Skip to comments.
Gene May Be Key To Evolution Of Larger Human Brain [Evolution]
ScienceDaily Magazine ^
| 13 January 2004
| Staff
Posted on 01/13/2004 10:50:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Everybody be nice.
To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
2
posted on
01/13/2004 10:51:48 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices.)
To: PatrickHenry
I don't believe the size of the brain has much to do with it. It is in the structures.
3
posted on
01/13/2004 10:53:40 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(How many technological objections will be raised?)
To: PatrickHenry
Please add me to it. Thank you.
To: PatrickHenry
Even Kierkegaard wuld have needed a jet pack to make the major leap of faith required to believe this....WHOA.....
5
posted on
01/13/2004 10:57:59 AM PST
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: PatrickHenry
"pressure of natural selection accelerated changes in the gene"
Could someone please explain this to me one more time? How does 'natural selection' cause a 'changed gene' to override the existing gene?
6
posted on
01/13/2004 10:58:46 AM PST
by
MEGoody
To: PatrickHenry
Just wild speculation, but I suspect the number of mutations necessary to produce the human brain size will turn out to be surprisingly small.
7
posted on
01/13/2004 10:59:07 AM PST
by
js1138
To: brazucausa
You joined FreeRepublic yesterday. That's fine. Welcome. But I'll need to see some of your posts before I can add you. (The list is only for the evolution side of these debates.)
8
posted on
01/13/2004 11:03:05 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices.)
To: PatrickHenry
One reason for the lack of study is that only W.S.Gilbert could have made good lyrics from
Abnormal Spindle-Like Microcephaly Associated .
It should also be noted that nowhere in the article is it claimed that humans descended from chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, macaques or owl monkeys.
9
posted on
01/13/2004 11:10:55 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: PatrickHenry
In a related study, researchers discovered that women wearing low-cut genes cause men's brains to shrink.
10
posted on
01/13/2004 11:12:42 AM PST
by
Roarkdude
(no tag line entered)
To: MEGoody
The owners of the existing gene don't reproduce as effectively as the owners of the selected gene.
11
posted on
01/13/2004 11:21:40 AM PST
by
Junior
(Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)
To: MEGoody
The owners of the existing gene don't reproduce as effectively as the owners of the selected gene.
12
posted on
01/13/2004 11:21:44 AM PST
by
Junior
(Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)
To: Junior
Posting is weird today. Many server errors.
13
posted on
01/13/2004 11:32:49 AM PST
by
js1138
To: Junior
If you say it three times, does that make it true? ;^)
To: CobaltBlue
"There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home."
Nope.
15
posted on
01/13/2004 11:43:37 AM PST
by
Junior
(Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)
To: MEGoody
Could someone please explain this to me one more time ["pressure of natural selection accelerated changes in the gene"]? How does 'natural selection' cause a 'changed gene' to override the existing gene? It was sloppily worded. The gene under discussion is presumably a mutated version of one which exists in more primitive primates. Natural selection (i.e., death by incompetence or other inability to survive and reproduce) gradually filtered out those individuals who did not possess the mutated gene, thus assuring the predominance of the changed gene in the population. There is no "override," to speak of. Just a higher reproductive success rate for those possessing the mutation.
16
posted on
01/13/2004 11:47:06 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices.)
To: Roarkdude
In a related study, researchers discovered that women wearing low-cut genes cause men's brains to shrinkNo, we're talking about the genes having to do with reproduction-- I mean, we're talking about how they control the brain-- forget it.
To: PatrickHenry
"Natural selection (i.e., death by incompetence or other inability to survive and reproduce) gradually filtered out those individuals who did not possess the mutated gene, thus assuring the predominance of the changed gene in the population."
Hmmm. . .then that question that gets laughed at by evolutionists so much comes to mind. If 'natural selection' means death by incompetence or other inability to survive and reproduce, why are there still apes? Shouldn't they have ceased to exist based on these criteria? If not, why wouldn't some forms of life between apes and man exist? Why would they be less 'competent' to survive than apes?
18
posted on
01/13/2004 2:18:00 PM PST
by
MEGoody
To: PatrickHenry
19
posted on
01/13/2004 2:35:21 PM PST
by
AdmSmith
To: js1138
Once heard that the size of a human's head is limited by the size of the birth canal.
That we would have larger heads and larger brains if the woman's body could accommodate it.
20
posted on
01/13/2004 2:43:48 PM PST
by
dhs12345
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson