New brain gene gives us edge over apes, study suggests

Nov 14, 2012

Scientists have taken a step forward in helping to solve one of life's greatest mysteries – what makes us human?

An international team of researchers have discovered a new gene that helps explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees.

Scientists say the gene – called miR-941 – appears to have played a crucial role in human brain development and may shed light on how we learned to use tools and language.

Researchers say it is the first time that a new gene – carried only by humans and not by apes – has been shown to have a specific function within the human body.

A team at the University of Edinburgh compared the to 11 other species of mammals, including chimpanzees, gorillas, mouse and rat, to find the differences between them.

The results, published in Nature Communications, showed that the gene – miR-941 – is unique to humans. The researchers say that it emerged between six and one million years ago, after humans had evolved from apes.

The gene is highly active in two areas of the brain that control our decision making and . The study suggests it could have a role in the advanced brain functions that make us human.

It is known that most differences between species occur as a result of changes to existing genes, or the duplication and deletion of genes.

But scientists say this gene emerged fully functional out of non-coding genetic material, previously termed "", in a startlingly brief interval of . Until now, it has been remarkably difficult to see this process in action.

Researcher Dr Martin Taylor, who led the study at the Institute of Genetics and at the University of Edinburgh, said the results were significant.

He said: "As a species, humans are wonderfully inventive – we are socially and technologically evolving all the time. But this research shows that we are innovating at a too. This new molecule sprang from nowhere at a time when our species was undergoing dramatic changes: living longer, walking upright, learning how to use tools and how to communicate. We're now hopeful that we will find more new genes that help show what makes us human."

Explore further: Team advances genome editing technique

Related Stories

'Junk DNA' defines differences between humans and chimps

Oct 25, 2011

For years, scientists believed the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees would be easily explained – the two species must have significantly different genetic makeups. However, when ...

Humans and chimpanzees, how similar are we?

Nov 20, 2006

The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical, but now Uppsala University researchers can show that parts of the genetic material are missing in one species or the other.

Recommended for you

Team advances genome editing technique

7 hours ago

Customized genome editing – the ability to edit desired DNA sequences to add, delete, activate or suppress specific genes – has major potential for application in medicine, biotechnology, food and agriculture.

Studies steadily advance cellulosic ethanol prospects

Oct 20, 2014

At the Agricultural Research Service's Bioenergy Research Unit in Peoria, Illinois, field work and bench investigations keep ARS scientists on the scientific front lines of converting biomass into cellulosic ...

User comments : 99

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SoylentGrin
5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2012
I know it would be incredibly unethical, but I wonder what would happen if this gene was inserted into a developing chimpanzee or gorilla embryo?
rod_russell_9
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 14, 2012
It is stunning! This team finds a "new gene" that is unique to humans, and immediately knows for sure that it evolved from apes and even when that event happened. Isn't evolution amazing? And, especially, aren't its researchers fantastic? In one instant, they know nothing about a gene, and in the next, they know everything about it.
Lizajane
1 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2012
Finally we start glimpsing the possible workings of amorphous material called "junk DNA" for so long misunderstood--
"...scientists say this gene emerged fully functional out of non-coding genetic material, previously termed "junk DNA", in a startlingly brief interval of evolutionary time."
Sounds to me like our "brains" -or what people are really discussing--our minds-- created themselves.
jscroft
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
Uplift?
mezmama
2 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
Rather poorly written article. Rather than using the term "new gene", perhaps the author should have written "newly found gene".
Notwithstanding this minor critique, I wonder what the deletion or miscoding of this gene would mean to an individual. Are there such cases where this has been observed? And, if so, what cognitive deficits are displayed by the individual? Are there alleles of this gene? Does this gene work in concert with other genes? What are the implications vis a vis genetic engineering?
This discovery opens up a myriad of possibilities.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2012
It sure does. But I think that this gene in particular cannot be used in other animals, due to the human anatomy itself varying too greatly in appearance, skeletal system and most of its other systems. Incompatibility, i.e., if it became a part of fish, a horse, or a mouse, it would not make available its full potential. It may be only adaptable to the human skull.
The human voice box itself is also unique as combined with human teeth, tongue, palate, etc. that enables us to produce sounds to communicate.
Elephants? Wellll...who knows? ;)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (30) Nov 14, 2012
The human voice box itself is also unique as combined with human teeth, tongue, palate, etc. that enables us to produce sounds to communicate.
Ahaahaaahahaha nope other animals have teeth, tongues, palates, AND voice boxes:

"The larynx, commonly called the voice box, is an organ in the neck of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (including humans) involved in breathing, sound production, and protecting the trachea against food aspiration. It manipulates pitch and volume."

-I guess this is something they did not teach you in bioengineering school.
Wellll...who knows?
You dont. Why guess? Why make shit up?? It only makes you look stupid.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2012
Recent studies says it is more the regulation of genes than different alleles or, as here, new genes, that differ.

Also, humans hasn't "evolved from apes" - we are still apes, as we are in the same clade. They likely refer to the human-chimp split.

@ obama_socks:

Fractal error. Nothing you say is correct: the gene can certainly be expressed in other animals if we move it - this is after all how it evolved as it was expressed in differing individuals, the human anatomy isn't especially different from chimps say, the voice box is the same as other mammals (but birds have a different one) and certainly was nearly exactly identical in Neanderthals, et cetera.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
@ rod_russell:

What is stunning is that you didn't read the article you are responding to. Are you a creationist? The article notes that the gene _didn't_ evolve "from apes" but after the human-chimp split.

It is _us_ that split from chimps, or as the article erroneously clames "from apes". (We are also apes as we split within the group.) And the split is dated in many ways - by genes for example.

