Chimps 'r' not us (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 15:41 (4547 days ago)
And this article offers copious proof. Dogs and some corvids are smarter. Chimps don't even have our larnyx. But aren't their fingers and toes just like us? And they are sort of upright in stature. -http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo21/a-sound-barrier-why-chimps-arent-talking.php
Chimps \'r\' not us
by David Turell , Thursday, June 14, 2012, 05:55 (4547 days ago) @ David Turell
And this article offers copious proof. Dogs and some corvids are smarter. Chimps don't even have our larnyx. But aren't their fingers and toes just like us? And they are sort of upright in stature. > > http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo21/a-sound-barrier-why-chimps-arent-talking.php-In total gene structure, not all the methylations and transpositions, chimps and bonobos are close to us, 3% or so. But as previusly stated here chimps are 83% like us:- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11128.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120614
Chimps \'r\' not us
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 21, 2012, 15:11 (4386 days ago) @ David Turell
Our DNA bases may look alot like the Chimps but it is how they are arranged that really shows the enormous differences. This article really digs into the epigenetic differences:-"Dr Akbarian and colleagues set out to isolate small snippets of chromatin fibers from the frontal cortex, a brain region involved in complex cognitive operations. They were then able to analyze these snippets for the chemical signals (histone methylation) that define the regulatory state (on/off) of the chromatin. The results of their analysis identified hundreds of regions throughout the genome which showed a markedly different chromatin structure in neurons from human children and adults, compared to chimpanzees and macaques."- Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-evolution-human-intellect-human-specific-neuronal...
Chimps \'r\' not us
by David Turell , Saturday, November 24, 2012, 14:55 (4383 days ago) @ David Turell
Our DNA bases may look alot like the Chimps but it is how they are arranged that really shows the enormous differences. This article really digs into the epigenetic differences: > > Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-evolution-human-intellect-human-specific-neuronal... paper itself:-http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001427-The 3-D arrangements are very different in the human---ape/monkey brains. It is not just methylation changes, but who is sitting next to whom!
Chimps \'r\' not us
by David Turell , Monday, November 16, 2015, 21:23 (3296 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study shows our brain is much more plastic than the chimp's:-http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nature-nurture-human-brains-evolved.html-"Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, but what is it about the human brain that makes us so different? Researchers at the George Washington University may have unearthed another piece of the puzzle. In a study published on Nov. 16, scientists discovered that human brains exhibit more plasticity, propensity to be modeled by the environment, than chimpanzee brains and that this may have accounted for part of human evolution. -***-"'We found that the anatomy of the chimpanzee brain is more strongly controlled by genes than that of human brains, suggesting that the human brain is extensively shaped by its environment no matter its genetics," said Aida Gómez-Robles, postdoctoral scientist at the GW Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology and lead author on the paper. "So while genetics determined human and chimpanzee brain size, it isn't as much of a factor for human cerebral organization as it is for chimpanzees."-***-"'The human brain appears to be much more responsive to environmental influences," said Dr. Gómez-Robles. "It's something that facilitates the constant adaptation of the human brain and behavior to the changing environment, which includes our social and cultural context.'" -Comment: Not a surprising difference. Chimps are basically unchanged for six million years, but we have.
Chimps \'r\' not us: 23 pairs chromosomes, not 24
by David Turell , Monday, May 30, 2016, 02:31 (3101 days ago) @ David Turell
Our chromosome pair 2 is supposedly fused and we therefore have 23 pairs, they have 24. The 'fusion' issue is all in dispute:-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1enllGchcY4Thz0xWFG8Rj8Y0bddOcBdIzKeoY1XxSqs/edit?pref=2&pli=1- First, the sequence was only about 800 bases long—not the 10,000 bases or more you would expect if two 5,000-base (or larger) telomeres fused together.-Second, the fusion-like sequence was very degenerate and only 70% similar to what one would expect of a pristine fusion sequence of the same size. Even if you assume an evolutionary timeline of up to six million years since the fusion event occurred, the data do not match up with known mutation rates or the variability found in human DNA. A third major problem is the fusion site contains no type of sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA). In chromosome fusion events that occur in nature in living mammals—a very rare event—the DNA signature always involves satDNA producing a DNA signature that occurs as either satDNA-satDNA or satDNA-teloDNA sequence.-***-Despite all of these serious difficulties, the greatest problem that evolutionists now have is the fact that the alleged fusion sequence is located in the middle of a functional gene.12 It is not a fossil remnant of a chromosomal accident at all but an important DNA regulatory feature called a promoter (genetic switch) inside a highly expressed gene.-***-But the evolutionary fusion story gets worse. The fusion-like sequence itself has an important functional purpose based on recent data available at the UCSC Genome Browser (genome.ucsc.edu) genomic database. Specifically, the fusion site sequence binds to at least 11 different transcription factors, including RNA polymerase II, the key enzyme that transcribes genes. Transcription factors are specialized proteins that turn genes off and on. The fact that these proteins specifically bind to the alleged fusion site sequence indicates that it is a promoter located inside the gene (Figure 2). It is common for human genes to have these promoter regions located both in front of the main body of the gene and inside them.-Comment: This is highly complex discussion, well beyond what I know. I had forgotten the discrepancy in pair number, and now the fusion theory is being questioned. If we and the apes have a common ancestor, how did this happen, before we branched off or after? Is it a God dabble? Even our chromosome number is different in kind.
Chimps'r' not us: But moms teach their kids
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 11, 2016, 20:16 (2966 days ago) @ David Turell
Chimps use probes to fish for termites. Moms teach their kids the trick:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161011090142.htm
"'We found that mother chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle teach by transferring termite-fishing probes to their offspring," Musgrave said. "In this population, chimpanzees select specific herb species to make their fishing probes, and they produce probes that have a particular brush-tipped design. By sharing tools, mothers may teach their offspring the appropriate material and form for manufacturing fishing probes."
***
"Musgrave, Sanz and colleagues used video to capture examples of wild chimpanzee mothers transferring specialized termite-gathering tools to less-skilled, immature chimpanzees. These transfers, which are costly to tool donors but beneficial to tool recipients, meet the scientific criteria for teaching in wild apes.
"'Tool transfers are costly for mothers, whose ability to forage for termites is reduced, but are beneficial for offspring, who gain increased opportunity to learn tool skills and gather termites. This is the first such evidence satisfying these criteria for teaching in wild apes," Musgrave said.
***
"Chimpanzees are exceptional among animals for their remarkable propensity to make and use tools. Since different groups of chimpanzees use different types of tools, the teaching process also may need to be customized to address local conditions.
***
"In examples captured in this study's videos, mothers sometimes bring multiple tools to a termite nest; they may also divide their fishing probe in half lengthwise, giving one-half to their offspring and keeping the other half. This strategy provides their offspring with a usable tool without compromising their own ability to gather food, Musgrave said."
Comment: Not surprising that their mental capacity would allow this simple instruction to happen.
Chimps'r' not us: bonobos are slightly closer
by David Turell , Sunday, April 30, 2017, 00:47 (2766 days ago) @ David Turell
After the split from the common ancestor eight million years ago, bonobo muscles have stayed closer to human form, while chimps have modified more:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095021.htm
"A new study examining the muscular system of bonobos provides firsthand evidence that the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors than common chimpanzees. Previous research suggested this theory at the molecular level, but this is the first study to compare in detail the anatomy of the three species.
"'Bonobo muscles have changed least, which means they are the closest we can get to having a 'living' ancestor," said Bernard Wood, professor of human origins at the GW Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology.
"Scientists believe that modern human and common chimpanzee/bonobo lineages split about 8 million years ago with the two great ape species splitting about 2 million years ago. As common chimpanzees and bonobos evolved after their split, they developed different traits and physical characteristics, even though they remained geographically relatively close, with their main division being the Congo River.
"Because of this, researchers have been curious as to what those differences are and how they compare to humans. By studying the muscles of bonobos (which indicates how they physically function), the team was able to discover that they are more closely related to human anatomy than common chimpanzees, in the sense that their muscles have changed less than they have in common chimpanzees.
"'In addition, our study has shown that there is a mosaic evolution of the three species, in the sense that some features are shared by humans and bonobos, others by humans and common chimpanzees, and still others by the two ape species," said Rui Diogo, lead author of the paper and associate professor of anatomy at Howard University. "Such a mosaic anatomical evolution may well be related to the somewhat similar molecular mosaic evolution between the three species revealed by previous genetic studies: each of the chimpanzees species share about 3 percent of genetic traits with humans that are not present in the other chimpanzee species."
"The researchers led a team that examined seven bonobos from the Antwerp Zoo that had died and were being preserved. Researchers said this was an extremely rare opportunity given bonobos' status as an endangered species."
Comment: The apes have not changed much, but our skeletal construction with full bipedalism, and our enormous brain, each show the tremendous difference human beings evolved away from the apes
Chimps'r' not us: DNA differences
by David Turell , Monday, May 27, 2019, 18:52 (2008 days ago) @ David Turell
Recently analyzed differences:
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-uncover-trove-genes-key.html
"Researchers at the Donnelly Centre in Toronto have found that dozens of genes, previously thought to have similar roles across different organisms, are in fact unique to humans and could help explain how our species came to exist.
"These genes code for a class of proteins known as transcription factors, or TFs, which control gene activity. TFs recognize specific snippets of the DNA code called motifs, and use them as landing sites to bind the DNA and turn genes on or off.
***
"the researchers describe a new computational method which allowed them to more accurately predict motif sequences each TF binds in many different species. The findings reveal that some sub-classes of TFs are much more functionally diverse than previously thought.
"'Even between closely related species there's a non-negligible portion of TFs that are likely to bind new sequences," says Sam Lambert, former graduate student in Hughes' lab who did most of the work on the paper and has since moved to the University of Cambridge for a postdoctoral stint.
"'This means they are likely to have novel functions by regulating different genes, which may be important for species differences," he says.
