The article tells us Walter's assumptions pertaining to language & speech are pretty solid. (That is our alleged ancestor from 10 million years ago didn't have those adaptations)
One article on this tells us this isn't the only gene required:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=585&ncid=...
quote:
"It is not the gene that made language possible," geneticist Wolfgang Enard of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, stressed in a telephone interview.
He said it is probably one of many genes involved in speech and language, which are complex abilities.
The research is ongoing but it would be interesting to see if they try to genetically alter this gene (what, 2 amino acids?) in mice or simians to see what difference it makes in those organisms. Will the mice be able to grin or snarl? Or do they just know that when FOXP2 is messed with in humans the effects are very apparent (speech impetiments)?
At least scientists are continuing to realize that one gene is responsible for more than one protein and/ or function. Did this capability arise naturally? Did the alleged first populations have this ability as well as happening to have the ability to self-replicate?
------------------
John Paul