As for the rest, yes, this is research as usual. Isn't physics amazing, in one instant they knew nothing about gravity, and in the next, they knew everything about it. (If you ask folk science, it was the precise moment an apple hit Newton's head. =D)
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2012
@ obama_socks:Wow, you need to go back and do some school level biology.
JVK
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2012
In my model, reproduction begins with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics, which evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms. In yeasts, epigenetic changes driven by nutrition then led to the creation of novel cell types, which are required at evolutionary advent of sexual reproduction. These epigenetic changes probably occur across the evolutionary continuum that includes both nutrition-dependent reproduction in unicellular organisms and sexual reproduction in mammals. For example, ingested plant microRNAs [and glucose]influence gene expression across kingdoms. In mammals, this epigenetically links what mammals eat to changes in gene expression and to new genes required for the evolutionary development of the mammalian placenta and the human brain. That's how olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans. http://dx.doi.org...i0.17338
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2012
@JVK,
I haven't read the entirety of your paper but what I have read is compelling and credible. I know that many creatures depend on the olfactory identification of their offspring. What you're saying is that the actual health of a growing organism is dependent on this interchange of both food odors, i.e., mother's milk and her pheromones, and will affect the health of the offspring and even cause actual physiological/ genetic alterations in the species. As audacious as this sounds to some, I agree with it.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2012
It is stunning! This team finds a "new gene" that is unique to humans, and immediately knows for sure that it evolved from apes and even when that event happened.


Modern humans didn't evolve from apes, apes evolved in tandem with human beings...

Isn't evolution amazing?


Yes indeed.

I one starred this article because it actually said "after humans had evolved from apes"....

Really? With stupefyingly ignorant statements like that one can hardly blame creationists for their confusion and erroneous conceptions.
JVK
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2012
Thanks. It will be interesting to see the comments of others who make no attempt to read or understand my published work(s) and remain ignorant of the fact that no other model of epigenetic effects on genetic predispositions links microbes to man. Junk DNA must be the stuff from which olfactory receptor genes are made. I suspect that has been rather clear among olfactory researchers since two of them shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine.
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2012
Point out the ethical issues SoylentGrin.
SoylentGrin
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2012
Point out the ethical issues


Well, there are only a few potential outcomes.
It could result in:

A non-viable embryo - Ethically neutral.

A viable embryo and otherwise normal primate - Ethically neutral, but would mean raising it in a controlled environment to study and monitor it. Probably not the best life for it.

A mentally disabled primate - Ethically questionable. It would not have anything close to a normal life, it could potentially be in pain while it exists, it might be a vegetable, or it might be violent and represent a threat to itself and those monitoring it. A crap shoot, then, with very little as a 'bright side'.

An intelligent primate - Ethically questionable. Consigning an intelligent, aware being to a relatively short existence of being scrutinized. Additionally, the gene insertion may have caused a cascade of other issues that it would have to deal with.

JVK
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 15, 2012
SoylentGrin,
The concept that is extended is the epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks as is required for adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. Nutrient chemical stress and social stress lead to non-viable organisms in all species via common molecular biology. Are you trying to tell us that stress is an issue of ethics, or what? The article is about de novo gene expression.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2012
@ rod_russell:
...Are you a creationist?
Not only a cretinist, but one that scans google every ten minutes with the keyword 'evolved' to post a hit and run biblical one-liner. Much like a rapist stalks their victims.

Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2012
@SoylentGrin
Thks.
Your last option - without holding the subject captive.
Planet of the Primapts -primates/apes

If they surpass our intelligence, what religion will make us subservient?

I digress no further and apologize for the digression.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (29) Nov 15, 2012
Really? With stupefyingly ignorant statements like that one
Sorry MM this here is possibly the last common ancestor between us and modern apes:

"Nakalipithecus nakayamai is a prehistoric great ape species that lived in today's Kenya region early in the Late Miocene, 10 million years ago (mya). It is the type species of the new genus Nakalipithecus. This ape was described from a fossil jawbone and eleven isolated teeth excavated in 2005 by a team of Japanese and Kenyan researchers in mud flow deposits in Nakali region of northern Kenya's Rift Valley Province, giving the genus its scientific name which means "Nakali ape"."

-As it states, an APE. A little research would save you much futile pomposity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (29) Nov 15, 2012
To complete your education:

"Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils"
SoylentGrin
not rated yet Nov 15, 2012
Imagine a being from another planet trying to classify life on earth. How would they classify us?
If someone doesn't think we *are* apes, I would be interested in hearing what they think we would be classified as instead.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 15, 2012
Imagine a being from another planet trying to classify life on earth. How would they classify us?
If someone doesn't think we *are* apes, I would be interested in hearing what they think we would be classified as instead.

While we're on the subject, it's entirely possible the gene that is unique to humans may have been inserted by those "beings" to create a new variation of what they might call "livestock."
JVK
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2012
While we're on the subject, it's entirely possible the gene that is unique to humans may have been inserted by those "beings" to create a new variation of what they might call "livestock."

No, it is not! From microbes to man the model of adaptive evolution is the same. Nutrient chemicals epigenetically effect genetic predispositions and the metabolism of the nutrient chemicals to pheromones controls reproduction. You don't suddenly get to a new species via gene insertion or mutations. The molecular mechanisms are conserved (and complex).
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 15, 2012
I won't argue the biological processes that shape us here on earth or your theory on the effect of nutrient-driven epigenetic changes, in fact, I commend your original work. I am going out on a limb, though, to suggest that there are other influences besides the ones you've proposed. I'm certainly not the originator of a "we are not alone" theory, and assume that if there are other advanced civilizations in the universe capable of observing us and even genetically manipulating changes in us primates, their techniques would be beyond the ken of even the most advanced earth scientists.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2012
I'll go out even further on that limb and suggest that the "consciousness" of living things- the "mind" or whatever you'd call the non-material source of awareness, has a direct effect on living biological systems. It is also possible that a strand of DNA may have a"consciousness" that responds, like a receptor, to the "consciousness" of the whole organism.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2012
As it states, an APE. A little research would save you much futile pomposity.


It's all about context Otto, when people say apes they're referring to modern apes in this context. So bully for you for being literally correct and generally ignorant...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (29) Nov 16, 2012
As it states, an APE. A little research would save you much futile pomposity.


It's all about context Otto, when people say apes they're referring to modern apes in this context. So bully for you for being literally correct and generally ignorant...
-Except when the context is science and those who are discussing it are scientists, as are those in the article and in the excerpt I posted, then the term 'ape' is correct as indicated. In the context of discussion among religionists and the educationally underprivileged, it's merely a misconception.

In other words you are [again] wrong and [again] unable to admit it.
FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Modernmystic, just to expose your semantic-wankery, answer the following question.

Do humans and apes share a common ancestor?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (28) Nov 16, 2012
I'll go out even further on that limb and suggest that the "consciousness" of living things- the "mind" or whatever you'd call the non-material source of awareness
You are speaking metaphysical voodoo. THERE IS NO NON-MATERIAL ANYTHING.