"Even between chimps and humans, whose genomes are 99 per cent identical, there are dozens of TFs which recognize diverse motifs between the two species in a way that would affect expression of hundreds of different genes.
"'We think these molecular differences could be driving some of the differences between chimps and humans," says Lambert, who won the Jennifer Dorrington Graduate Research Award for outstanding doctoral research at U of T's Faculty of Medicine.
***
"When Lambert compared all TFs across different species and matched to all available motif sequence data, he found that many human TFs recognize different sequences—and therefore regulate different genes— than versions of the same proteins in other animals.
***
"As for TFs that have unique human roles, these belong to the rapidly evolving class of so-called C2H2 zinc finger TFs, named for zinc ion-containing finger-like protrusions, with which they bind the DNA.
Their role remains an open question but it is known that organisms with more diverse TFs also have more cell types, which can come together in novel ways to build more complicated bodies.
"Hughes is excited about a tantalizing possibility that some of these zinc finger TFs could be responsible for the unique features of human physiology and anatomy—our immune system and the brain, which are the most complex among animals. Another concerns sexual dimorphism:
"countless visible, and often less obvious, differences between sexes that guide mate selection—decisions that have an immediate impact on reproductive success, and can also have profound impact on physiology in the long term. The peacock's tail or facial hair in men are classic examples of such features."
Comment: Other analyses have estimated the bases may be alike at 98% totals but different gene expressions makes the difference 78%.
Chimps'r' not us: t hey do not use speech or language
by David Turell , Friday, July 19, 2019, 23:00 (1955 days ago) @ David Turell
They have been taught a tiny amount of sign language they use to ask for things:
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/researchers-apes-are-just-like-us/
"Not only did signing apes never become common, the number of research programs studying ape signing has gone from a few to even fewer. At its peak in the 1970s, the field of teaching apes to communicate with humans never had more active research programs than you could count on your fingers and toes; today, there is not even a single program anywhere in the world making publishable claims. Backwards is not where promising directions in research tend to go. In every field of science, when we see researchers abandoning projects, the reason nearly always tends to be that the project was a dead end.
"The apes were using their symbol knowledge really only as a type of begging, when they wanted to play, eat, drink, or be tickled — little different than a dog pushing its bowl over to you with its nose when it is hungry. Any claims grander than this — for example, of sentence structure or evidence of emotions or how the ape was feeling — were likely nothing more than self-deception on the part of researchers who would prompt their apes and over-interpret their responses.
"One writer understands the story as the recurring fairy tale of the Animals That Can Talk:
“'But like all fairy tales, the one about talking apes is partly make-believe. No matter how much we wish to project ourselves onto them, they are still apes—albeit very intelligent ones. They deserve our respect, and, at the very least, proper care. Our original plan for these apes—to study their capacity for language—has more or less been achieved, and it’s unclear how much more we can learn, as apes like Koko and Kanzi are reaching old age. Through these projects, we’ve learned about the ability of nonhuman apes to associate symbols or signs with objects in the world and to use this knowledge to communicate with humans. We’ve learned about the uniqueness of human language. But we may also have learned something about how strange, stubborn, and fanciful we can be.”
"Later in the article, we are informed that a researcher has compiled a list of 60 to 80 gestures that she believes to be “ape language phonics.” We are told, “Distilling the meaning of those various sounds and gestures when put together, however, will be a much more challenging and drawn-out task.”
"Indeed, and it’s a task no ape would think to do. But we are expected to avoid considering the significance of that fact. And, to preserve the truthiness of the fairy tale, most readers gladly comply."
Comment: We may look somewhat alike in body shape and form, but we are vastly different, despite all the attempts to try to make us seem much less different than we are. Our difference strongly suggests there is a God.
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
QUOTES: “Distilling the meaning of those various sounds and gestures when put together, however, will be a much more challenging and drawn-out task.”
"Indeed, and it’s a task no ape would think to do. But we are expected to avoid considering the significance of that fact. And, to preserve the truthiness of the fairy tale, most readers gladly comply."
DAVID: We may look somewhat alike in body shape and form, but we are vastly different, despite all the attempts to try to make us seem much less different than we are. Our difference strongly suggests there is a God.
As regards language, if you ONLY use the word to denote human language, then of course chimps don’t have it. But some of us would say that ALL organisms have their own language, and there is plenty of evidence that the sounds, gestures, chemical emissions and movements used by other organisms serve the same purpose as human language. i.e. to communicate with their own species. No one could possibly deny that our human language is immeasurably more complex and advanced, but for the life of me I can’t see why this should be regarded as “strongly” indicative that there is a God. I thought you wanted to convince us that it is “strongly” indicative that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us, and the poor old chimp was only there, chattering away to his mates, so that he could eat or be eaten until your God finally came up with the one and only organism he actually wanted to design.
Under "Big brain evolution"
Quotes: Wherever in Africa language may have been invented, all that was required for its spread was that recipient populations had the potential to acquire and exhibit the new behavior. That potential had probably arisen in the neural rewiring that occurred as part of the radical developmental reorganization that produced anatomically modern Homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago. Language acquisition would almost certainly have been biologically possible for members of any structurally recognizable Homo sapiens population. (DAVID’S bold)
In our view, as well as in Berwick and Chomsky’s, the potential for modern human cognition was almost certainly born some 200,000 years ago with anatomical Homo sapiens. The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind. (DAVID’s bold)
[…] They bolster this position with Riny Huybregts’s recent conjecture that “the language faculty emerged with Homo sapiens, or shortly thereafter, but externalization in one form or another must have been a later development.”
I don’t understand this at all. The purpose of spoken language is communication, which means externalization. What archaeological indications can prove that early H. sapiens did not communicate? (Perhaps this is explained elsewhere?)
DAVID: Note my bolds: brain capacity first, then language develops, not as dhw proposes, which is a drive to spoken communication changes the existing brain so language can appear.
I do not believe for one second that H. sapiens’ immediate predecessors did not communicate, or that he himself did not communicate for 100,000 years. ALL organisms communicate at all times – that is essential to their continued existence. The means are limited by their anatomies, but I would indeed regard it as far more logical that human speech organs would have changed in accordance with need (like pre-whale legs turning into flippers) than there being a sudden change by sheer chance (random mutation) or by divine preprogramming /dabbling. I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 18:14 (1944 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We may look somewhat alike in body shape and form, but we are vastly different, despite all the attempts to try to make us seem much less different than we are. Our difference strongly suggests there is a God.
dhw: As regards language, if you ONLY use the word to denote human language, then of course chimps don’t have it. But some of us would say that ALL organisms have their own language, and there is plenty of evidence that the sounds, gestures, chemical emissions and movements used by other organisms serve the same purpose as human language. i.e. to communicate with their own species. No one could possibly deny that our human language is immeasurably more complex and advanced, but for the life of me I can’t see why this should be regarded as “strongly” indicative that there is a God. Under "Big brain evolution"
We are in your words, 'immeasurably more complex and advanced'. This is exactly why Adler argued for God since we are different in kind not degree. You are still touting degree as an agnostic, ignoring the underlying argument.
Quotes: Wherever in Africa language may have been invented, all that was required for its spread was that recipient populations had the potential to acquire and exhibit the new behavior. That potential had probably arisen in the neural rewiring that occurred as part of the radical developmental reorganization that produced anatomically modern Homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago. Language acquisition would almost certainly have been biologically possible for members of any structurally recognizable Homo sapiens population. (DAVID’S bold)In our view, as well as in Berwick and Chomsky’s, the potential for modern human cognition was almost certainly born some 200,000 years ago with anatomical Homo sapiens. The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind. (DAVID’s bold)
[…] They bolster this position with Riny Huybregts’s recent conjecture that “the language faculty emerged with Homo sapiens, or shortly thereafter, but externalization in one form or another must have been a later development.”
dhw: I don’t understand this at all. The purpose of spoken language is communication, which means externalization. What archaeological indications can prove that early H. sapiens did not communicate? (Perhaps this is explained elsewhere?)
Archaeology judges aesthetic evidences of brain uses, and use that evidence to infer when language might have appeared. The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.
DAVID: Note my bolds: brain capacity first, then language develops, not as dhw proposes, which is a drive to spoken communication changes the existing brain so language can appear.dhw: I do not believe for one second that H. sapiens’ immediate predecessors did not communicate, or that he himself did not communicate for 100,000 years. ALL organisms communicate at all times – that is essential to their continued existence. The means are limited by their anatomies, but I would indeed regard it as far more logical that human speech organs would have changed in accordance with need (like pre-whale legs turning into flippers) than there being a sudden change by sheer chance (random mutation) or by divine preprogramming /dabbling. I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
DAVID: We may look somewhat alike in body shape and form, but we are vastly different, despite all the attempts to try to make us seem much less different than we are. Our difference strongly suggests there is a God.
dhw: As regards language, if you ONLY use the word to denote human language, then of course chimps don’t have it. But some of us would say that ALL organisms have their own language, and there is plenty of evidence that the sounds, gestures, chemical emissions and movements used by other organisms serve the same purpose as human language. i.e. to communicate with their own species. No one could possibly deny that our human language is immeasurably more complex and advanced, but for the life of me I can’t see why this should be regarded as “strongly” indicative that there is a God.
DAVID: We are in your words, 'immeasurably more complex and advanced'. This is exactly why Adler argued for God since we are different in kind not degree. You are still touting degree as an agnostic, ignoring the underlying argument.
The subject is language, and I am talking to you and not to Adler. Are you really saying that the complexities of human language prove that God exists, whereas the complexities of animal, insect, bird and cellular language do not? You use our complexities to bolster your case for anthropocentric evolution. You use design to bolster your case for God.
