Human Evolution: The More the Merrier

Researchers peering into the DNA toolbox have found yet another instrument of evolution. Simply replicating a piece of a particular gene--from one copy in mice to more than 200 in humans--may have prompted some of the changes in the brain that define us as human, according to a new study.

Evolution occurs when genes mutate, or when they alter where, when, and how strongly they are active. In addition, hiccups in DNA replication can foster change by causing some parts of genes to be repeated as they are copied. Twin genes or duplicated regulatory regions result, and although one in the pair usually has to keep doing its original job, the other is free to mutate and take on new roles that can enhance an organism's survival.

In earlier work, James Sikela, a genome researcher at the University of Colorado, Denver, and Jonathan Pollack from Stanford University and colleagues found 134 genes that had been duplicated primarily after human ancestors split off from other primates. In the new study, Sikela, Gerald Wyckoff from the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and their colleagues compared the sequences of these genes in primates, as well from mice and rats, to reconstruct the history of each duplicated gene.

They found 44 genes with more than five copies each in the human genome. One in particular, called MGC8902, caught their eye. Humans have 49 copies of this gene, while chimps have 10 and macaques have four, the team reports tomorrow in Science. With so many copies, "MGC8902 stands out as a very good candidate to be important to a human specific trait," says Sikela. A closer look revealed that the heavily-duplicated gene contained its own duplications: six copies of a domain called DUF1220.

The domains exist in other primates, but are most common in humans, says Sikela. The researchers discovered that the genes with the DUF1220 domains are expressed in the heart, spleen, skeletal muscle, and small intestine, and are particularly active in the brain's neocortex. Thus, they may play a role in higher cognition.

"The exciting thing here is the expansion of a gene family associated with expression in specific neurons," says Evan Eichler, a geneticist at the University of Washington, Seattle. But, he adds, "I would be cautious about overextrapolating these observations to brain enlargement."

The vast majority of atheists, are in FACT religious. But rather than anchoring their religious faith in God they have anchored it in the State.

Atheists are overwhelming pro-comminist, pro-socialist and have a supreme faith in the supremacy of their minds vis a vis the complexity of the universe even though their intellect is typically inferior to the vast majority of the God-fearing world since they believe the State is the ultimate cure for evil, and this belief has been proven false time and time again by actual real world data.

As socialism has grown so has atheism in those particular nations, where socialism is still percieved as successful.

The growth of atheism has occured almost exclusively in wealthy socialist nations, with exception of Vietnam which is poor and extremely atheistic.

Atheism has not grown worldwide, only in particular industrialized nations.

Atheists do have faith, they believe in the State as God.

Thus they also satisfy the condition that the bel;ief in God is also a natural condition brought about by evolution as proposed by numerous scientific studies.

"Justin Barret (2004) has argued that belief in God is a result of the “way our minds are structured” (p.viii) and “the way human minds operate” (p.30). He argues that belief in God is “greatly supported by intuitive mental tools”(p.17) and is “an inevitable consequence of the sorts of minds we are born with” (p.91). Belief in God is “natural,” resulting from the “natural workings of the human mind,” and atheism is thus unnatural (p.108). David Wilson (2002) suggests that religion is part of humanity’s naturally evolving adaptive strategy, and that religious belief represents “the healthy functioning of the biologically and culturally well-adapted human mind” (p.228). Michael Persinger (1987) has stressed the role of the hippocampus, the amygdala, temporal lobes, and hormonal processes, in explaining religious belief in God. Ashbrook and Albright (1997) focus on the neural underpinnings and workings of the brain in explaining belief in God. Newberg and D-Aquili (2001) argue that the religious impulse lies in an evolved “neurological process” (p.9), that the roots of belief in God are to be found in “the wiring of the human brain” (p.129), and that “as long as our brains are arranged the way they are,” belief in God will remain (p.172)."

Atheists prosper only in propserous nations where they can afford to be atheist. Those nations which allow atheists to prosper were overwhelmingly founded by Christians, God fearing people, who imparted their values into the core of the system which made it successul, even strong enough to bear up for a time under the increasing weight of socialist policies.

Christianity over the past 300 years (actually over last 1500 years, post Roman era) has led the greatest advancement in civilization (health, welfare, longevity) worldwide in the history of mankind.

In otherwords, atheists are much like pacifists intellectually. They can only prosper when they live in a society that is dominated by the success of people who believe the oppisite way of them. Atheists are supported by people who believe in God and pacifists are supported by people who believe in violent self-defense.

When people run into trouble they still turn to God for strength.

That is a strength that God has given us to allow us to become more succesful in the future.

God and Jesus Christ are the modern solution, and the current end result of evolution.

I suggest reading CS Lewis "Mere Christianity" or a book which compares the arguments of Freud versus CS White. Freud is demolished.

"Darwin calls for gradual change over time (evolution). "Mutation" is nowhere near the definition of evolution: it's just the opposite."

I see you have gone back to attacking purely Darwinian 19th century evolution. Why? Science has added a fair bit of knowledge since then, shouldn't you be more concerned with what current science has to say about mutations than the version of the theory written before genetics and mutations where known?

Just what do you think a mutation is?

It sounds like you think all mutations result in large phenotypic changes. This isn't true. Although mutations (I include various copy errors during meiosis in this) can be as complex as the duplication of a chromosome, or the duplication of a gene, the vast majority of mutations are single point changes that are neutral in effect, either because they do not result in a new amino acid or any phenotypic change resulting from the change is ignored, at least for a short time, by selection.

Darwin did not say that evolution proceeds at a specific rate, in fact he stated that evolution will proceed with varying rates of change, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. That we now have a better idea how and why this is true does not diminish Darwin's concept of gradual incremental change, which is still valid.

Mutations are very much part of the SToE, they are what produce the variation on which natural selection operates.

You can't win an argument by creating a strawman version of Darwinian evolution. If you want to discuss Evolution then let's discuss a modern non-strawman version of it.

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.