Nonsense words like 'mind' and 'consciousness' stem from the futile hope that there is something -somewhere- beyond the pale, and that 'souls' might find respite there; a cultural biofilm left by religion.

But science tells us that there is not. Science tells us that NOTHING beyond the physical is needed to explain ANYTHING. Period.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2012
THERE IS NO NON-MATERIAL ANYTHING.
Well except light and all the associated bosons which gives them special relativistic properties.
It is also possible that a strand of DNA may have a"consciousness" that responds, like a receptor, to the "consciousness" of the whole organism.
Indeed an entire brain hemisphere is dedicated to holistic incorporation. Intergo-differential analysis will kickstart AI once a truly clever genius hammers out the low-level code so that the robot lab hacks can claim credit.
Telekinetic
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2012
" In high-energy accelerator experiments, for example, matter particles such as electrons, positrons, and even protons and neutrons can be produced from various types of NON-MATERIAL energy such as kinetic energy and potential energy. However, because mass (like energy) can neither be created nor destroyed, the quantity of mass and the quantity of energy remain the same during a transformation of matter (which represents a certain amount of energy) into non-material (i.e., non-matter) energy. This is also true in the reverse transformation of energy into matter.
Albert Einstein showed[4] that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy, by the formula:"

All together now...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (27) Nov 16, 2012
Well except light and all the associated bosons which gives them special relativistic properties.
These are material things existing in a universe governed by entirely physical laws.
can be produced from various types of NON-MATERIAL energy such as kinetic energy and potential energy.
These are states of wholly physical phenomena. Are you saying that
the non-material source of awareness
-has something to do with physical energy states? Come on you were talking voodoo metaphysics. Do not try to obfumiscate. Even telekinesis would have to be based on some physical phenomenon.

ALL processes which take place in our brains are the sum total of complex physical reactions among it's constituent parts. This process can be discerned, modeled, and duplicated scientifically. This includes all that crap you may refer to as love, insight, empathy, wonder, and spirituality.

There is absolutely nothing beyond what is encased in our skulls which is required to account for these
Telekinetic
2.2 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2012
There are many things that can't be explained mechanistically, particularly quantum entanglement, as well as the nature of the multiverse, which now has numerous adherents in the "professional" scientific community who have the credentials that you constantly crow about needing to form any opinion. Your thinking is so 18th century, the only thing that would bring you up to date and into this one is to drop some acid. I think you're suffering from some kind of panic when information, which is also non-material, doesn't line up with your perception of a concrete world. So much has been overturned just in the last few decades, yet you act as if nothing's changed. There are many things that are beyond our present understanding, and to label them all as religious relics says more about your own personal conflict with religion than anything else.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 17, 2012
There are many things that can't be explained mechanistically, particularly quantum entanglement, as well as the nature of the multiverse
-But they will be explained. And only science has the tools to explain them.
Your thinking is so 18th century
YOU'RE the one who wants to invoke the metaphysical.
only thing that would bring you up to date and into this one is to drop some acid.
My gen INVENTED lysergic acid dialethamide. And it's effects are entirely physiological.
information, which is also non-material
Info is entirely material in nature. Info is the interaction of physical elements.
So much has been overturned just in the last few decades
Right - by science. Voodoo has never provided info about the physical nature of things.
There are many things that are beyond our present understanding, and to label them all as religious relics
You say that things currently unknown can never be known. This is a RELIGIOUS notion. Scientists would NEVER say this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 17, 2012
Science seeks to explain. It gives us increasing confidence that there is nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. Religion and philosophy seek to obscure by claiming that there unknowable things, 'a priori' if you will, and then claims that only they can discuss them.

This has produced only endless piles of bullshit that science continues to excavate with astounding success. Germs cause disease, not demons. There are no such things as luck or special dispensation or ESP or faith healing - science has explored these things statistically. Evolution is real, the young earth is not because science has given us the ability to explore the universe objectively and interpret how things ARE and not how we might want them to be.

This is the only way we can hope to use what we find to our advantage, and survive despite the odds.

Realitys a bitch. Get used to it, it's all there is.
JVK
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2012
Recent discussion of statistical analyses used in behavioral genetics have declared them to be rather useless in the context of what is already neuroscientifically known about the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromones on genetically predisposed behaviors. Those who masquerade using names like TheGhostofOtto1923 are free to distribute more of their nonsense in newsgroups like this, while others publish articles about epigenetic cause and effect in peer-reviewed journals, where individual "beliefs" about cause and effect have nothing to do with anything scientific. Ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction is responsible for any confidence anyone has in the context of scientific explanation. Those who believe in adaptive evolution of our brain and behavior can now attempt to explain away the 4 million pieces of interactive code in the human genome with either a model or a theory. But theories don't explain anything. Biological facts do.
JVK
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2012
Statistics for dummies: "...individual differences in complex human characteristics do not, in general, have causes, neither genetic nor environmental. Complex human behaviour emerges out of a hyper-complex developmental network into which individual genes and individual environmental events are inputs. The systematic causal effects of any of those inputs are lost in the developmental complexity of the network." http://ije.oxford...98.short

If a "New brain gene gives us [an] edge over [other] apes" it does so via the epigenetic effects of the sensory environment that control that gene's expression. There is no sudden transition from "Junk DNA" to something as important as a new gene in any species. De novo gene expression is clearly a function of nutrient chemical-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction. Explain why that exemplifies cause and effect in species from microbes to man sans Creation and sans ridiculous theory and we'll see who's obscuring what.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2012
The human voice box itself is also unique as combined with human teeth, tongue, palate, etc. that enables us to produce sounds to communicate.
Ahaahaaahahaha nope other animals have teeth, tongues, palates, AND voice boxes:

"The larynx, commonly called the voice box, is an organ in the neck of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (including humans) involved in breathing, sound production, and protecting the trachea against food aspiration. It manipulates pitch and volume."

