could have intervened at this point in the process. When I consider both of your "wows" you're right. I do see the hand of God. I'm not suggesting at all that my conclusion is scientific or that there is any empirical evidence one way or the other. I'm just saying when I take a bird's eye view of this universe, this world, and the life on it, I just come to the conclusion that the likelihood of there being an Intelligent Designer", (not to be confused with the ID movement) is much greater than not. Once I have accepted the concept of their being a designer and I read articles like we are discussing I think, once again" that there is a strong likelihood that this mutation was caused by something more than random chance and natural selection.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I think the difference in the WOW factor is more a point of view.The only reason we are even looking at the HAR1 sequence is that we are the product of the HAR1 sequence.The universe is the same thing.It is not perfectly suited to us, rather we are suited to it.The mutation really is not that unusual. If is not some new mechanism, some unique methodology of change. It is an area that evolved rapidly and we can see other evidences that add support to both the changes and to what drove the changes.Since it really is NOT, or at least to me does not seem inexplicable, why bring in the Hand of God?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Says who? It is one or the other but it can't be proven either way. It is just opinion based on whatever we want to base it on. As Theists we have to conclude that the Hand of God was involved somewhere. Why not conclude that it is here in this instance? If not here, then where would you bring it in?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Why?It's a matter of random mutations that occur unpredictably, andIt's a matter of natural selection of the mutations that happen to be beneficial over those that are not, what those selection systems involve are not constant either, as it can swing from one extreme environment to another for the subject species in the subject areasWith all the makings of a fractal\chaos system, with no steady state and no mean state. Is there any mechanism to drive it towards a steady state?And then there is sexual selection - see R.A.Fisher and Feedback Sexual Selection for a system that can turbo-charge genetic change in a species.The indications are that sexual selection played a role in the selection of increased creativity in humans, thus selecting for better brains -- from wikipedia
Sexual selection - Wikipedia Certainly the brain size is at the limit for survival of the mother and child during the birth process, and thus an overly large brain qualifies as being "beyond the optimal level for survival"That is what I think this data shows as well -- areas subject to intense selection rather than normal survival selection levels.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Why not here? Because it is a logical fallacy to claim "It's GOD" every time we don't know something.It also promotes ignorance -- why look for a more compelling answer when you have "GOD-DID-IT" already?When would I bring it in? At the beginning is one viable option.General steady background noise is another -- to turn your previous comment around One can with equal incredulity claim that from a "strictly common sense point of view" that god's design handiwork should occur evenly thoughout time ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I saw this on google news this morningThe brain genes that gave man a head start on chimpanzees | Health | The GuardianThere have been other hints of fast evolution of parts of the human genome before, and it was also portrayed as "unusual" - even by someone who should know better.http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875
"Humans March to a Faster Genetic "Drummer" Than Other Primates, UC Riverside Research Says, Research Runs Counter to Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection" Darwin also suggested sexual selection where the "winners and losers" are not those who live or die, but those who get to reproduce or not.Sexual selction occurs every generation, so it can operate much faster than survival selection once a {trend\feature\ability} has been picked as "desirable" in a mate.We have other evidence of sexual selection in humans as well -- neoteny features, apparently bare skin and long head hair.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, no, I would not say it is opinion at all. The Universe was around long before there were any humans, and will be around long after any humans are but dust. Why?Why conclude it is here? What is different here? Other than the rapidity of the change what is different? And if GOD is going to step in and intervene, why do it in a way that will take millions of years to resolve?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, I read about that. Very interesting. It'll be interesting to see if subsequent research gives me reasons to re-examine my conclusions on IQ, etc.

What are your conclusions about IQ, and how would they relate to this set of mutations?

Actually I agree with this. I wouldn't want to see people stop looking for naturalistic solutions on the assumption that God did it. Some day at some point I would guess that we will come up against something where there is no natural solution. I wonder if we will recognize that point or if science will just spin its wheels until the end of time.The quote you gave was interesting in that they think that there was something besides random chance and natural selection involved in the evolutionary process. If they are shown to be correct I would imagine that will throw biologists into a bit of a tizzy.[RAZD]One can with equal incredulity claim that from a "strictly common sense point of view" that god's design handiwork should occur evenly thoughout time ...[/qs]I can't say that I agree with this statement. If I'm building a house I'll work some days and some days I won't. If a river is gradually eroding a rock it will happen largely evenly every day. A natural process should be consistent but creation can be consistent or inconsistent.I have no doubt that there are a number of circumstances in all fields of science where I would suggest that there is interference, and I'll be proven wrong. However, maybe not. Actually, the question of how much God intervenes in his creation is one of the biggest questions that I have about my faith. I truly have not formed any firm conclusions, but I know when I die and get to heaven, I'm definitely going to all the lectures. Thanks for the reply
Greg

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.