Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Key Brain Regulatory Gene Shows Evolution In Humans
BioresearchOnline ^ | 12/13/05 | Duke University

Posted on 12/14/2005 6:26:00 AM PST by Dichroic

Durham, NC - Researchers have discovered the first brain regulatory gene that shows clear evidence of evolution from lower primates to humans. They said the evolution of humans might well have depended in part on hyperactivation of the gene, called prodynorphin (PDYN), that plays critical roles in regulating perception, behavior and memory.

They reported that, compared to lower primates, humans possess a distinctive variant in a regulatory segment of the prodynorphin gene, which is a precursor molecule for a range of regulatory proteins called "neuropeptides." This variant increases the amount of prodynorphin produced in the brain.

While the researchers do not understand the physiological implications of the activated PDYN gene in humans, they said their finding offers an important and intriguing piece of a puzzle of the mechanism by which humans evolved from lower primates

(Excerpt) Read more at bioresearchonline.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apes; assholepaychecks; brain; crevo; crevolist; evo; evolution; god; humanevolution; id; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Umm didnt see this posted elsewhere.

Thought this is amusingly apropos since King Kong opens today.

And children try to play nice !

1 posted on 12/14/2005 6:26:01 AM PST by Dichroic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

I thought King Kong and Teddy Kennedy looked familiar....


2 posted on 12/14/2005 6:30:20 AM PST by HarleyLady27 (My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

I knew there was something missing from DemocRATs.


3 posted on 12/14/2005 6:31:44 AM PST by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

Endorphin/Opiate ping!


4 posted on 12/14/2005 6:33:05 AM PST by Mikey_1962 (I grew up in a slum, when I got to college it had become a "ghetto".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Interesting.


5 posted on 12/14/2005 6:36:07 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Yes, interesting. I'm cranking up the ping machine ...


6 posted on 12/14/2005 6:37:40 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

7 posted on 12/14/2005 6:38:46 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

"..distinct variant.." this means different. Shows nothing. Since all terrestrial life is carbon based, similar chemical compounds would be found throughout. The article's author(not the poster)may overreach attempting to draw a grand conclusion. Interesting, not fascinating.


8 posted on 12/14/2005 6:41:49 AM PST by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Dichroic
The researchers also found evidence of evolutionary selection when they compared the regulatory sequences in people from different populations -- including those from Cameroon, China, Ethiopia, India, Italy and Papua New Guinea. Those analyses showed higher differences among the individual populations, but reduced variation within them. Such a pattern is a signature of evolutionary selection acting on the genetic sequence, said Wray.

Didn't Richard Lewontin and the late SJ Gould always tell us that there was more genetic variation within populations than between different populations worldwide? More proof of lefty liars in academic science when it suits their agenda...

9 posted on 12/14/2005 6:47:10 AM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

"might well have depended in part on hyperactivation of the gene"

MIGHT WELL are the key words and of course we need to have some hyperactivity involved as well. Another theory paraded as fact.


10 posted on 12/14/2005 6:47:34 AM PST by pangaea6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic
Ironically, Anthropologists regard spiritual awareness, such as burial after-life rituals, as key traits in distinguishing human sites from other lower species.

Could God have endowed us with an awareness of the spirit realm? Could pure rationalism actually be seen as a step back from this natural ability? Nahhhhh!!!!! (sarc.
11 posted on 12/14/2005 6:48:32 AM PST by Wiseghy ("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

There was a thread on this about a week ago. Didn't get much response. And it was the actual scientific paper.


12 posted on 12/14/2005 6:53:05 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

This thread has a link to the actual paper.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532151/posts


13 posted on 12/14/2005 7:12:36 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

"might well have depended in part..."

Anytime someone says "might," it is equally true that it might NOT.

Since when did speculation start being passed off for science?


14 posted on 12/14/2005 7:37:42 AM PST by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic
"Researchers have discovered the first brain regulatory gene that shows clear evidence of evolution from lower primates to humans"

We simply don't know enough to make this claim.

The evidence can be said to be consistent with the theory that humans evolved from lower primates.

It could be said to show that there are similarities between humans and such primates, but be an example of why we are different.

We can't prove or disprove evolution any more than we can prove or disprove that man made global warming is significantly effecting the global climate.
15 posted on 12/14/2005 7:45:22 AM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

I have a friend who is a great ape in a zoo here in Fl. She spends all of her time praying for a peptide transplant.