QUOTES: In our view, as well as in Berwick and Chomsky’s, the potential for modern human cognition was almost certainly born some 200,000 years ago with anatomical Homo sapiens. The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind. (DAVID’s bold)
[…] They bolster this position with Riny Huybregts’s recent conjecture that “the language faculty emerged with Homo sapiens, or shortly thereafter, but externalization in one form or another must have been a later development.”
dhw: I don’t understand this at all. The purpose of spoken language is communication, which means externalization. What archaeological indications can prove that early H. sapiens did not communicate? (Perhaps this is explained elsewhere?)
DAVID: Archaeology judges aesthetic evidences of brain uses, and use that evidence to infer when language might have appeared.
Totally inadequate. Once more, do you really believe that for 100,000 years H. sapiens lived, loved, hunted, protected himself etc. etc. without communicating? And do you really believe that if he did communicate, he did not use the physical means at his disposal?
DAVID: The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.
dhw: I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
DAVID: I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
The proposal I object to here is that the instrument was not used for 100,000 years. How can you learn to play the piano without playing the piano?
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 18:45 (1943 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We are in your words, 'immeasurably more complex and advanced'. This is exactly why Adler argued for God since we are different in kind not degree. You are still touting degree as an agnostic, ignoring the underlying argument.
dhw: The subject is language, and I am talking to you and not to Adler. Are you really saying that the complexities of human language prove that God exists, whereas the complexities of animal, insect, bird and cellular language do not? You use our complexities to bolster your case for anthropocentric evolution. You use design to bolster your case for God.
I know what I do. The complexities of our language definitely shows how different we are from all other primates and lesser animals. We differ in kind.
QUOTES: In our view, as well as in Berwick and Chomsky’s, the potential for modern human cognition was almost certainly born some 200,000 years ago with anatomical Homo sapiens. The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind. (DAVID’s bold)
[…] They bolster this position with Riny Huybregts’s recent conjecture that “the language faculty emerged with Homo sapiens, or shortly thereafter, but externalization in one form or another must have been a later development.”dhw: I don’t understand this at all. The purpose of spoken language is communication, which means externalization. What archaeological indications can prove that early H. sapiens did not communicate? (Perhaps this is explained elsewhere?)
DAVID: Archaeology judges aesthetic evidences of brain uses, and use that evidence to infer when language might have appeared.
dhw: Totally inadequate. Once more, do you really believe that for 100,000 years H. sapiens lived, loved, hunted, protected himself etc. etc. without communicating? And do you really believe that if he did communicate, he did not use the physical means at his disposal?
Of course they spoke but as McRone describes in his book, slow and halting at first. I've described all this before.
DAVID: The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.dhw: I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
DAVID: I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
dhw: The proposal I object to here is that the instrument was not used for 100,000 years. How can you learn to play the piano without playing the piano?
Playing requires learning to play, so it took time. That is all I am presenting. The instrument was there when sapiens started, and they took time learning to use it. Mechanism first, use second as I have always told you. Obvious.
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
QUOTE: The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind. (DAVID’s bold)
dhw: I don’t understand this at all. The purpose of spoken language is communication, which means externalization. What archaeological indications can prove that early H. sapiens did not communicate?
DAVID: Archaeology judges aesthetic evidences of brain uses, and use that evidence to infer when language might have appeared.
dhw: Totally inadequate. Once more, do you really believe that for 100,000 years H. sapiens lived, loved, hunted, protected himself etc. etc. without communicating? And do you really believe that if he did communicate, he did not use the physical means at his disposal?
DAVID: Of course they spoke but as McRone describes in his book, slow and halting at first. I've described all this before.
I’d love to hear his tape recordings. I don’t think even chimps, birds and other organisms communicate slowly and haltingly, but it is safe to assume that the first sapiens did not have the same range of sounds, vocabulary, structures etc. that we have today. Language evolves. My point is that the anatomy would not have remained “fallow” for 100,000 years. All organisms use the relevant existing parts of their anatomy to communicate.
DAVID: The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.
dhw: I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
DAVID: I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
dhw: The proposal I object to here is that the instrument was not used for 100,000 years. How can you learn to play the piano without playing the piano?
DAVID: Playing requires learning to play, so it took time. That is all I am presenting. The instrument was there when sapiens started, and they took time learning to use it. Mechanism first, use second as I have always told you. Obvious.
That does not mean they didn’t use the mechanism for 100,000 years! You keep telling us your God did a dabble, and but it was only later (100,000 years) that H. sapiens learned to use it! What is not obvious is how the mechanism was formed in the first place. I propose that the need for enhanced communication would have caused sapiens’ ancestors to attempt new sounds (just as the need to swim would have caused pre-whales to attempt new movements), and this would have triggered the anatomical changes which would have been used to develop language.
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
by David Turell , Thursday, August 01, 2019, 21:13 (1942 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course they spoke but as McRone describes in his book, slow and halting at first. I've described all this before.
dhw: I’d love to hear his tape recordings. I don’t think even chimps, birds and other organisms communicate slowly and haltingly, but it is safe to assume that the first sapiens did not have the same range of sounds, vocabulary, structures etc. that we have today. Language evolves. My point is that the anatomy would not have remained “fallow” for 100,000 years. All organisms use the relevant existing parts of their anatomy to communicate.
It wasn't fallow. They were in process of developing a more complete language!
DAVID: The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.dhw: I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
DAVID: I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
dhw: The proposal I object to here is that the instrument was not used for 100,000 years. How can you learn to play the piano without playing the piano?
DAVID: Playing requires learning to play, so it took time. That is all I am presenting. The instrument was there when sapiens started, and they took time learning to use it. Mechanism first, use second as I have always told you. Obvious.
dhw: That does not mean they didn’t use the mechanism for 100,000 years! You keep telling us your God did a dabble, and but it was only later (100,000 years) that H. sapiens learned to use it! What is not obvious is how the mechanism was formed in the first place. I propose that the need for enhanced communication would have caused sapiens’ ancestors to attempt new sounds (just as the need to swim would have caused pre-whales to attempt new movements), and this would have triggered the anatomical changes which would have been used to develop language.
I didn't say that. Of course they used as they learned to use it more fully!
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
DAVID: Of course they spoke but as McRone describes in his book, slow and halting at first. I've described all this before.
dhw: I’d love to hear his tape recordings. I don’t think even chimps, birds and other organisms communicate slowly and haltingly, but it is safe to assume that the first sapiens did not have the same range of sounds, vocabulary, structures etc. that we have today. Language evolves. My point is that the anatomy would not have remained “fallow” for 100,000 years. All organisms use the relevant existing parts of their anatomy to communicate.
DAVID: It wasn't fallow. They were in process of developing a more complete language!
QUOTE: The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind.(DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.
Thank you for now agreeing that the new potential did not lie fallow after all.
dhw: I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?
DAVID: I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
dhw: The proposal I object to here is that the instrument was not used for 100,000 years. How can you learn to play the piano without playing the piano?
[…]
DAVID: Of course they used [it] as they learned to use it more fully!
Thank you for agreeing that it is sheer nonsense to claim that early sapiens did not use his anatomical changes for 100,000 years. We are in complete agreement. He must have used it all the time, and as time when by, he used it more fully, because as we all know, language also evolves with use. Our disagreement – not covered at all by the article you posted – is over the possible cause of the anatomical changes: a divine dabble (your proposal), or the need for expanded means of communication generating the necessary changes (as in pre-whale legs changing into flippers as a result of the effort to meet new requirements).
Chimps'r' not us: they do not use speech or language
by David Turell , Friday, August 02, 2019, 18:24 (1941 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It wasn't fallow. They were in process of developing a more complete language!
QUOTE: The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind.(DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: The bold strongly points out my position that the brain appears with established complexity and later it is learned to be used.
dhw: Thank you for now agreeing that the new potential did not lie fallow after all.
I never implied that nothing happened! Once the new brain was there, they learned to use it from the beginning.
dhw: I don’t suppose you’d like to give us your theory as to why your God allegedly made the anatomical changes “appear” 100,000 years before they were needed, would you?DAVID: I have. Provide the instrument and let the organism learn to use it. You can't play a piano unless there is one in your house.
dhw: The proposal I object to here is that the instrument was not used for 100,000 years. How can you learn to play the piano without playing the piano?
[…]
DAVID: Of course they used [it] as they learned to use it more fully!dhw: Thank you for agreeing that it is sheer nonsense to claim that early sapiens did not use his anatomical changes for 100,000 years. We are in complete agreement. He must have used it all the time, and as time when by, he used it more fully, because as we all know, language also evolves with use. Our disagreement – not covered at all by the article you posted – is over the possible cause of the anatomical changes: a divine dabble (your proposal), or the need for expanded means of communication generating the necessary changes (as in pre-whale legs changing into flippers as a result of the effort to meet new requirements).
We agree and also disagree. That is normal discussion .
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
by David Turell , Monday, August 05, 2019, 21:05 (1938 days ago) @ dhw
The development of recursive (modern) language and imagination are theoriz ed to have developed 70,000 years ago:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-recursive-language-modern-simultaneously-years.html
"A genetic mutation that slowed down the development of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in two or more children may have triggered a cascade of events leading to acquisition of recursive language and modern imagination 70,000 years ago.
"This new hypothesis, called Romulus and Remus and coined by Dr. Vyshedskiy, a neuroscientist from Boston University, might be able to solve the long-standing mystery of language evolution.
"Numerous archeological and genetic evidence have already convinced most paleoanthropologists that the speech apparatus has reached essentially modern configurations before the human line split from the Neanderthal line 600,000 years ago......it is likely that the modern-like remodeling of the vocal apparatus extended our ancestors' range of vocalizations by orders of magnitude. In other words, by 600,000 years ago, the number of distinct verbalizations used for communication must have been on par with the number of words in modern languages.
"On the other hand, artifacts signifying modern imagination, such as composite figurative arts, elaborate burials, bone needles with an eye, and construction of dwellings arose not earlier than 70,000 years ago. The half million-year-gap between the acquisition of the modern speech apparatus and modern imagination has baffled scientists for decades. (my bold)
***
" It became apparent that modern children who have not been exposed to full language in early childhood never acquire the type of active constructive imagination essential for juxtaposition of mental objects, known as Prefrontal Synthesis (PFS).
"'To understand the importance of PFS, consider these two sentences: "A dog bit my friend" and "My friend bit a dog." It is impossible to distinguish the difference in meaning using words or grammar alone, since both words and grammatical structure are identical in these two sentences. Understanding the difference in meaning and appreciating the misfortune of the 1st sentence and the humor of the 2nd sentence depends on the listener's ability to juxtapose the two mental objects: the friend and the dog. Only after the PFC forms the two different images in front of the mind's eye, are we able to understand the difference between the two sentences. Similarly, nested explanations, such as "a snake on the boulder to the left of the tall tree that is behind the hill," force listeners to use PFS to combine objects (a snake, the boulder, the tree, and the hill) into a novel scene. Flexible object combination and nesting (otherwise known as recursion) are characteristic features of all human languages. For this reason, linguists refer to modern languages as recursive languages."
"Unlike vocabulary and grammar acquisition, which can be learned throughout one's lifetime, there is a strong critical period for the development of PFS and individuals not exposed to conversations with recursive language in early childhood can never acquire PFS as adults. Their language is always lacking understanding of spatial prepositions and recursion that depend on the PFS ability. In a similar manner, pre-modern humans would not have been able to learn recursive language as adults and, therefore, would not be able to teach recursive language to their own children, who, as a result, would not acquire PFS. Thus, the existence of a strong critical period for PFS acquisition creates a cultural evolutionary barrier for acquisition of recursive language.
***
"'The acquisition of PFS and recursive language 70,000 years ago resulted in what was in essence a behaviorally new species: the first behaviorally modern Homo sapiens," concludes Dr. Vyshedskiy. "This newly acquired power for fast juxtaposition of mental objects in the process of PFS dramatically facilitated mental prototyping and led to fast acceleration of technological progress. Armed with the unprecedented ability to mentally simulate any plan and equally unprecedented ability to communicate it to their companions, humans were poised to quickly become the dominant species."
Comment: Once again new research supports my view of mechanism first and use second. Modern H. sapiens appeared 315,000 year ago with a large brain, a modern speech apparatus but only a primitive language. Please note the nuance in my bold above. The large brain and the speech apparatus allowed simplistic speech, but with time and practice over 245,000 years we finally achieved the modern language and speech we now experience.
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
QUOTE: In other words, by 600,000 years ago, the number of distinct verbalizations used for communication must have been on par with the number of words in modern languages.
According to this, the apparatus was already being used by pre-sapiens for communication 600,000 years ago, so what was all that nonsense about H. sapiens not using it for 100,000 years? Language of whatever kind is ALWAYS necessary and always in use!
QUOTE: "On the other hand, artifacts signifying modern imagination, such as composite figurative arts, elaborate burials, bone needles with an eye, and construction of dwellings arose not earlier than 70,000 years ago. The half million-year-gap between the acquisition of the modern speech apparatus and modern imagination has baffled scientists for decades. (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: Once again new research supports my view of mechanism first and use second. Modern H. sapiens appeared 315,000 year ago with a large brain, a modern speech apparatus but only a primitive language. Please note the nuance in my bold above. The large brain and the speech apparatus allowed simplistic speech, but with time and practice over 245,000 years we finally achieved the modern language and speech we now experience.
I don’t know why you’ve bolded it. Nobody knows why there was a cultural leap some 70,000 years ago (or whenever), but there is no argument over the obvious fact that the apparatus was in place approx. 300,000 years ago (or maybe even 600,000), the apparatus was always in use, and language has evolved from the comparatively simple to the extremely complex. Where we disagree is over your claim that the apparatus was dabbled by God in advance of any need for it, whereas I propose that whenever it changed, it did so in response to pre-sapiens'need for more complex forms of communication, just as the pre-whale’s legs changed to flippers when required to perform new actions. On this we shall have to differ.
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 06, 2019, 18:33 (1937 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: In other words, by 600,000 years ago, the number of distinct verbalizations used for communication must have been on par with the number of words in modern languages.
According to this, the apparatus was already being used by pre-sapiens for communication 600,000 years ago, so what was all that nonsense about H. sapiens not using it for 100,000 years? Language of whatever kind is ALWAYS necessary and always in use!
QUOTE: "On the other hand, artifacts signifying modern imagination, such as composite figurative arts, elaborate burials, bone needles with an eye, and construction of dwellings arose not earlier than 70,000 years ago. The half million-year-gap between the acquisition of the modern speech apparatus and modern imagination has baffled scientists for decades. (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: Once again new research supports my view of mechanism first and use second. Modern H. sapiens appeared 315,000 year ago with a large brain, a modern speech apparatus but only a primitive language. Please note the nuance in my bold above. The large brain and the speech apparatus allowed simplistic speech, but with time and practice over 245,000 years we finally achieved the modern language and speech we now experience.
dhw: I don’t know why you’ve bolded it. Nobody knows why there was a cultural leap some 70,000 years ago (or whenever), but there is no argument over the obvious fact that the apparatus was in place approx. 300,000 years ago (or maybe even 600,000), the apparatus was always in use, and language has evolved from the comparatively simple to the extremely complex. Where we disagree is over your claim that the apparatus was dabbled by God in advance of any need for it, whereas I propose that whenever it changed, it did so in response to pre-sapiens'need for more complex forms of communication, just as the pre-whale’s legs changed to flippers when required to perform new actions. On this we shall have to differ.
So you recognize the gap in time between available brain mechanism and learning to use it. A great advance in your thinking. Of course you' won't admit God did it by providing the new brain. Talk about rigid/fixed thinking.
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
Dhw: Nobody knows why there was a cultural leap some 70,000 years ago (or whenever), but there is no argument over the obvious fact that the apparatus was in place approx. 300,000 years ago (or maybe even 600,000), the apparatus was always in use, and language has evolved from the comparatively simple to the extremely complex. Where we disagree is over your claim that the apparatus was dabbled by God in advance of any need for it, whereas I propose that whenever it changed, it did so in response to pre-sapiens'need for more complex forms of communication, just as the pre-whale’s legs changed to flippers when required to perform new actions. On this we shall have to differ.
DAVID: So you recognize the gap in time between available brain mechanism and learning to use it. A great advance in your thinking. Of course you won't admit God did it by providing the new brain. Talk about rigid/fixed thinking.
When I say “the apparatus was always in use” (now bolded), I do not mean there was a gap in time before it was used. The word “always” precludes any possibility of a gap. I do not believe there was any time when pre-sapiens and early sapiens did not use the apparatus at their disposal in order to communicate. And it wasn’t a new brain – it was a development of the old brain. And why should I “admit” that your theory is right and my alternative proposal is wrong? Do you honestly believe that the whole world accepts your theory that your God changes anatomies in advance of any need for change?
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 07, 2019, 18:14 (1936 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Nobody knows why there was a cultural leap some 70,000 years ago (or whenever), but there is no argument over the obvious fact that the apparatus was in place approx. 300,000 years ago (or maybe even 600,000), the apparatus was always in use, and language has evolved from the comparatively simple to the extremely complex. Where we disagree is over your claim that the apparatus was dabbled by God in advance of any need for it, whereas I propose that whenever it changed, it did so in response to pre-sapiens'need for more complex forms of communication, just as the pre-whale’s legs changed to flippers when required to perform new actions. On this we shall have to differ.
DAVID: So you recognize the gap in time between available brain mechanism and learning to use it. A great advance in your thinking. Of course you won't admit God did it by providing the new brain. Talk about rigid/fixed thinking.
dhw: When I say “the apparatus was always in use” (now bolded), I do not mean there was a gap in time before it was used. The word “always” precludes any possibility of a gap. I do not believe there was any time when pre-sapiens and early sapiens did not use the apparatus at their disposal in order to communicate. And it wasn’t a new brain – it was a development of the old brain. And why should I “admit” that your theory is right and my alternative proposal is wrong? Do you honestly believe that the whole world accepts your theory that your God changes anatomies in advance of any need for change?
Lots of the world is on my side. Of course the big brain, once present, took time to learn to be used. But still big 'old' brain first and use second. You provide non-rebuttals.
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
Dhw: Nobody knows why there was a cultural leap some 70,000 years ago (or whenever), but there is no argument over the obvious fact that the apparatus was in place approx. 300,000 years ago (or maybe even 600,000), the apparatus was always in use, and language has evolved from the comparatively simple to the extremely complex. Where we disagree is over your claim that the apparatus was dabbled by God in advance of any need for it, whereas I propose that whenever it changed, it did so in response to pre-sapiens'need for more complex forms of communication, just as the pre-whale’s legs changed to flippers when required to perform new actions. On this we shall have to differ.
DAVID: So you recognize the gap in time between available brain mechanism and learning to use it. A great advance in your thinking. Of course you won't admit God did it by providing the new brain. Talk about rigid/fixed thinking.
dhw: When I say “the apparatus was always in use” (now bolded), I do not mean there was a gap in time before it was used. The word “always” precludes any possibility of a gap. I do not believe there was any time when pre-sapiens and early sapiens did not use the apparatus at their disposal in order to communicate. And it wasn’t a new brain – it was a development of the old brain. And why should I “admit” that your theory is right and my alternative proposal is wrong? Do you honestly believe that the whole world accepts your theory that your God changes anatomies in advance of any need for change?
DAVID: Lots of the world is on my side. Of course the big brain, once present, took time to learn to be used. But still big 'old' brain first and use second. You provide non-rebuttals.
It took time for the big brain, once present, to progress from simple language to the complexities of modern language, but I have no doubt that every generation of homo that possessed the big brain of modern humans would have used it. How else would they have communicated? The issue on which we differ is how and when the earlier smaller brain became the big brain. You say God did a dabble to enlarge the brain, which wasn't used for thousands of years, and I propose that pre-sapiens required more complex forms of communication and the brain cells responded to the new need by enlarging the brain through the new uses (like pre-whale legs turning into whale flippers through new uses). But of course once the brain was in place, it continued to be used right up to the present day!
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2019, 15:13 (1935 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Nobody knows why there was a cultural leap some 70,000 years ago (or whenever), but there is no argument over the obvious fact that the apparatus was in place approx. 300,000 years ago (or maybe even 600,000), the apparatus was always in use, and language has evolved from the comparatively simple to the extremely complex. Where we disagree is over your claim that the apparatus was dabbled by God in advance of any need for it, whereas I propose that whenever it changed, it did so in response to pre-sapiens'need for more complex forms of communication, just as the pre-whale’s legs changed to flippers when required to perform new actions. On this we shall have to differ.
DAVID: So you recognize the gap in time between available brain mechanism and learning to use it. A great advance in your thinking. Of course you won't admit God did it by providing the new brain. Talk about rigid/fixed thinking.
dhw: When I say “the apparatus was always in use” (now bolded), I do not mean there was a gap in time before it was used. The word “always” precludes any possibility of a gap. I do not believe there was any time when pre-sapiens and early sapiens did not use the apparatus at their disposal in order to communicate. And it wasn’t a new brain – it was a development of the old brain. And why should I “admit” that your theory is right and my alternative proposal is wrong? Do you honestly believe that the whole world accepts your theory that your God changes anatomies in advance of any need for change?
DAVID: Lots of the world is on my side. Of course the big brain, once present, took time to learn to be used. But still big 'old' brain first and use second. You provide non-rebuttals.
dhw: It took time for the big brain, once present, to progress from simple language to the complexities of modern language, but I have no doubt that every generation of homo that possessed the big brain of modern humans would have used it. How else would they have communicated? The issue on which we differ is how and when the earlier smaller brain became the big brain. You say God did a dabble to enlarge the brain, which wasn't used for thousands of years, and I propose that pre-sapiens required more complex forms of communication and the brain cells responded to the new need by enlarging the brain through the new uses (like pre-whale legs turning into whale flippers through new uses). But of course once the brain was in place, it continued to be used right up to the present day!
Our only disagreement now seems to be God's role in creating the human brain.
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
DAVID: Lots of the world is on my side. Of course the big brain, once present, took time to learn to be used. But still big 'old' brain first and use second. You provide non-rebuttals.
dhw: It took time for the big brain, once present, to progress from simple language to the complexities of modern language, but I have no doubt that every generation of homo that possessed the big brain of modern humans would have used it. How else would they have communicated? The issue on which we differ is how and when the earlier smaller brain became the big brain. You say God did a dabble to enlarge the brain, which wasn't used for thousands of years, and I propose that pre-sapiens required more complex forms of communication and the brain cells responded to the new need by enlarging the brain through the new uses (like pre-whale legs turning into whale flippers through new uses). But of course once the brain was in place, it continued to be used right up to the present day!
DAVID: Our only disagreement now seems to be God's role in creating the human brain.
If you agree that it is sheer nonsense to assume that pre-sapiens and sapiens did not use their expanded brain (which lay “fallow”) for umpteen thousand years, our disagreement is over how and when the brain expanded, as detailed above. If that is what you mean by “God’s role”, then OK.
Chimps'r' not us: latest brain/language development theory
by David Turell , Friday, August 09, 2019, 18:39 (1934 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Lots of the world is on my side. Of course the big brain, once present, took time to learn to be used. But still big 'old' brain first and use second. You provide non-rebuttals.
dhw: It took time for the big brain, once present, to progress from simple language to the complexities of modern language, but I have no doubt that every generation of homo that possessed the big brain of modern humans would have used it. How else would they have communicated? The issue on which we differ is how and when the earlier smaller brain became the big brain. You say God did a dabble to enlarge the brain, which wasn't used for thousands of years, and I propose that pre-sapiens required more complex forms of communication and the brain cells responded to the new need by enlarging the brain through the new uses (like pre-whale legs turning into whale flippers through new uses). But of course once the brain was in place, it continued to be used right up to the present day!
DAVID: Our only disagreement now seems to be God's role in creating the human brain.
dhw: If you agree that it is sheer nonsense to assume that pre-sapiens and sapiens did not use their expanded brain (which lay “fallow”) for umpteen thousand years, our disagreement is over how and when the brain expanded, as detailed above. If that is what you mean by “God’s role”, then OK.
We have identified our disagreement.
Chimps'r' not us: how infants develop their brain
by David Turell , Saturday, July 25, 2020, 00:07 (1584 days ago) @ David Turell
The big brain develops slowly so infants take lots of time to coordinate their hands:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-big-brains-dexterous.html
"People are skilled with their hands, but take a long time to learn dexterous abilities. It takes babies generally around five months before they can purposely grip an object. Learning more complicated skills such as eating with fork and knife or tying shoelaces can take another five to six years. By that age, many other primate species already have offspring of their own. Why do we take so much longer than our closest relatives to learn fine motor skills?
***
"She studied 128 young animals in 13 European zoos from birth until the age at which they had reached adult-level dexterity. What surprised her was that all species learned their respective manual skills in exactly the same order. "Our results show that the neural development follows extremely rigid patterns—even in primate species that differ greatly in other respects," says Heldstab.
"The researchers found, however, big differences in the specific fine motor skills of adults from different primate species. Large-brained species such as macaques, gorillas or chimpanzees can solve much more complex tasks using their hands than primates with small brains such as lemurs or marmosets. "It is no coincidence that we humans are so good at using our hands and using tools, our large brains made it possible. A big brain equals great dexterity," says Heldstab.
"Dexterity comes at a cost, however: In species with large brains like humans, it takes a long time for infants to learn even the simplest hand and finger movements. "It's not just because we are learning more complex skills than lemurs or callitrichids, for example. It's mainly because we do not begin learning these skills until much later," says Heldstab. The researchers think that the reason for this may be that the larger brains of humans are less well developed at birth.
"In addition, learning takes time and is inefficient, and it is the parents who pay for this until their offspring are independent. "Our study shows once again that in the course of evolution, only mammals that live a long time and have enough time to learn were able to develop a large brain and complex fine motor skills including the ability to use tools. This makes it clear why so few species could follow our path and why humans could become the most technologically accomplished organism on this planet," concludes Sandra Heldstab."
Comment: It is all of the same pattern we have see about human brains. Our human kids learn to slowly tailor their brains as areas develop for use, just as early sapiens brains were bigger than needed and allowed earlier tailoring. The plasticity mechanism is a marvelous tool we have been given. I view the brain as an instrument we learn to use.
Chimps'r' not us: how infants develop their brain
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 01, 2020, 18:53 (1545 days ago) @ David Turell
More studies on development of the infant brain which has little conscious function to begin with:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200831165658.htm
"To shed light on the development of this critical cognitive process during early infancy, researchers at the UNC Biomedical Research Imaging Center (BRIC) at the UNC School of Medicine conducted a brain imaging study in infants to examine the emergence of neural flexibility, which refers to the frequency with which a brain region changes its role (or allegiance to one functional network to another). Neural flexibility is thought to underlie cognitive flexibility.
***
"...the researchers show that brain regions with high neural flexibility appear consistent with the core brain regions that support cognitive flexibility processing in adults, whereas brain regions governing basic brain functions, such as motor skills, exhibit lower neural flexibility in adults, demonstrating the emergence of functionally flexible brains during early infancy.
***
"The researchers,...found that neural flexibility increased with age across the whole brain, and specifically in brain regions that control movement, potentially enabling infants to learn new motor skills. Neural flexibility also increased with age in brain regions involved in higher-level cognitive processes, such as attention, memory, and response inhibition, indicating continuing development of these functional networks as babies become toddlers.
"The age-related increase in neural flexibility was highest in brain regions already implicated in cognitive flexibility in adults, suggesting that cognitive flexibility may start to develop during the first two years of life.
***
"Additional analysis of brain regions with especially high neural flexibility revealed the presence of relatively weak and unstable connections from these regions to other parts of the brain, potentially showing how these regions can rapidly switch their allegiances between different functional networks. By contrast, neural flexibility in brain regions involved in visual functions remained relatively low throughout the first two years of life, suggesting that these regions had already matured.
"Lower levels of neural flexibility (i.e., greater established brain maturity) of visual brain regions at three and 18 months of age were associated with better performance on cognitive and behavioral assessments at the age of five or six years.
"These findings provide insights into the development of higher-level brain functions, and could be used to predict cognitive outcomes later in life."
Comment: cognitive function slowly develops in infants as do memory areas. The concept of a generally blank slate cannot be ignored.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Monday, January 29, 2018, 19:22 (2491 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 29, 2018, 19:27
New research shows why we are not apes, even though our DNA looks very similar in types and number of bases:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-evolving-gene-differences-primates.html
"Today, biologists add an important discovery to a growing body of data explaining why we're different from chimps and other primate relatives, despite the remarkable similarity of our genes. The new evidence has to do with the way genes are regulated. It's the result of a comprehensive genome-wide computational analysis of multiple individuals across three primate species - human, chimpanzee and rhesus macaque.
"The researchers focused on regulatory DNA elements are called gene enhancers and promoters. Promoters sit immediately "upstream" of genes and must be activated for the genes they regulate to be switched on. Less is known about enhancers, which can be located varying distances up- and downstream of the genes they regulate. Enhancers can be much farther away from the "gene body" than promoters, but can come close to the gene because of the looping structure of chromatin, the structure that packages the genome. Often, multiple enhancers are involved in a given gene's activation, in combinations that differ under differing circumstances.
***
"They studied a single cell type, CD4+ T cells of the immune system, comparing levels of RNA copying when the cells were in quiescent and activated states in the three primate species.
The experiments revealed that while the activity of genes across the three species was quite similar in the CD4+ T cells, there were intriguing differences in the way genes were regulated. The team paid particular attention to collections of enhancers that jointly influence the expression of a target gene, as an ensemble. "These ensembles come in various sizes," Siepel explains, "and we found that when they are large, the expression levels of the target genes tend to be stable over evolutionary time. When they are small, the expression levels are less stable." Stability in gene expression is evidence of what scientists call evolutionary conservation - the preservation of a feature across species because of the advantage it confers.
"Through careful analysis, the team identified various features that distinguish fast-evolving enhancers from slower ones. "Particularly interesting to us were cases in which large numbers of enhancers together determine the expression of a target gene," says Siepel, who is Director of the Simons Center for Quantitative Biology at CSHL. "In these cases, the genes tend to be more stable, but we found each individual enhancer is more likely to change." What's under evolutionary selection is the target expression level of a given gene, which in these situations is jointly determined by the whole ensemble.
"The research reveals how programs for gene expression change during evolution, leading to the differences in behavior and morphology we observe between humans and other primates. These evolutionary mysteries also offer clues about mutations that cause diseases by altering gene regulation, Siepel notes."
Comment: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
DAVID: New research shows why we are not apes, even though our DNA looks very similar in types and number of bases:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-evolving-gene-differences-primates.html
DAVID’s comment: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
As we keep saying, bacteria have survived since the year dot, so no subsequent differences were necessary for survival. But once cells began to combine – for whatever reason – they devised different modes of survival, and as environmental conditions changed, they perished or they adapted or they found new ways of exploiting the environment. In most cases I agree that these new ways would have led to greater complexity, but as I keep saying, complexity for no purpose makes less sense to me than complexity for a purpose (improved chances of survival, or improved living conditions). I see survivability as the major issue, which is why most species remain unchanged once they can survive without needing to change. Humans also focused initially on survival and/or improving their modes of survival. You are quite right to single out sapiens as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival, but there is still a smooth progression from intelligently improved survivability to intelligently improved living conditions to intelligent expansion of thought. Again no need for God’s “guidance” (a term we need to jettison, since you made it clear under “autonomy v automaticity” that you really mean preprogramming or dabbling) if he gave cells/cell communities the intelligence to work out their own ways of surviving and improving.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 19:03 (2490 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: New research shows why we are not apes, even though our DNA looks very similar in types and number of bases:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-evolving-gene-differences-primates.htmlDAVID’s comment: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
dhw: As we keep saying, bacteria have survived since the year dot, so no subsequent differences were necessary for survival. But once cells began to combine – for whatever reason – they devised different modes of survival, and as environmental conditions changed, they perished or they adapted or they found new ways of exploiting the environment.
But we can find no reason for multicellularity based on a need for survival, and as you point out multicellularity created problems for survival, so why bother? My answer is God wanted complexity to achieve His goals and had to introduce it.
dhw: In most cases I agree that these new ways would have led to greater complexity, but as I keep saying, complexity for no purpose makes less sense to me than complexity for a purpose (improved chances of survival, or improved living conditions).
Makes no sense in view of my comment above.
dhw: I see survivability as the major issue, which is why most species remain unchanged once they can survive without needing to change. Humans also focused initially on survival and/or improving their modes of survival. You are quite right to single out sapiens as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival, but there is still a smooth progression from intelligently improved survivability to intelligently improved living conditions to intelligent expansion of thought. Again no need for God’s “guidance” (a term we need to jettison, since you made it clear under “autonomy v automaticity” that you really mean preprogramming or dabbling) if he gave cells/cell communities the intelligence to work out their own ways of surviving and improving.
Of course God guided the process. Why did sapiens 'as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival' as you state, but then gloss over it by describing their further development beyond survivability. Doesn't it occur to you that you have it all backward and survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch?
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
DAVID: New research shows why we are not apes, even though our DNA looks very similar in types and number of bases:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-evolving-gene-differences-primates.html
DAVID’s comment: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
dhw: As we keep saying, bacteria have survived since the year dot, so no subsequent differences were necessary for survival. But once cells began to combine – for whatever reason – they devised different modes of survival, and as environmental conditions changed, they perished or they adapted or they found new ways of exploiting the environment.
DAVID: But we can find no reason for multicellularity based on a need for survival, and as you point out multicellularity created problems for survival, so why bother? My answer is God wanted complexity to achieve His goals and had to introduce it.
I am in no position to explain multicellularity (I wrote “for whatever reason”), but if God exists, I am quite prepared to acknowledge that he wanted complexity to achieve his goals. And since multicellularity produced an ever changing bush of life, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that his goal was to create an ever changing bush of life. Not just one particular species, but lots and lots of species.
dhw: In most cases I agree that these new ways would have led to greater complexity, but as I keep saying, complexity for no purpose makes less sense to me than complexity for a purpose (improved chances of survival, or improved living conditions).
DAVID: Makes no sense in view of my comment above.
You said he needed complexity to achieve his goals. Why does it make no sense to suggest that his goals were improved chances of survival/improved living conditions?
dhw: Again no need for God’s “guidance” (a term we need to jettison, since you made it clear under “autonomy v automaticity” that you really mean preprogramming or dabbling) if he gave cells/cell communities the intelligence to work out their own ways of surviving and improving.
DAVID: Of course God guided the process. Why did sapiens 'as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival' as you state, but then gloss over it by describing their further development beyond survivability. Doesn't it occur to you that you have it all backward and survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch?
Do you honestly believe that the Homo branch was not and is not concerned with survival? Tell that to the Rohingya and the millions of homos who have died and are still dying from disease, starvation, war, natural disasters, so-called ethnic cleansing. Tell it to yourself, a retired doctor whose whole career was based on saving people’s lives or improving their physical condition? There is no “glossing over”. Most of our so-called civilisation has grown out of improving our chances of survival and improving our living conditions. Survivability is ALWAYS the first priority. But the same intelligence that has led to all the advances in both fields has also led us to thoughts beyond those of survival and improvement – e.g. to questioning the purpose of it all, or to enhancing the richness of our lives through the arts.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 16:09 (2489 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 16:22
DAVID: But we can find no reason for multicellularity based on a need for survival, and as you point out multicellularity created problems for survival, so why bother? My answer is God wanted complexity to achieve His goals and had to introduce it.dhw" I am in no position to explain multicellularity (I wrote “for whatever reason”), but if God exists, I am quite prepared to acknowledge that he wanted complexity to achieve his goals. And since multicellularity produced an ever changing bush of life, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that his goal was to create an ever changing bush of life. Not just one particular species, but lots and lots of species.
I repeat: Our appearance cannot be seen as a necessary event, when compared to similar organisms (apes) who survived just as well as we did over the past few million years. You keep ignoring our specialness as a clue to God's purpose.
dhw: In most cases I agree that these new ways would have led to greater complexity, but as I keep saying, complexity for no purpose makes less sense to me than complexity for a purpose (improved chances of survival, or improved living conditions).
DAVID: Makes no sense in view of my comment above.dhw: You said he needed complexity to achieve his goals. Why does it make no sense to suggest that his goals were improved chances of survival/improved living conditions?
99% of all earlier more complex species are dead. His obvious main goal is/was humans.
dhw: Again no need for God’s “guidance” (a term we need to jettison, since you made it clear under “autonomy v automaticity” that you really mean preprogramming or dabbling) if he gave cells/cell communities the intelligence to work out their own ways of surviving and improving.
DAVID: Of course God guided the process. Why did sapiens 'as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival' as you state, but then gloss over it by describing their further development beyond survivability. Doesn't it occur to you that you have it all backward and survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch?
dhw: Do you honestly believe that the Homo branch was not and is not concerned with survival? Tell that to the Rohingya and the millions of homos who have died and are still dying from disease, starvation, war, natural disasters, so-called ethnic cleansing. Tell it to yourself, a retired doctor whose whole career was based on saving people’s lives or improving their physical condition? There is no “glossing over”. Most of our so-called civilisation has grown out of improving our chances of survival and improving our living conditions. Survivability is ALWAYS the first priority. But the same intelligence that has led to all the advances in both fields has also led us to thoughts beyond those of survival and improvement – e.g. to questioning the purpose of it all, or to enhancing the richness of our lives through the arts.
You have dragged in current events, which are horrible, but they do not change the point that
prior to 30,000 years ago we lived in caves in survival mode despite our huge but unused brain that stayed at survival mode. We had to learn to use it. Of course stone age folks individually wanted to survive. I'm not discussing the issue at that level.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
DAVID: I repeat: Our appearance cannot be seen as a necessary event, when compared to similar organisms (apes) who survived just as well as we did over the past few million years. You keep ignoring our specialness as a clue to God's purpose.
I repeat: weaverbird nests, monarch butterflies’ lifestyle, whales and duckbilled platypuses were not necessary events either (as bacteria have survived perfectly well since the year dot). And you keep ignoring their specialness as a clue to your God’s purpose – they must be special since you think your God specially preprogrammed or dabbled them.
dhw: You said he needed complexity to achieve his goals. Why does it make no sense to suggest that his goals were improved chances of survival/improved living conditions?
DAVID: 99% of all earlier more complex species are dead. His obvious main goal is/was humans.
You seem to have settled on “main” goal, which means he has other goals, but when I asked you what they were, there were none. The fact that 99% of species are dead makes it equally “obvious” that he wanted a continuous process of change. And you still haven’t answered why it makes more sense for him to want complexity for the sake of complexity rather than complexity for the sake of improved survivability and improved living conditions. Wouldn’t you say that human complexity has improved our survivability and our living conditions?