-I guess this is something they did not teach you in bioengineering school.
Wellll...who knows?
You dont. Why guess? Why make shit up?? It only makes you look stupid.
-Blotto

Ahaahaaahahaha I SAID HUMAN voice box, idiot. You STILL can't comprehend anything and YOU have to make shit up in order to get any attention. Producing sounds to communicate means VERBAL COMMUNICATION - you fucking moron.
I never said anything about "bioengineering". YOU'RE OFF YOUR MEDS AGAIN AND ITS AFFECTED YOUR BRAIN
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (25) Nov 18, 2012
Ahaahaaahahaha I SAID HUMAN voice box, idiot. You STILL can't comprehend anything and YOU have to make shit up in order to get any attention. Producing sounds to communicate means VERBAL COMMUNICATION - you fucking moron.
Animals use their voiceboxes for all sorts of nonverbal communication you fucking moron.
I never said anything about "bioengineering".
No but you claim to be an engineer, which you're obviously not, and to work on the curiosity team, which you obviously don't.
Statistics for dummies: "...individual differences in complex human characteristics do not, in general, have causes, neither genetic nor environmental.
-Translation: 'We humans are far too complex and too UNIQUE ever to be understood, or emulated, or replaced. So why try to understand us? God might revoke souls and then where will we be??'

Science can and will show us just how simplistic, how ordinary, and how predictable, we ALL are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Nov 18, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923 are free to distribute more of their nonsense in newsgroups like this
I am flattered that you think that evolutionary psychology is my invention but alas I am just the messenger of the obvious. Please try to recognize your irrational desire to remain unfathomable, as a subconscious defense mechanism configured to hide you from your natural enemies.

Our behavior is determined by the way we evolved, in intimate repose with our environment. If you can accept this you can begin to recognize why you think what you think and do what you do, and come to realize that there is very very little of the notion of 'free will' in our behavior.

Even our extensive domestication is made possible by our genetically-derived urge to submit to the will of the tribe. We surrender our safety, our dignity, our repro rights, and even our lives for the common good. This too is discernible in our personal behavior.

Wild or tamed - we are still animals. Squishy machines.
JVK
2.7 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923 wrote: "There are no such things as luck or special dispensation or ESP or faith healing - science has explored these things statistically." And now it responds with commentary indicating "... I am just the messenger of the obvious."

The only thing obvious here is the difference between statistically based theory and biologically based fact with evolutionary theory exemplifying the statistical approach in the absence of integrated biological facts now overwhelmingly supported by evidence from the integration of neuroscientific facts into models for behavioral development that incorporate what is currently known about molecular biology.

As I initially said: "The article is about de novo gene expression." And "The concept that is extended is the epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks as is required for adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction." The article has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2012
"Our will is not free my friends. When I say that we don't have a free will though, I am not saying that our will is bound in the things of everyday life. In other words, I am not saying that you have a bound will when it comes to what color of house you are going to buy, what kind of vocation you are going to engage in, what color of shirt you are going to wear or even what you are going to eat for lunch today. I am not saying that our wills are bound in the horizontal realm of simple everyday life. I am saying that our wills are bound and that we don't have a free will when it comes to salvation and choosing good over evil with purely God fearing motives. We cannot love the Lord God with all of our heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves."- Pastor Matt Richard

"If you can accept this you can begin to recognize why you think what you think and do what you do, and come to realize that there is very very little of the notion of 'free will' in our behavior." Ghost1923
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2012
@JVK:
Wouldn't exposure to significantly higher amounts of radiation over successive generations yield an organism whose DNA has adapted with a defensive strategy of mutation?
JVK
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2012
@JVK:
Wouldn't exposure to significantly higher amounts of radiation over successive generations yield an organism whose DNA has adapted with a defensive strategy of mutation?


That's not likely. Mutations may rarely yield adaptations but seem to fail as a defensive strategy because they more typically have deadly consequences, or no consequences.

Nutrient chemicals and pheromones may or may not be beneficial depending on the context, but they appear to be the driving force behind adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction -- as I have detailed in my published works.

If someone would simply detail a model in which mutations somehow cause adaptive evolution there would be a model to compare to mine, but for now we have only theories. Personally, I think the theory that random mutations are responsible for adaptive evolution is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. So, I ask: Is there a model for that?
tkjtkj
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2012
"The results, published in Nature Communications, showed that the gene – miR-941 – is unique to humans. The researchers say that it emerged between six and one million years ago, after humans had evolved from apes."


Am i missing something here?? The gene unique to humans appeared *after* humans had evolved? Logic dictates that this gene can not be responsible for the evolving of humans.
Telekinetic
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2012
@JVK:
A large amount of viral remnants comprise human DNA. Though most of it is part of the "junk DNA" class whose role has yet to be fully understood, some of these viral remnants have been linked to some useful function in the past. Wouldn't that constitute a genetic alteration in the primate's evolution?
JVK
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2012
Viruses may cause adaptive evolution by altering the balance of micro RNA and messenger RNA. But, so far as I know, their effect is on the ability of the cell to acquire the nutrient chemicals responsible for pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. I would not refer to them in the context of mutations because I haven't seen any evidence that mutations cause adaptive evolution, and everything I have seen says its nutrient chemical-dependent (bottom-up) and pheromone (top-down) controlled. The bottom up / top-down epigenetic effects are concurrent. If one or the other were random there would be no control of adaptive evolution -- even if it is driven by viruses, like HERV for example.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
Modernmystic, just to expose your semantic-wankery, answer the following question.

Do humans and apes share a common ancestor?


Of course they do, but we did not evolve from modern apes...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 19, 2012
Modernmystic, just to expose your semantic-wankery, answer the following question.

Do humans and apes share a common ancestor?


Of course they do, but we did not evolve from modern apes...
That's correct MM. We evolved from apes which are now extinct. You are still trying to deny that you did not understand this which is pretty clear.

'Pastor mark richards'? TK you ARE a religionist. 'God' the notion only determines what particular flavor of fantasy we have a taste for. In this respect it certainly does limit our choices doesn't it? As many feel it is worth killing and dying for, and these activities require much time and effort.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2012
The only thing obvious here is the difference between statistically based theory and biologically based fact with evolutionary theory exemplifying the statistical approach in the absence of integrated biological facts now overwhelmingly supported by evidence from the integration of neuroscientific facts into models for behavioral development that incorporate what is currently known about molecular biology.
Translation 'Blahblahblah.' Sorry but thats a little empty.

As evolutionary psychology and the study of the brain from this perspective is in it's infancy, you are able to jump to any conclusions you wish.

Science has only recently developed the tools to explore the mechanics and structure of the brain, which is the ONLY way of establishing what you call integrated biological FACTS, and it certainly makes sense to do this with the idea that it evolved like any other organ.