16 posted on 12/14/2005 7:55:29 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (amen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pangaea6

Ritalin helps with hyper-active kids.


17 posted on 12/14/2005 8:03:01 AM PST by Humvee (Beliefs are more powerful than facts - Paulus Atreides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


18 posted on 12/14/2005 8:08:47 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Didn't Richard Lewontin and the late SJ Gould always tell us that there was more genetic variation within populations than between different populations worldwide? More proof of lefty liars in academic science when it suits their agenda...

This just sounds wrong. The difference between selection and neutral drift would be that drift would show less pattern of any sort. I can't imagine what would produce the effect you say Gould and Lewontin predicted. It almost sounds self-contradictory. How would humans compared to apes be more similar than sub-groups of humans compared to each other?

19 posted on 12/14/2005 8:09:20 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pangaea6
Another theory paraded as fact.

Seems like I have to post these definitions on most crevo threads now.

Definitions (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

20 posted on 12/14/2005 8:38:00 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I think he was talking about race rather than species


21 posted on 12/14/2005 8:46:51 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
From here about halfway down the page:

Me: Gould has said the same many times. He and Lewontin were hard lefties.

INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD LEWONTIN

edited transcript

Richard Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University, is one of the world's most eminent authorities on human diversity. He has written many celebrated books on evolution and human variation books including Human Diversity, Not in Our Genes and most recently, The Triple Helix.

Does racial difference exist on a genetic level?

Peoples who have occupied major geographical areas for much of the recent evolution of humans look different from one another. Sub-Saharan Africans have dark skin and people who live in East Asia tend to have a light tan skin and an eye color and eye shape and hair that is different than Europeans. So there is this kind of genetic - it is genetic - differentiation of some features of the body between people who live in Central Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, and South America.

And those features, which are geographically determined, were used to erect notions of different races. There's the African race, the Black race, the Yellow race, the Red race, the Brown race, and the White race. And it's mostly skin color plus hair shape and eye shape and so on. That's the everyday observation, that "they" all look alike - and we all look different.

The real question is not whether those differences in skin color and hair form are genetic, because they are. We know that because the children of black slaves brought to North America were the same color as their parents were. The question is what else does that tell us about biological differences? How much difference in other genes beside the genes that are relevant to skin color is there between these major geographical groups?

If we want to use the notion of race in a sensible, biological way, we could only do that if there really were a lot of genetic difference between those groups aside from the superficial differences that we can see. And that's an important issue which we now understand. We understand it because over the years a lot of data were gathered by anthropologists and geneticists looking at blood group genes and protein genes and other kinds of genes from all over the world. Anthropologists just went around taking blood out of everybody.

I must say, if I were a South American Indian, I wouldn't have let them take my blood, but they did. And one of the consequences of that is by the early 1970s, we had a huge amount of information about the different genetic forms all over the world for a large number of genes that had no relevance to those outward manifestations like skin color, but had to do with blood type and proteins.

And when you brought all that together, it became pretty clear that there really were minor differences in the frequencies of the different gene forms between the major geographical so-called races.

Since the 20th century, it's been recognized that there's what's called polymorphism of blood type. There are type As and type Bs and type Os and Rh-positive and Rh-negative and so on in every group in the world. But the assumption was that people in Africa would have a very different relative frequency of A and B and O than people would in North America or in Europe and in Asia.

And what all these studies showed was that that wasn't true. That you couldn't really tell the difference between an African population and a European population and an Asian population by looking at the frequency, the relative proportions of the different blood types. They were essentially the same in all these groups.

That isn't true for every blood type. There are occasional types which are strongly differentiated between populations. There's one blood type called the Duffy blood type and that's very different between Asians, Africans, and Europeans. But that's an exception rather than a rule.

For almost every gene we know, either everybody in the world has the same form of the gene, in which case all human beings are the same, or if there's variation, the frequencies of the different variants are the same relatively speaking, close to the same, in Africans, Asians, North Americans, Austro-Asians, and so on. And only about - well, I estimated 7% of all of human genetic variation could be ascribed to differences between groups, between major races. Anyway, about 75% of all the genes [come in only one form and] are identical in everybody. So there's very little differentiation.

22 posted on 12/14/2005 8:51:21 AM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
What Lewontin said is still true and not contradicted by anything in the lead article. What are you claiming in calling him and Gould liars?

There is an underlying basis of commonality among human populations regardless of race. You might as well say there are short people and tall people everywhere. In fact, humans don't have much genetic diversity compared with most animal species. Recent genetic bottlenecks, the last perhaps 70,000 years ago corresponding to a particularly large volcanic event.

We have isolated genetic differences that correlate with details of ethnicity, but most of them are minor in scope and effect. This does not mean we still don't all have backbones.

Again, what are you claiming? What was a lie? What is discredited? What is contradicted by the article?

23 posted on 12/14/2005 9:03:45 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
You know, if you read the lead article carefully instead of looking for isolated "gotcha" soundbites, it is very much affirming Lewontin's view of genetics. Changes to a few regulatory genes produce drastic effects, leaving much of the genome conserved in working order. Much more of the story is in the regulatory genes than in the proteins themselves.

Neither Lewontin nor Gould discovered this stuff. They may have acted as popularizers and may have used the material to scoff at racism, but that should be OK. The scientific basis is well established by now. This article is just another bit of evidence for a picture that's been building for decades. And we wouldn't want anyone to think the theory of evolution is racist.

24 posted on 12/14/2005 9:17:03 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


The CrevoSci Archive
Just one of the many services of Darwin Central
"The Conspiracy that Cares"

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

  1. 2005-12-14 Children Learn by Monkey See, Monkey Do. Chimps Don't
  2. 2005-12-14 Education panel stalls curriculum vote for creationism appeal [S. Carolina, another Kansas?]
  3. 2005-12-14 Key Brain Regulatory Gene Shows Evolution In Humans
  4. 2005-12-13 Orthodox Jews in S. Florida join debate on evolution vs. intelligent design
  5. 2005-12-13 Study Sheds Light On Early Migration (Americas)
  6. 2005-12-13 The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins
  7. 2005-12-12 C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) (Did The Author Of 'Narnia' Believe In Theistic Evolution, Etc?
  8. 2005-12-12 Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]
  9. 2005-12-12 National Poll Is Being Done About Requiring Kids To Study INtelligent Design In Public Schools
  10. 2005-12-12 Smart Bats Have Smaller Testicles
  11. 2005-12-11 Obama says Republicans practice 'Social Darwinism'
  12. 2005-12-10 Professor says was forced out over comment (Mirecki of Kansas)
  13. 2005-12-09 Dog's Genome Could Provide Clues to Disorders in Humans
  14. 2005-12-09 Giant Asian Ape and Humans Coexisted, Might Have Interacted
  15. 2005-12-09 Movement Of Earth's North Magnetic Pole Accelerating Rapidly [No Doubt Bush's Fault!]
  16. 2005-12-09 Theory of intelligent design making its way into Broward textbooks (Florida)
  17. 2005-12-09 Whales, ostrich evolved in India
  18. 2005-12-08 Ancient drought 'changed history'
  19. 2005-12-08 Anti-creationism prof (KansasU) quits department chair
  20. 2005-12-08 Dog genome sequence and analysis published in 'Nature'
  21. 2005-12-08 Funny Cartoon!
  22. 2005-12-08 God, Science [evolution], and the Kooky Kansans Who Love them Both
  23. 2005-12-08 Huge New Virus Defies Classification
  24. 2005-12-08 Man's best friend shares most genes with humans
  25. 2005-12-08 Prof. Critical of Creationism Resigns Post
  26. 2005-12-08 Similar stem cells in insect and human gut (Fruit flies are 'tiny distant cousins'?)
  27. 2005-12-08 Students Denounce Reported Assault on Prof. Who Mocked Christian Fundamentalists
  28. 2005-12-08 WHAT HAPPENED TO PAUL MIRECKI? (Phony Hate Crime Alert)

CrevoSci Thread Count, 2005 YTD:  1256


On This Date in CrevoSci History

  1. 2004-12-14 ACLU Files Suit in Pa. Over Evolution
  2. 2004-12-14 Species come and go – and so do we
  3. 2002-12-14 Scientists exposed as sloppy reporters
  4. 2001-12-14 Mars Odyssey Detects Signs of Water
  5. 1999-12-14 Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1)
  6. 1999-12-14 Macro-Evolution versus Moses(Several Parts)

Longest CrevoSci Thread Ever


Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled or Locked Threads)

  1. 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say
  2. 2004-04-27 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap!
  3. 2003-10-29 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution)
  4. 2003-10-27 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution
  5. 2003-10-23 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
  6. 2003-10-21 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch
  7. 2003-09-23 Solar System Formation Questions
  8. 2003-09-17 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads
  9. 2003-07-18 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism]
  10. 2003-07-02 Unlocking the Mystery of 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life'
  11. 2003-06-26 Darwin Faces a New Rival
  12. 2003-06-06 Amazing Creatures
  13. 2002-09-13 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old
  14. 2002-04-10 (Creationists) CRSC Correction
  15. 2001-11-10 Alabama to continue biology textbook warning sticker
  16. 2001-11-06 Warming makes mosquito evolve, University of Oregon scientists find
  17. 2001-08-28 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision]
  18. 2001-08-26 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I]
  19. 2001-01-13 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design
  20. 2000-11-15 Evolutionism Receives Another Hard Blow
  21. 2000-10-10 Another Lost Generation?
  22. 2000-08-30 Evil-Ution
  23. 1999-11-14 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective)

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of December:

  1. 1999-12-03 Aquinasfan
  2. 2002-12-06 Archangelsk
  3. 2004-12-29 b_sharp
  4. 2000-12-10 bdeaner
  5. 2000-12-29 BedRock
  6. 2004-12-03 bobdsmith
  7. 1998-12-20 cantfindagoodscreenname
  8. 2004-12-15 Catholic54321
  9. 2004-12-14 Chiapet
  10. 1998-12-24 dead
  11. 1999-12-17 dennisw
  12. 2004-12-18 dervish
  13. 2005-12-04 Dichroic
  14. 2000-12-13 Dr. I. C. Spots
  15. 2001-12-13 e_engineer
  16. 2000-12-26 Fester Chugabrew
  17. 1998-12-23 Frapster
  1. 2002-12-20 furball4paws
  2. 2003-12-21 gspz
  3. 1997-12-08 Gumlegs
  4. 2003-12-05 Guydude
  5. 2002-12-01 HalfFull
  6. 2002-12-18 Happy2BMe
  7. 2000-12-01 I_Publius
  8. 2004-12-27 indcons
  9. 1998-12-07 JAWs
  10. 2002-12-10 john_baldacci_is_a_commie
  11. 2000-12-13 johnandrhonda
  12. 1997-12-05 Ken H
  13. 1999-12-25 kjam22
  14. 2004-12-30 leight
  15. 1997-12-09 longshadow
  16. 1999-12-29 Mensch
  1. 2002-12-07 Milltownmalbay
  2. 2004-12-03 mlc9852
  3. 2002-12-06 new cruelty
  4. 2001-12-25 nickcarraway
  5. 1999-12-04 pepsionice
  6. 2003-12-02 PetroniusMaximus
  7. 1997-12-08 Pfesser
  8. 1999-12-17 Publius6961
  9. 2002-12-13 qam1
  10. 2000-12-09 rcocean
  11. 2000-12-02 rdb3
  12. 1999-12-24 RightWhale
  13. 2000-12-01 rwfromkansas
  14. 1997-12-06 saquin
  15. 2002-12-08 Sentis
  16. 1999-12-08 shrinkermd
  1. 2001-12-04 SpiderMBA
  2. 2004-12-17 Stark_GOP
  3. 2001-12-19 Steve Eisenberg
  4. 2000-12-08 Stultis
  5. 2000-12-08 Sub-Driver
  6. 2000-12-06 Sunana
  7. 2001-12-27 Tailgunner Joe
  8. 2002-12-10 tbird5
  9. 2004-12-06 Thatcherite
  10. 2000-12-09 Theodore R.
  11. 1998-12-10 TheOtherOne
  12. 1999-12-07 Tolerance Sucks Rocks
  13. 1998-12-14 VadeRetro
  14. 2000-12-29 Virginia-American
  15. 1998-12-22 VOA
  16. 1997-12-18 Waco

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:


  1. 1LongTimeLurker

  2. Ahriman

  3. ALS

  4. angelo

  5. Area Freeper

  6. Aric2000

  7. Askel5

  8. Asphalt

  9. biblewonk

  10. bluepistolero

  11. broberts

  12. churchillbuff

  13. claptrap

  14. codebreaker

  15. Con X-Poser

  16. ConservababeJen

  17. dbbeebs

  18. Destro

  19. DittoJed2

  20. dob

  21. Ed Current

  22. Exnihilo

  1. f.Christian
  2. followerofchrist
  3. freeparella
  4. general_re
  5. goodseedhomeschool
  6. gopwinsin04
  7. gore3000
  8. Happy2BMe
  9. Helms
  10. IllumiNOTi
  11. JediGirl
  12. JesseShurun
  13. JethroHathaway
  14. JFK_Lib
  15. jlogajan
  16. JoeSchem
  17. john_baldacci_is_a_commie
  18. Justice Avenger
  19. Kevin Curry
  20. kharaku
  21. knowquest
  22. Land of the Irish
  1. Le-Roy
  2. malakhi
  3. Marathon
  4. masked face doom
  5. medved
  6. Merdoug
  7. metacognative
  8. mikeharris65
  9. missyme
  10. Modernman
  11. Morris Hattrick
  12. n4sir
  13. neoconsareright
  14. NoKinToMonkeys
  15. Ogmios
  16. OnlyinAmerica
  17. peg the prophet
  18. Pern
  19. Phaedrus
  20. Phoroneus
  21. pickemuphere
  22. ReasonedThought
  1. ret_medic
  2. RickyJ
  3. RJCogburn
  4. Sabertooth
  5. ScotchBible
  6. SeaLion
  7. Selkie
  8. Shubi
  9. spiker
  10. SplashDog
  11. Stingy Dog
  12. The Loan Arranger
  13. the lone rider
  14. Tomax
  15. tpaine
  16. Truth666
  17. twittle
  18. Unalienable
  19. WaveThatFlag
  20. winner45
  21. xm177e2

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!


The
official stout
of Darwin Central

Glossary of Terms

Assumption: Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Belief: Any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
CrevoCreation vs. evolution
CrevoSciCreation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors:  Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Freepday:  The day a Freeper joined Free Republic
Hypothesis: A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Impression: A vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Law: A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Observation: Any information collected with the senses
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

25 posted on 12/14/2005 9:29:22 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Gotcha" soundbites? Please...This was a huge part of their anti-genetic, left-wing driven, Lysenkoist agenda. As a matter of fact, back in the 80s I debated Gould about just this subject and said to him then that I thought the most variation would be found in the regualtory genes. I was right and he was wrong.

I do not have much patience for people who subvert science for their personal political agendas no matter where they come from on the political spectrum.

26 posted on 12/14/2005 9:48:46 AM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Well pung, me lad.


27 posted on 12/14/2005 9:57:23 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser

[Since when did speculation start being passed off for science?]


Speculation is but one ingredient of science.

It is followed by questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting and analyzing.


28 posted on 12/14/2005 10:26:54 AM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

[This was a huge part of their anti-genetic, left-wing driven, Lysenkoist agenda.]



Are you refering to S.J. Gould as an anti-genetic Lysenkoist?

If so, all I can say is "Wow".


29 posted on 12/14/2005 10:32:19 AM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Indeed, he was absolutely guilty of the same nonsense as Lysenko! For example, because of his lefty agendas, he fought tooth and nail to decouple genetic influence on human intelligence, a preposterous position for anyone familiar with biology and anthropology to even the slightest degree. He even wrote a book called The Mismeasure of Man which used a straw man (19th Century "science") to taint the whole study of intelligence.
30 posted on 12/14/2005 12:51:19 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
As a matter of fact, back in the 80s I debated Gould about just this subject and said to him then that I thought the most variation would be found in the regualtory genes. I was right and he was wrong.

Should I have heard of you? You seem much too ignorant and prone to wild misspeaking to be debating Gould about anything.

31 posted on 12/14/2005 3:01:11 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Of all the writings of Gould that I've read, including "The Mismeasure of Man", I've never seen anything which could be interpreted as Lysenkoism or as a decoupling of genetic influence on human intelligence.

What I have seen is his criticism of the idea of a strictly deterministic source for human intelligence and of the idea that individual people could be lumped together by race as a scientifically valid way to estimate their intelligence.