DAVID: [..] Doesn't it occur to you that you have it all backward and survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch?
dhw: Do you honestly believe that the Homo branch was not and is not concerned with survival? Tell that to the Rohingya and the millions of homos who have died and are still dying from disease, starvation, war, natural disasters, so-called ethnic cleansing. […] Most of our so-called civilisation has grown out of improving our chances of survival and improving our living conditions. Survivability is ALWAYS the first priority. […]
DAVID: You have dragged in current events, which are horrible, but they do not change the point that prior to 30,000 years ago we lived in caves in survival mode despite our huge but unused brain that stayed at survival mode. We had to learn to use it. Of course stone age folks individually wanted to survive. I'm not discussing the issue at that level.
Earlier you said that “survivability is a minor evolutionary issue”, and above you say “survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch”. Now you tell me that the Homo branch spent 270,000 years focusing on nothing but survivability! And I point out to you that survivability is still the main issue for Homo today, but you don’t want to discuss that either. So when was survivability of no issue for the Homo branch?
As for the gap, I have offered you my explanation umpteen times, and have done so yet again under “possibly we first appeared earlier”.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Thursday, February 01, 2018, 18:44 (2488 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: 99% of all earlier more complex species are dead. His obvious main goal is/was humans.dhw: You seem to have settled on “main” goal, which means he has other goals, but when I asked you what they were, there were none. The fact that 99% of species are dead makes it equally “obvious” that he wanted a continuous process of change. And you still haven’t answered why it makes more sense for him to want complexity for the sake of complexity rather than complexity for the sake of improved survivability and improved living conditions. Wouldn’t you say that human complexity has improved our survivability and our living conditions?
Exactly my point. Highly complex humans have made tremendous improvements, none of which were required for survivability. We are more complex than necessary. Raup reminded us survivability was related mainly to bad luck, not Darwin's competition between species.
DAVID: You have dragged in current events, which are horrible, but they do not change the point that prior to 30,000 years ago we lived in caves in survival mode despite our huge but unused brain that stayed at survival mode. We had to learn to use it. Of course stone age folks individually wanted to survive. I'm not discussing the issue at that level.dhw: Earlier you said that “survivability is a minor evolutionary issue”, and above you say “survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch”. Now you tell me that the Homo branch spent 270,000 years focusing on nothing but survivability! And I point out to you that survivability is still the main issue for Homo today, but you don’t want to discuss that either. So when was survivability of no issue for the Homo branch?
I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
DAVID: 99% of all earlier more complex species are dead. His obvious main goal is/was humans.
dhw: You seem to have settled on “main” goal, which means he has other goals, but when I asked you what they were, there were none. The fact that 99% of species are dead makes it equally “obvious” that he wanted a continuous process of change. And you still haven’t answered why it makes more sense for him to want complexity for the sake of complexity rather than complexity for the sake of improved survivability and improved living conditions. Wouldn’t you say that human complexity has improved our survivability and our living conditions?
DAVID: Exactly my point. Highly complex humans have made tremendous improvements, none of which were required for survivability. We are more complex than necessary. Raup reminded us survivability was related mainly to bad luck, not Darwin's competition between species.
Your point is exactly the opposite of mine! According to you, all our advances in medicine, in methods of acquiring food, in protecting ourselves against the climate and against our enemies have nothing to do with survivability. We are not talking about the causes of extinction, but about survivability being what you call a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”.
dhw: Now you tell me that the Homo branch spent 270,000 years focusing on nothing but survivability! And I point out to you that survivability is still the main issue for Homo today, but you don’t want to discuss that either. So when was survivability of no issue for the Homo branch?
DAVID: I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.
It is and always was a daily individual concern for all species, and it is the absolute priority for all. If you want to confine the discussion to human evolution, you keep telling us that for millions of years until 30,000 years ago every single advance was confined to the purpose of survival, so how can you say that it was a minor or even no issue as a driving force. According to you it was the only issue!
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 01:09 (2487 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Exactly my point. Highly complex humans have made tremendous improvements, none of which were required for survivability. We are more complex than necessary. Raup reminded us survivability was related mainly to bad luck, not Darwin's competition between species.dhw: Your point is exactly the opposite of mine! According to you, all our advances in medicine, in methods of acquiring food, in protecting ourselves against the climate and against our enemies have nothing to do with survivability. We are not talking about the causes of extinction, but about survivability being what you call a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”.
I'm discussing survivability as it relates to the overall process of evolution, not individual survival which the point you are attempting to make. Back to Raup's point of bad luck. Competition for resources is a point to consider, but does it cause mutations that advance evolution. I strongly doubt it, as it represents more bad luck.
dhw: Now you tell me that the Homo branch spent 270,000 years focusing on nothing but survivability! And I point out to you that survivability is still the main issue for Homo today, but you don’t want to discuss that either. So when was survivability of no issue for the Homo branch?DAVID: I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.
dhw: It is and always was a daily individual concern for all species, and it is the absolute priority for all. If you want to confine the discussion to human evolution, you keep telling us that for millions of years until 30,000 years ago every single advance was confined to the purpose of survival, so how can you say that it was a minor or even no issue as a driving force. According to you it was the only issue!
You are still discussing survival at the individual level, and I'm not. I'm knocking down 'survival of the fitest' as a concept supporting Darwin. It doesn't, but sounds good on the surface. What survives lives to evolve, but what survives doesn't tell us what drives evolution. See the difference?
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
DAVID: Exactly my point. Highly complex humans have made tremendous improvements, none of which were required for survivability. We are more complex than necessary. Raup reminded us survivability was related mainly to bad luck, not Darwin's competition between species.
dhw: Your point is exactly the opposite of mine! According to you, all our advances in medicine, in methods of acquiring food, in protecting ourselves against the climate and against our enemies have nothing to do with survivability. We are not talking about the causes of extinction, but about survivability being what you call a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”.
DAVID: I'm discussing survivability as it relates to the overall process of evolution, not individual survival which the point you are attempting to make. Back to Raup's point of bad luck. Competition for resources is a point to consider, but does it cause mutations that advance evolution. I strongly doubt it, as it represents more bad luck.
Without individual organisms there is no life and no overall process of evolution! It is absurd to talk of survivability without talking about the survival of the organisms themselves! Raup’s “bad luck” explains extinctions, it does not explain the innovations that advance evolution. Competition for resources is one factor that may force change, but as Margulis made clear, cooperation is equally important as organisms try to improve their chances of surviving and/or their living conditions.
DAVID: I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.
dhw: It is and always was a daily individual concern for all species, and it is the absolute priority for all. […]
DAVID: You are still discussing survival at the individual level, and I'm not. I'm knocking down 'survival of the fitest' as a concept supporting Darwin. It doesn't, but sounds good on the surface. What survives lives to evolve, but what survives doesn't tell us what drives evolution. See the difference?
We are not talking about the tautology of survival of the fittest, but yes, we are talking about what drives evolution. According to you, survivability is a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”. And yet you keep telling us that prior to 30,000 years ago, every development both human and non-human was motivated solely by the quest for survival, and you even ask why sapiens hung around for 270,000 years without advancing beyond survivability. Knocking Darwin does not get you out of the logical hole you have dug for yourself. If survival was the only motive behind evolutionary advances until 30,000 years ago, survivability (which includes improving chances of survival) could not have been a minor issue or a non-issue.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 19:43 (2486 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.dhw: It is and always was a daily individual concern for all species, and it is the absolute priority for all. […]
DAVID: You are still discussing survival at the individual level, and I'm not. I'm knocking down 'survival of the fitest' as a concept supporting Darwin. It doesn't, but sounds good on the surface. What survives lives to evolve, but what survives doesn't tell us what drives evolution. See the difference?
dhw: We are not talking about the tautology of survival of the fittest, but yes, we are talking about what drives evolution. According to you, survivability is a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”. And yet you keep telling us that prior to 30,000 years ago, every development both human and non-human was motivated solely by the quest for survival, and you even ask why sapiens hung around for 270,000 years without advancing beyond survivability. Knocking Darwin does not get you out of the logical hole you have dug for yourself. If survival was the only motive behind evolutionary advances until 30,000 years ago, survivability (which includes improving chances of survival) could not have been a minor issue or a non-issue.
You still don't see that you are talking about individual survival. When sapiens arrived they had the total capacity to easily survive and create civilization. I questioned the delay for using their capacity as an answer to your 'push' theory about big brains, nothing more. It took 270,000 years for sapiens to discover their real capbilities. That is simply the history of our species. My point still remains. We evolved way beyond any needs for simple survivability, which makes us special. As for my thoughts about Darwin: he was an unusual person for his time. He forced us to develop deep thoughts about evolutionary mechanisms, even though his proposed mechanisms were/are totally wrong. Not his fault.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
dhw: We are not talking about the tautology of survival of the fittest, but yes, we are talking about what drives evolution. According to you, survivability is a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”. And yet you keep telling us that prior to 30,000 years ago, every development both human and non-human was motivated solely by the quest for survival, and you even ask why sapiens hung around for 270,000 years without advancing beyond survivability. Knocking Darwin does not get you out of the logical hole you have dug for yourself. If survival was the only motive behind evolutionary advances until 30,000 years ago, survivability (which includes improving chances of survival) could not have been a minor issue or a non-issue.
DAVID: You still don't see that you are talking about individual survival. When sapiens arrived they had the total capacity to easily survive and create civilization. I questioned the delay for using their capacity as an answer to your 'push' theory about big brains, nothing more. It took 270,000 years for sapiens to discover their real capbilities. That is simply the history of our species. My point still remains. We evolved way beyond any needs for simple survivability, which makes us special.