And like any other belief system, yours will erode as science tells us what is really going on.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
You are still trying to deny that you did not understand this which is pretty clear.


No I did not deny that "I" was clear on this, but I do maintain (quite correctly) that the article was FAR from clear about this and only leads to continued obfuscation of the issue for those that actually are anything BUT clear on the issue.
JVK
2.6 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2012
Science has only recently developed the tools to explore the mechanics and structure of the brain, which is the ONLY way of establishing what you call integrated biological FACTS, and it certainly makes sense to do this with the idea that it evolved like any other organ.


Pay attention: I wrote about: "...evidence from the integration of neuroscientific facts into models for behavioral development that incorporate what is currently known about molecular biology.

And like any other belief system, yours will erode as science tells us what is really going on.


What is it about molecular biology that you think is a belief system that will erode? Do you understand anything about de novo gene expression or are you simply a simple-minded troll?

Based on my belief system, however, I apologize for my "unbridled tongue" -- James 1:26, and for inferring that you are a troll if you are not one. It's just that I have a low tolerance for attacks on religious beliefs by fools.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2012
'Pastor mark richards'? TK you ARE a religionist. 'God' the notion only determines what particular flavor of fantasy we have a taste for. In this respect it certainly does limit our choices doesn't it? As many feel it is worth killing and dying for, and these activities require much time and effort." - Ghost

It is you, Ghost, that shares the same precept of an illusion of "free will" with the Church. The doctrines or social constrictions of your "tribe" are really just a different type of religious dogma that people can break free of. We aren't chained or enslaved physically to rules of this "tribe" and we can exercise our free will if we think and act for ourselves. Only someone who is deathly afraid of freedom would concoct such a twisted view of human helplessness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (25) Nov 19, 2012
You are still trying to deny that you did not understand this which is pretty clear.


No I did not deny that "I" was clear on this, but I do maintain (quite correctly) that the article was FAR from clear about this and only leads to continued obfuscation of the issue for those that actually are anything BUT clear on the issue.
MM. This is what the article says:

"...the gene – miR-941 – is unique to humans. The researchers say that it emerged between six and one million years ago, after humans had evolved from apes."

-Apes. Which humans evolved from. In an article about a study done by scientists. What exactly do you find unclear about any of this?
are really just a different type of religious dogma that people can break free of.
No it's not. Science is a long process of examining evidence and confirming results. It is confidence based on results, which is decidedly not faith. Faith is belief despite evidence and regardless if results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2012
Pay attention: I wrote about: "...evidence from the integration of neuroscientific facts into models for behavioral development that incorporate what is currently known about molecular biology.
So I read back over the thread, and it seems your comments to me stem from some resentment over the fact that others weren't commenting in your posts? And I got sucked in. My mistake.
The article has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology.
For that matter it doesn't mention epigenetics either. My comments were in response to TKs 'non-material source of awareness' mumbo jumbo. That wasn't in the article either. So what? Good luck with your epigenetic stuff. Maybe scientists can help you find out if it has some merit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2012
my "unbridled tongue" -- James 1:26
Yeah. I bet you fell for John 3:16 while I have a big problem with verses 18 to 21, where your god threatens me with eternal suffering if I don't accept his generous offer.
We aren't chained or enslaved physically to rules of this "tribe" and we can exercise our free will if we think and act for ourselves.
Yeah. Try breaking physical laws and see who suffers. Jump off a bridge. Maybe you'll get lucky.
Only someone who is deathly afraid of freedom would concoct such a twisted view of human helplessness.
Yeah. So where is the freedom in John 3? I choose to accept the reality that the people who sell that as fact, also peddle the notions of a young earth, a global flood, an exodus by 2M Jews through an Egypt-occupied sinai, a genocidal joshuan rampage through an Egypt-occupied Palestine, and great davidic/solomonic kingdoms.

Science has told us that these things didn't HAPPEN. Jesus should have known better before he endorsed them.
EverythingsJustATheory
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2012

Personally, I think the theory that random mutations are responsible for adaptive evolution is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. So, I ask: Is there a model for that?


Of course evolution is not driven by total randomness. It is driven by environmental stimuli and genetic response to said stimuli. As the stimuli are unpredictable, the response is unpredictable as well, and many of the changes will not prove to be beneficial.

However, if you are trying to imply that there is design in the evolutionary walk, that is hogwash.
JVK
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2012
Of course evolution... is driven by environmental stimuli and genetic response to said stimuli. As the stimuli are unpredictable, the response is unpredictable as well, and many of the changes will not prove to be beneficial.


Adaptive evolution is nutrient chemical-dependent and the nutrient chemicals metabolize to pheromones in species from microbes to man. Thus nutrient chemicals and pheromonal control of reproduction are responsible for adaptive evolution. Nutrient chemicals, from the bottom up, pheromones from the top down with epigenetic effects of both that are concurrently required for adaptive changes in de novo gene expression -- as in the article.

The likelihood of these bottom-up epigenetic effects being accompanied by top-down epigenetic effects that are adaptive only in species that have survived seems difficult to calculate due to species diversity and the 4 million switches in our DNA. That's why I ask, is there a model for that. It's too predictable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 19, 2012
A few more points:
What is it about molecular biology that you think is a belief system that will erode? Do you understand anything about de novo gene expression or are you simply a simple-minded troll?
I cited evolutionary psychology, and you acted as if I had made it up. I concluded that you were unaware of the discipline in regard to human behavior, which to me implies that you don't know a whole lot about contemporary, mainstream science.

Ergo, it may be understandable to assume that you yourself are a crank who is in love with long sentences full of esoterica, and whose theories are based somewhat less on evidence and peer review than those of pinker or Dawkins or john tooby for instance. Although I could be wrong. Who knows? Ask pinker, or the authors of the article above.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2012
Science has told us that these things didn't HAPPEN. Jesus should have known better before he endorsed them.
-But he really didn't have much of a choice now, did he? So much for free will.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2012
If you could ratchet down your histrionics, Ghost, you would stop attributing biblical quotes that I don't make attached to ones that I have made. I'm not referring to science versus religion , I am referencing your theories on tribal behavior in relation to religious doctrine, which in your view are really similar in that as members of the tribe, we really have no free will, but rather follow the dictates of the tribe in order for the species to survive. That is too much like the rigid dogma of the Church, which states that God has a preordained plan for us, so free will is an illusion. My guess is that you had once been drawn to religion based on your impressive knowledge of it but must have felt betrayed by it afterward and now spend an inordinate amount of time lashing out at it. Science is magnificent, but it's not a savior and shouldn't be put on a pedestal and worshipped. It exists to uncover nature's mysteries, not as a cudgel for you to disprove religion.
JVK
2.6 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2012
I cited evolutionary psychology, and you acted as if I had made it up... which to me implies that you don't know a whole lot about contemporary, mainstream science.


Evolutionary psychology is not contemporary, mainstream science; it is barely scientific at all. It relies largely on theory and statistical analyses at a time when the molecular biology common to all species links nutrient chemical acquisition and the metabolism of the nutrient chemicals to species-specific pheromones, de novo gene expression, and to behavioral development in species from microbes to man. For contrast, we have story-telling by evolutionary theorists who arguably are good at it, but seem to know little or nothing about the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link sensory cause to hormones and their behavioral affects in invertebrate and vertebrate species via mechanisms I have detailed in published works.

For example: http://dx.doi.org...i0.17338

Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2012
@lite:
I get it now- because you have only one testicle you can only award one star. My condolences.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (32) Nov 20, 2012
Telekinetic - maybe y'all shouldn't tell lite,(Otto) to ratchet down his histrionics. ;)
JVK
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2012
Evolutionary psychology is not contemporary, mainstream science; it is barely scientific at all. It relies largely on theory and statistical analyses at a time when the molecular biology common to all species links nutrient chemical acquisition and the metabolism of the nutrient chemicals to species-specific pheromones, de novo gene expression, and to behavioral development in species from microbes to man.

For example: http://dx.doi.org...i0.17338


I forgot to mention my book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality, which was concurrently published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. The author's copy is here: http://www2.hu-be...kohl.htm

We have evolutionary theorists to thank for their denial that human pheromones exist to promote our species as primarily visual --as if the appeal of food and mates was not due to odors in every species on this planet.
Tausch
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2012
The assertion is: All life forms go extinct:

Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Homo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

http://en.wikiped...tinction

So maybe the "New brain gene gives us edge over apes, study suggests"

is not the suggested "edge" over which to reign over any form of life.

This is a problem with that. The definition of life.
And on it continues...

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 20, 2012
@lite:
I get it now- because you have only one testicle you can only award one star. My condolences.
I think poor lite is bedridden and can only type with his tongue.
as members of the tribe, we really have no free will, but rather follow the dictates of the tribe in order for the species to survive.
Right. But tribal behavior is genetic. We have been selected for it. Those who could not conform were consistently culled. Those tribes which did not do this were consistently overrun. So we are as a result conformists and group-seekers.

What groups do you ascribe to? Your ideas are formed by your affinities. Even pioneers want to escape in groups, to form new colonies where they can grow and diverge from the rest in peace.

Either there is room for you where you are, or you are compelled to pioneer. And if there is nowhere else to go, you seek to replace your parents by whatever means possible. Evolution is relentless. Genes are ruthless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 20, 2012
Parents are of course as ruthless as their offspring. Parents can detect genetic divergence subconsciously and reject offspring because of it. This often meant infanticide when tribes had reached the carrying capacity of their territory. Offspring who did not fit were a danger to both their parents and the tribe. Think of the rite-of-passage rituals which could end in death.

Goodall relates an instance about chimps where a few young upstarts grabbed some females and went off to start a new tribe. The alpha male brooded for awhile, then gathered a raiding party, attacked the camp, killed the males, and reclaimed the females. We can see this same dynamic at play among the generations of our own species.
That is too much like the rigid dogma of the Church
Religions evolved in spreading the tribal dynamic over ever larger groups. Those which were less successful at doing this, were overrun and destroyed. Only the most virulent remain with us.
JVK
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2012
The assertion is: All life forms go extinct:


Thus, if we evolved a gene that enabled us to think or believe that we, as individuals or as a species would not die or die out, the evolved gene might help with terror management, when terror is due to the threat of individual or group termination. In the context of our adaptive evolution, this likelihood makes eternal life something to be achieved via love of others so that we do not present a death threat to them and they are a bit nicer to us even if they don't believe anything about anything because they have not adaptively evolved or they have dysfunctional genetic underpinnings for their behaviors, especially the behaviors we think are ridiculous. But I digress into judgement of others. My point is: What kind of non-human primate has any belief system? What kind of human does not? How can we be adaptively evolved apes if we believe in nothing just because they are not capable of doing so? Clearly, some of us have no edge.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Nov 20, 2012
Upstarts are a constant threat to long-term stability required by civilization. Cultures could only grow and spread when they developed effective ways of controlling both the Urge to Merge and the Urge to Diverge. The breakthrough came when Leaders of opposing tribes realized that they could cooperate in dealing with their mutual problems. Wars could be Staged, not to defeat one tribe or the other, but to rid each of the young, contentious hotheads who did not fit in.

There is a Time to love and a Time to hate. A Time to be born and a Time to die. A Time to embrace and a Time to refrain. There is a TIME for war, and a TIME for peace. Everything is beautiful in it's own TIME.

Leaders who could make these things happen at the proper TIME could avoid destruction and reap unimaginable Benefits. They could forge empires and conquer the world. They could become their own Tribe, and establish a secure future for their own offspring as a Result. Planning and Preparation - Joseph and pharaoh.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2012
When the royal families of Europe ignored their olfactory/pheromone-induced signaling, they wound up mating with their siblings and first cousins, resulting in generations of demented family members, as depicted in royal portraits by Goya, for instance. Sometimes these natural impulses were superseded by social imperatives like the retention of power and maintaining royal bloodlines, cues that would ordinarily protect organisms from genetic damage. Presently, the problem arises in religiously insular groups as well.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Nov 20, 2012
Thus, if we evolved a gene that enabled us to think or believe that we, as individuals or as a species would not die
All animals have the survival instinct. Only humans know they will eventually grow old and die. 'God puts eternity in the hearts of men.'

Death for us is confinement, a cage. No animal can tolerate confinement. Religion and science both promise a way out of this cage but we know that only science has any hope of delivering on this promise. But religion is so much EASIER isn't it?

Promises of freedom in the afterlife were a way of tolerating the restrictions of the tribe as well, which is probably why the meme emerged so early.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2012
"Upstarts are a constant threat to long-term stability required by civilization. Cultures could only grow and spread when they developed effective ways of controlling both the Urge to Merge and the Urge to Diverge. The breakthrough came when Leaders of opposing tribes realized that they could cooperate in dealing with their mutual problems. Wars could be Staged, not to defeat one tribe or the other, but to rid each of the young, contentious hotheads who did not fit in."- Ghost

But the hotheads are naturally selected to improve the genetic lines- like stags locking horns or young lions establishing dominance. It keeps the tribe nimble and prevents stagnation. It's rock 'n roll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (28) Nov 20, 2012
But the hotheads are naturally selected to improve the genetic lines- like stags locking horns or young lions establishing dominance. It keeps the tribe nimble and prevents stagnation. It's rock 'n roll.
Yes, in natural evolution. But not in the tribal dynamic. Large cohesive tribes will consistently overrun small bands of nonconformists. This is how Islam swept Africa and the middle east, the Mongols swept Asia, and xianity swept the world.

Rock is only another way of conforming to a group. Conform or rebel, either way, you Serve. Who do you think invented rock? Who imports your drugs for you via Mena and the white house? Who convinces one gen to fight against the war, and the next gen to fight IN one?

You cannot help but Serve. They knew ye before you were born.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2012
What exactly do you find unclear about any of this?


Nothing, which I've said THREE times now...

Either you're deliberately not getting the point, or it's simply beyond your comprehension that people that aren't as versed in evolutionary theory as you won't understand the statement the how it was probably meant. Since is is a SCIENCE article, instead of using the word apes they should have given the specific common ancestor they were thinking of...
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2012
In the earliest tribal dynamic, the chieftain was expected to fight off any young blood vying for his throne. When he was overthrown, that stronger man was entitled to a number of wives, assuring the future of the tribe with his superior genetic code.
I'm drawn to your cynicism about larger forces controlling outcomes with no wiggle room for free choice, but I'm also a utopian and a bit of an anarchist, which in light of the grim world condition is probably futile. It's critical, though, not to abandon the vision of a truly peaceful world, where people can govern their own actions and think for themselves. Capitalism will prevent it, and the neurosis of the nuclear family will reinforce the unlikelihood of a changed world. That's a psychological assessment, which is a component that must be figured into any analysis of animal behavior to be a complete one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (28) Nov 20, 2012
instead of using the word apes they should have given the specific common ancestor they were thinking of...
Scientists know that ape is the correct word for human precursors. You think it is something else. You have been wrong multiple times.
In the earliest tribal dynamic, the chieftain was expected to fight off any young blood vying for his throne. When he was overthrown, that stronger man was entitled to a number of wives, assuring the future of the tribe with his superior genetic code.
Correct. But intelligence trumps brute force. Leaders who could avoid direct confrontation could maintain repro rights.

Brains beats brawn, and we have been continually selected for communicating, remembering, conceptualizing, anticipating, and planning in the context of unending tribal conflict. Tactics will win out over brute force on the battlefield.

'All of war is deception.' So is effective Leadership.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (27) Nov 20, 2012
I'm also a utopian and a bit of an anarchist
So where did you get these words? Did you make them up or are they notions of some group or other?
Capitalism will prevent it, and the neurosis of the nuclear family will reinforce the unlikelihood of a changed world.
Families are good when you want to grow pops but are bad when you don't want to grow. Families were suppressed for a time while alternatives to procreative sex were encouraged in the west, and pop growth shrank. This left room for a new wave of pragmatic, ambitious refugees from obsolete third world cultures yearning to breathe a little more freely.

Solomon lamented his inability to control the future and preserve all that he had created. 'All is meaningless' he cried. And then the heavenly Chorus chimed in and told him exactly how to maintain Stability and allow for Progress. By having the Inevitable happen at the Proper Time.

They knew ye before you were in the womb.
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2012
I'm not a joiner of any group. The fundamental ideas are almost always bastardized by its members. Also, believing in any idea so adamantly causes rigidity, which diminishes the original power of the idea. I think human feelings are innate, and subsequent distortions are taught and reinforced. People who escape from hate groups have somehow managed to realign their thought process with innate knowledge.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (27) Nov 20, 2012
I'm not a joiner of any group. The fundamental ideas are almost always bastardized by its members.
You wouldn't have any idea what anarchy or utopia were if someone hadn't told you what they were. You long to belong just like anyone else. It's not utopia unless you are there with your buds.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2012
Even those people that share my worldview I keep at arm's length, a very long arm at that. That's because people have personalities first and ideas about the world after.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2012
Scientists know that ape is the correct word for human precursors. You think it is something else. You have been wrong multiple times.


Scientists know that ape is one of many correct words for human precursors. There were probably on the order of a million human precursors. One could say members of the genus Altiatlasius, and be just as correct and only slightly more obfuscatory.

I think ape is a general term and confuses the issue. Ape can mean Gorilla, chimpanzee...etc etc etc. To those this article would be most helpful that is in fact what it DOES mean in context.

I've been correct multiple times and continue to be so. You continue to think that ape is a better term than something more specific and continue to be wrong. Would it be better for me to use the term "car" or "sports car" when describing a Ferrari???
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Nov 20, 2012
Scientists know that ape is one of many correct words for human precursors.
They do but you still think:
I one starred this article because it actually said "after humans had evolved from apes"....

Really? With stupefyingly ignorant statements like that one can hardly blame creationists for their confusion and erroneous conceptions.
-because you haventt admitted you were wrong. Because you say
I've been correct multiple times and continue to be so.
-which isn't true.
Would it be better for me to use the term "car" or "sports car" when describing a Ferrari???
Yes of course in certain contexts.
I think ape is a general term and confuses the issue. Ape can mean Gorilla, chimpanzee...etc etc etc.
Right... It can and does also mean the thing we evolved from.
To those this article would be most helpful that is in fact what it DOES mean in context.
The FACT is scientists aren't really sure WHAT it was, besides the FACT that it was an APE of some sort.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2012
This new gene doesn't seem to be giving anyone who voted for the Congenital liar Mitt Ronmey any intellectual advantage over apes.

Perhaps the study only looked at Democrats.

I find it funny that Republican apes, simply can't recognize the fact that they are apes. You would think a mirror would be enough.
Telekinetic
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 21, 2012
Let's give Republicans a break. Do you know how hard it is to fit an ape for a tuxedo?
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2012
MM. This is what the article says: "...the gene – miR-941 – is unique to humans. The researchers say that it emerged between six and one million years ago, after humans had evolved from apes."
-Apes. Which humans evolved from. In an article about a study done by scientists. What exactly do you find unclear about any of this? -TheGhostofOtto1923 aka Blotto/FrankHerbert/lite

The reference in the article to "apes" from which humans and modern apes evolved, failed to specify such an ape in the "generic" sense or as a "genus", as humans and modern apes evolved from a "common" ancestor. The "generic" ape was the "foundation" species from which both modern ape and humans retained much of both our genetics before the transition into two differing species that still share many traits.

One must employ extreme specificity, as Blotto is unable to "read between the lines" and reverts into an "ape-like" attack mode for lack of full comprehension.
Apologies to JVK for Blotto's boorish behavior.
FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2012
I'm assuming obama_socks and most 'conservatives' did not inherit a copy of miR-941. Maybe eugenics isn't so bad after all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (27) Nov 23, 2012
One must employ extreme specificity, as Blotto is unable to "read between the lines" and reverts into an "ape-like" attack mode for lack of full comprehension.
So by "specificity" are you referring to the use of "quotes" in order to "imply" that you know what you are "talking" about? As in "lying" about your NASA job? For the record
is clownish antics is a source of mirth and merriment for us all. Anyway, I took a few days off from NASA.
-is what you said. You lied when you said it and you lied when you denied saying it.

Specifically, you are a "stinking" liar.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2012
This new gene doesn't seem to be giving anyone who voted for the Congenital liar Mitt Ronmey any intellectual advantage over apes.

Perhaps the study only looked at Democrats.

I find it funny that Republican apes, simply can't recognize the fact that they are apes. You would think a mirror would be enough.
-VendicarD

It is as though you have entered into a slice of Time and cannot proceed into the future as regards the fact that the Presidential election of 2012 is long gone and your man has won. Your decision to remind everyone re: Romney as though he still threatens your Socialist/Communist/Liberal objectives, is wearing thin on the minds of those of us who have moved on. Whatever unintelligent performance Obama displays as the Marxist leader of the U.S. will cause you to further berate Romney and Ryan...mostly because you have nothing intelligent to say re: the topic of this discussion...similar to your greatest fan, Blotto, who talks for the sake of talking, saying nothin
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2012
Again, I never said I work for NASA, but Blotto insists that I claim NASA as my employer and he repeats his lies as often as possible. Blotto could also say that I claimed to be Barack Obama or any other kind of shit that he feels free to make up. Everyone already knows that TheGhostofOtto1923 and his many sock puppets claim a lot of tripe. This is one of them.
BLOTTO GO TAKE YOUR MEDICATION. Your mind is once again reverting back into your ape ancestry.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2012
Yes, I did take a few days off from NASA in my capacity as Engineering consultant from a different aerospace corporation. Blotto pretends to know all about NASA, its inner workings, and its relationships with other aerospace corps., and always gets it wrong.
Blotto then switches to his favorite sock puppet, FrankHerbert to further cast aspersions on the character of others, while disregarding that we all know that FrankHerbert IS Theghostofotto1923 and not two separate individuals.
The author of this article is correct re: Blotto's masquerading. Blotto relies on Wiki heavily, but it is doubtful that Blotto supports Wiki financially, as Wiki requires donations now. With or without Wiki, Blotto STILL gets it wrong.
:P
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2012
Of course, specificity may be implied with the use of quotation marks OR capital letters. Apparently, Blotto does not know this and thus attacks my usage of such to emphasize relevant data that I have posted. Too bad that Blotto insists on ruining thread after thread whereby the topic of the discussion is set back while Blotto rages on and on, with his pretense at extreme wisdom and knowledge. Even scientists quake in fear...NOT!!
ROFLMAO
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Nov 23, 2012
Yes, I did take a few days off from NASA in my capacity as Engineering consultant from a different aerospace corporation.
Naw come on, you are obviously too dim to be an engineer OR a convincing liar. For one you still do not understand the concept of zero growth, and believe that this requires zero births. Any engineer will tell you this would result in extinction.

Youre just some 2 bit moron, which is evident to anyone who reads much of the infantile crap you flood this site with.

YOU CANT PRETEND TO BE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT. This has never worked and never will. Stop trying. Stop lying.

And again, sorry, I am not frank. That is obvious. Remember when you were saying I was antialias? These are only some of the many people who can tell what a moron you are, and are tired of stumbling over your bullshit, and want it to end.
JVK
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2012
MM. This is what the article says: "...the gene – miR-941 – is unique to humans..... Apologies to JVK for Blotto's boorish behavior


Here's a model of nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution that adds details of how de novo gene expression occurs, and why mir-941 would be unique to humans whose diet and subsequent metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones led to species-specific epigenetic effects on control by pheromones of de novo gene expression.
http://f1000.com/.../1092760

It would be great to discuss the molecular mechanisms that were not mentioned in the article on the new brain gene(e.g., nutrient chemical-dependent and social stress-induced intracellular changes in microRNA and messenger RNA homeostasis.)
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2012
Now we know that war criminal Bush does not have that gene, so maybe all those 'bushchimp' websites were on to something. Come to think of it, he never was seen in a tux either, like another poster said of rupukelikans. Wonder how long it will be before the newest repukelikan will come out with HIS viagra commercial.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2012
Seriously, I bet another special mutation came out about 15000 years ago or more recently, like about 13000 years ago. We seem not to have really progressed at all in the hundreds of thousands of years before then. All we did was chuck spears and paint cartoony line drawings on cave walls with primitive paints, blood, and charcoal. The all of a sudden we just ...blossomed out.
jaime_pretell
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
They should require that journalists submit their articles to the scientists they are writing about to have them proof read for errors. While scientists' writings can be a dry read for common folks and journalists have their place, they still should be vetted for accuracy. That way what the scientists are claiming in their study is actually portrayed. The claim that scientists are stating that we descend from chimpanzees is completely inaccurate and is quite different from stating we share a common ancestor.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
Seriously, I bet another special mutation came out about 15000 years ago or more recently, like about 13000 years ago.


I'll bet that nutrient chemical-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction was responsible for the changes reported, since most occurred during the past 5-10,000 years: Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report. 164,688 of the variants — roughly 14% — were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years.

Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants http://dx.doi.org...ure11690