I've spent some time over the past few hours finding and reading articles critical of Gould and his writing and one thing seems most prominent: they all criticize his leftist bias and hence his motivations, saying his desire to bring about social change makes him a poor scientist and invalidates his work.

This very well credentialed critic seems to illustrate this best and even compares Gould to Lysenko (which is absurd, like comparing an unpopular president like Jimmy Carter to Hitler).

http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_davis.html

Many well known popularizers of science bring a social and political bias with them (Sagan, Attenborough, Leakey, Goodall, and especially Einstein.) and that makes them popular targets for ad hominem attacks. When a scientist steps away from his lab coat and starts making statements about social or political issues it's only fair for them to expect people to attack their opinions, but a scientific opinion and an opinion about politics should be made separately and I think Gould does a more respectable job of both than his critics do.
32 posted on 12/14/2005 3:05:37 PM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
"(which is absurd, like comparing an unpopular president like Jimmy Carter to Hitler)."

The proper analogue for Carter is Neville Chamberlain. Is there a dictator he HASN'T appeased?
33 posted on 12/14/2005 5:41:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I agree. That would be an accurate comparison.


34 posted on 12/14/2005 5:54:36 PM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic
[Researchers] said the evolution of humans might well have depended in part on hyperactivation of the gene, called prodynorphin (PDYN)....

"Might well...might well...."

More delusions of grandeur from the evo-philes that some way they may play "God" with enough crayons and coloring books.

35 posted on 12/14/2005 6:01:50 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Well, as ignorant as I am and as rude as you are, I was right and Gould was wrong...about a lot (as I suspect you are too). Pity.


36 posted on 12/14/2005 6:24:39 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Perhaps I should have been more clear: Gould (and anyone else) may speak to any political beliefs they want to. My problem is when scientists misrepresent science in the service of their agendas, and with Gould it was Marxism (as it is with Lewontin).

What aggregate data shows us about abilities of groups does nothing to predict an individual's performance whatever group s/he belongs to. That is a truism. Another truism is that the totality of evidence shows that genetics plays a significant part in the determination of many behavioral traits, including what we call general intelligence (eg., monozygotic twins reared apart, intelligence tests consistent from an early age, consistency of group intelligence tests), and this is what Gould fought against. When I met him and debated him in the 1980s, he acknowledged a small genetic component to intelligence, but felt that environment was the key. This--to me--is Lysenkoism updated and a bit compromised, but Lysenkoism nonetheless. He was a "scientist" who placed ideology above science, and a self-appointed spokesman for science, to me, an unforgivable combination.

He was a polemicist who, through half-truths and misrepresentations attempted to give credence to his collectivist mentality. May he RIP.

37 posted on 12/14/2005 6:42:31 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
When I met him and debated him in the 1980s, he acknowledged a small genetic component to intelligence, but felt that environment was the key. This--to me--is Lysenkoism updated and a bit compromised, but Lysenkoism nonetheless.

The nature-nurture debate is about how much of who we are comes from genetics and how much from environment. Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckism, is a belief that "nurture" characteristics are passed to offspring. That is, "nurture" in one generation becomes "nature."

Didn't know that?

I suspect that if you debated Gould, you claimed he dented your fender.

38 posted on 12/14/2005 6:50:37 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You're not only rude, you're an IDIOT.

Lysenkoism was a campaign against genetics and geneticists which happened in the Soviet Union from the middle of the 1930s to the middle of the 1960s, centered around the figure of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. In a broader context, Lysenkoism is often invoked to imply the overt subversion of science by political forces.

Who CARES what theories Lysenko invoked to put his idiocy forth? It is about the environment as key, and the minimization of genetics. The same goes for Gould, and, evidently, you.

39 posted on 12/14/2005 7:00:28 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Anytime someone says "might," it is equally true that it might NOT.

The Earth might continue to orbit the sun for the next year.

40 posted on 12/14/2005 7:12:29 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (I am a leaf on the wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Lysenkoism is not the nature/nurture debate, even making allowance for people like you whose useages are so loose their brains fell out years ago.

So, thus far, you opened with the false announcement that the lead article repudiates Gould and Lewontin. As it does not, you were either mistaken or lying.

No acknowledgement, you simply shifted the discussion. Nothing you've said since then makes you look any more credible.

41 posted on 12/14/2005 7:18:28 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

And you are still a clueless idiot who understands none of the issues.


42 posted on 12/14/2005 7:21:59 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Well, one of my issues is the kind of Holy Warrior idiot who thinks he's allowed to brazen out every manner of misstatement because his enemies are evil. The post of yours to which I first responded on this thread claimed that the article repudiated those lefty liars Gould and Lewontin.

Lewontin for sure allows that the differences between races are indeed genetic and some genes are turning up which reflect these differences. The article points up one such, a regulatory gene controlling prodynorphin production. What someone has fully allowed for in advance is not a repudiation.

You have responded with increasingly wild claims about Gould being a Lysenkoist and you having debated him in the 80s. This is at best off-topic and unverifiable.

43 posted on 12/14/2005 7:56:52 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Pharmboy
You have responded with increasingly wild claims about Gould being a Lysenkoist and you having debated him in the 80s. This is at best off-topic and unverifiable.

... and unlikely bordering on ridiculous.

44 posted on 12/14/2005 7:59:18 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Oh please...you put forth ad hominem attacks aginst me and offered nothing except evidence that you don't get the issues involved in this "debate." Lewontin and Gould were commies first and scientists waaaay second. They subverted the data to "prove" that races did not exist (ie., phenotypic differences in geographically remote populations based on genotypic variation), and part of that "data" was the lie that genetic variation was larger between individuals within a related population ("race") than it was between races. This study refutes that silly contention. Deal with it and stop defending commie pseudoscientists.
45 posted on 12/14/2005 8:06:32 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I think you meant "likely bordering on the ridiculous." But who knows what the hey you meant? Do you? You seem very confused...


46 posted on 12/14/2005 8:09:39 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
They subverted the data to "prove" that races did not exist (ie., phenotypic differences in geographically remote populations based on genotypic variation)...

Your own quote of Lewontin denies this parodic mischaracterization. Lewontin specifically accepts that races evolved and that such differences as exist are genetic.

47 posted on 12/15/2005 7:15:39 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Re-read my posts. What I was specifically referring to--from the beginning--was the issue of genetic diversity among people within the same ethnic group/race and the genetic diversity among the population as a whole. This argument as put forth by Lewontin and Gould was meant to undermine the concept of race as meaningless. It is not, as anyone with eyes and ears can attest.

What society DOES with that concept is another matter entirely, but I am strictly speaking of the biologic issues. Lewontin and Gould used half-truths and misrepresentations to bolster their political views through "science." If you contend that they are and were great scientists, so be it. Whatever their accomplishments in research may have been is--IMO--subverted by their politics.

Perhaps you hadn't heard, but they attacked E.O. Wilson repeatedly for his sociobiology, and circulated petitions to stop discussion of IQ and genes on the Harvard campus. Nice heroes you have...I guess Lysenko is on your list also.

48 posted on 12/15/2005 7:34:53 AM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Re-read my posts.

YOU reread them.

What I was specifically referring to--from the beginning--was the issue of genetic diversity among people within the same ethnic group/race and the genetic diversity among the population as a whole.

And the picture we have is that a population which already had a lot of diversity in things like blood types went through some recent bottlenecks, then diversified again to a level of something which you would call subspecies in non-human animals or varieties in plants. Something well short of speciation.

And now, for what it's worth, we're remelding in an era of easy travel. Some people may look with dismay on a future filled with "mud people" but those are the breaks. I personally am dismayed at reports that someday within a century or less there won't be any redheaded women. Always had a special thing for pretty redheads. Still, if that's where freedom takes us, that's the future we need. Can't be against freedom.

What society DOES with that concept is another matter entirely, but I am strictly speaking of the biologic issues. Lewontin and Gould used half-truths and misrepresentations to bolster their political views through "science."

You have nowhere documented this. ALL the half-truths and misrepresentations have been yours on this thread. You're a mess. The issues I supposedly don't understand are your issues. Get over them and start showing some integrity in your characterizations of other people's positions. BTW and for instance, I have not defended and do not defend collectivism, statism, nanny-statism, etc.

49 posted on 12/15/2005 8:18:50 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

If somebody hyperactivates that guy's prodynorphin, we're all in big trouble.


50 posted on 12/15/2005 8:20:33 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson