Sorry Walter... (and Fred... and John Paul..)

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

Shrug, sigh. Nice misrepresentation SLP. That is your typical move.For the record I was talking about Walter's assumptions pertaining to speech & language- ie that our alleged primitive ancestor from 10 million years ago didn't have those adaptations.BTW you shouldn't do science by reading reports. The actual article on FOXP2 discusses speech impairments in humans....

The difference in the human FOXP2 gene and the mouse (& simian?) FOXP2 gene is 2 amino acids. However, as the news report even stated there is more to speech and language than this one gene. The article in Nature discusses how a little change in the FOXP2 gene effects our ability for speech.

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.

---

point to consider:
If the differences were caused by a mutation did both amino acids change at one time? Would a change in just one confer any advantage that would allow it to be selected for?

The fact that you misrepresented and almost always do, is obvious. Once again the links I provided were NOT about mutations. They are about the fact that the alleged ancestor from 10 million years ago did NOT have those adaptations.The article did not indicate that some huge number was probably not required. It stated that there are more than that one gene that are responsible.The only waste of anything on this DB is you.toodles scotty

Peter:
What makes you think that animals other than humans don't
have a capacity for language just because they can't use
human languages ?John Paul:
Peter you have to take things in context:

quote:

---

Chimpanzees lack key parts of a language gene that is critical for human speech, say researchers. The finding may begin to explain why only humans use spoken language.

---

and

quote:

---

Language is unique to humans: chimpanzees can be trained to communicate using a complex set of symbols, but they can pronounce only a handful of words because they cannot make the required facial movements.

---

from:Nature - Not FoundHowever I have no doubt that other organisms communicate. But did that ability evolve or was it designed/ Created?------------------
John Paul

Like I said you have to take things in context. The context here is human language.Speech & language are not the same.And yes I am sure that communcation strategies can be explained within the natural selection framework. You just can't provide any substantiating evidence for that premise.