You leap from one subject to another! Survival means the continued existence of individual organisms. You can’t have life without individual organisms that are alive. You dismissed survivability as an evolutionary driving force, and that totally contradicts everything you have said about evolution up to 30,000 years ago, during which time you say survivability was the ONLY issue. Your purpose was to knock Darwin, though in fact you supported him. Now you lurch back to the 270,000 year “gap”, which I have suggested is due to the fact that it requires very clever individuals of ALL species to come up with innovative ideas. Erectus hung around for one or two million years without making any progress beyond survivability. (And you can’t tell me why your God let him hang around that long before at last producing the one brain he really wanted to produce.) And now, as your grand finale, you switch the whole argument to our being special. Yes, we are special. That doesn’t make us the be-all and end-all of life on Earth. Nor does it prove that survivability is a minor issue, or no issue at all. Nor does it explain why your God took billions of years to produce the one thing he wanted to produce. And the 270,000 year gap is a non-issue. See also my post on “multicellularity” for what drives evolution.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Sunday, February 04, 2018, 20:05 (2485 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You still don't see that you are talking about individual survival. When sapiens arrived they had the total capacity to easily survive and create civilization. I questioned the delay for using their capacity as an answer to your 'push' theory about big brains, nothing more. It took 270,000 years for sapiens to discover their real capbilities. That is simply the history of our species. My point still remains. We evolved way beyond any needs for simple survivability, which makes us special.dhw: You leap from one subject to another! Survival means the continued existence of individual organisms. You can’t have life without individual organisms that are alive. You dismissed survivability as an evolutionary driving force, and that totally contradicts everything you have said about evolution up to 30,000 years ago, during which time you say survivability was the ONLY issue. Your purpose was to knock Darwin, though in fact you supported him. Now you lurch back to the 270,000 year “gap”, which I have suggested is due to the fact that it requires very clever individuals of ALL species to come up with innovative ideas. Erectus hung around for one or two million years without making any progress beyond survivability. (And you can’t tell me why your God let him hang around that long before at last producing the one brain he really wanted to produce.) And now, as your grand finale, you switch the whole argument to our being special. Yes, we are special. That doesn’t make us the be-all and end-all of life on Earth. Nor does it prove that survivability is a minor issue, or no issue at all. Nor does it explain why your God took billions of years to produce the one thing he wanted to produce. And the 270,000 year gap is a non-issue. See also my post on “multicellularity” for what drives evolution.
I'm still discussing survival of a human species, not individuals. At one point in our sapiens evolution it us thought we were down to 10,000 individuals, but the species grew larger in numbers and survived. It is called the 'bottleneck'. And I don't know why God took so long. Your question to me is totally unreasonable. My simple answer is He preposed evolving each step. That is obvious from the history .
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
dhw: You leap from one subject to another! […] And now, as your grand finale, you switch the whole argument to our being special. Yes, we are special. That doesn’t make us the be-all and end-all of life on Earth. Nor does it prove that survivability is a minor issue, or no issue at all. Nor does it explain why your God took billions of years to produce the one thing he wanted to produce. And the 270,000 year gap is a non-issue.
DAVID: I'm still discussing survival of a human species, not individuals. At one point in our sapiens evolution it us thought we were down to 10,000 individuals, but the species grew larger in numbers and survived. It is called the 'bottleneck'. And I don't know why God took so long. Your question to me is totally unreasonable. My simple answer is He preposed evolving each step. That is obvious from the history .
You have forgotten what triggered this discussion. Here is the starting point:
DAVID: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
We have agreed ad nauseam that no multicellular life forms were “necessary”, since bacteria have survived since the year dot. You have now at last agreed that improvement goes “hand in hand” with complexity, but you seem to think that once an organism is more complex, it doesn’t need to survive! Survival is always the first priority, for humans as for every other organism. And improving the chances of survival are anything but a minor issue. If you wish to confine the discussion to the human species, you said survival was of no issue at all, and yet you tell us that throughout the millions of years of our evolution, until a mere 30,000 years ago, all our innovations (tools, weapons, clothing, use of fire) served no purpose except to ensure or improve SURVIVAL. So once again, how can you claim that survivability was of no issue?
If it’s reasonable for you to ask why sapiens took so long to use his newly enlarged brain, it can hardly be unreasonable to ask why your God took so long to fulfil his sole purpose of producing sapiens’ brain? (Both ask: why the “gap”?) I don’t know what you mean by “prepose” here, but I presume it amounts to saying that was what he wanted to do, which really isn’t much of an explanation, is it? I have offered you several theistic reasons in the past: he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose; he was experimenting; he didn’t think of sapiens till late on; producing sapiens was NOT his one and only purpose. All of them fit in with the “history”. You reject them all, and prefer the answer that God has his reasons, but you can’t think what they might be.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Monday, February 05, 2018, 18:11 (2484 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'm still discussing survival of a human species, not individuals. At one point in our sapiens evolution it us thought we were down to 10,000 individuals, but the species grew larger in numbers and survived. It is called the 'bottleneck'. And I don't know why God took so long. Your question to me is totally unreasonable. My simple answer is He preposed evolving each step. That is obvious from the history .
You have forgotten what triggered this discussion. Here is the starting point:
DAVID: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
dhw: We have agreed ad nauseam that no multicellular life forms were “necessary”, since bacteria have survived since the year dot. You have now at last agreed that improvement goes “hand in hand” with complexity, but you seem to think that once an organism is more complex, it doesn’t need to survive! Survival is always the first priority, for humans as for every other organism.
I can't seem to get you to the level of species survival, compared to individual survival. There are two levels to think about. Humans are overly complex for simple survival skills and as a result they have taken over the Earth and now are trying to help species on the edge to avoid extinction, which is the natural course of events in the past. Complexity did not help many species in the past from extinction, which is why complexity may or may not go 'hand in hand' with improvement, despite the truth in that complexity usually implies/supplies improvement. "Improvement' implies a human judgment is employed in determining if improvement is present. Complexity is obvious in and of itself.
dhw: And improving the chances of survival are anything but a minor issue. If you wish to confine the discussion to the human species, you said survival was of no issue at all, and yet you tell us that throughout the millions of years of our evolution, until a mere 30,000 years ago, all our innovations (tools, weapons, clothing, use of fire) served no purpose except to ensure or improve SURVIVAL. So once again, how can you claim that survivability was of no issue?
Again you are the level of individual survival, not species.
dhw: If it’s reasonable for you to ask why sapiens took so long to use his newly enlarged brain, it can hardly be unreasonable to ask why your God took so long to fulfil his sole purpose of producing sapiens’ brain? (Both ask: why the “gap”?)
God prefers to evolve in my view.
dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “prepose” here, but I presume it amounts to saying that was what he wanted to do, which really isn’t much of an explanation, is it?
The sentence was: "My simple answer is He preposed evolving each step." I know what I meant to type:" He prefers evolving each step".
dhw: I have offered you several theistic reasons in the past: he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose; he was experimenting; he didn’t think of sapiens till late on; producing sapiens was NOT his one and only purpose. All of them fit in with the “history”. You reject them all, and prefer the answer that God has his reasons, but you can’t think what they might be.
I've told you His purpose is reaching the complexity of the human brain and its ability to study His works to the extent that we can understand them. Karen Armstrong's opinion that the Quran is the most advanced study by humans of God, states that we learn about Him only through His works. Yhis is one of the key anchors of my thinking about God.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
DAVID: […] Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.
dhw: …you seem to think that once an organism is more complex, it doesn’t need to survive! Survival is always the first priority, for humans as for every other organism.
DAVID: I can't seem to get you to the level of species survival, compared to individual survival.
I can’t seem to get you to realize that species consist of varying numbers of individuals. Individuals die, but so long as other individuals survive, the species survives. The invention of tools, weapons, clothes, use of fire improved the survivability of the species erectus for one to two million years. Survivability was not a minor issue or “of no issue”.
DAVID: There are two levels to think about. Humans are overly complex for simple survival skills and as a result they have taken over the Earth and now are trying to help species on the edge to avoid extinction, which is the natural course of events in the past. Complexity did not help many species in the past from extinction, which is why complexity may or may not go 'hand in hand' with improvement, despite the truth in that complexity usually implies/supplies improvement. "Improvement' implies a human judgment is employed in determining if improvement is present. Complexity is obvious in and of itself.
Some humans are trying to prevent species from dying out by ensuring that there are enough individuals left to keep the species going. Most humans are either indifferent or are actively engaged in activities that will cause extinction. I have no idea why you have raised this point. I agree with most of what you say about “improvement”, but one must always remember that an improvement in Year F may be of no use when conditions change in Year K.
dhw: If it’s reasonable for you to ask why sapiens took so long to use his newly enlarged brain, it can hardly be unreasonable to ask why your God took so long to fulfil his sole purpose of producing sapiens’ brain? (Both ask: why the “gap”?)
DAVID: [God] prefers evolving each step.
You obviously can’t find a reason beyond pretending you know God’s preferences. And yet you want a reason for the 270,000-year gap (which I have given you).
dhw: I have offered you several theistic reasons in the past: he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose; he was experimenting; he didn’t think of sapiens till late on; producing sapiens was NOT his one and only purpose. All of them fit in with the “history”. You reject them all, and prefer the answer that God has his reasons, but you can’t think what they might be.
DAVID: I've told you His purpose is reaching the complexity of the human brain and its ability to study His works to the extent that we can understand them. Karen Armstrong's opinion that the Quran is the most advanced study by humans of God, states that we learn about Him only through His works. Yhis is one of the key anchors of my thinking about God.
You’ve told us that he watches us with interest, wants a relationship with us, and wants us to solve the problems he sets us, but I must confess I’d forgotten this particular reading of his mind: he designed the weaverbird’s nest, and faffed around with all kinds of brains for millions of years, because he wanted a brain that would study his works. And he preferred this indirect route to achieving what he wanted, because he preferred it.
As for learning about God, if he exists, there are only two possible ways of doing so: one is revelation, and the other is by studying his works. I don’t know if you have had any revelations, but I myself am stuck with studying his works, and I find that their history is that of a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans, which might mean that his purpose was to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans. You find it more reasonable to suppose that he created the weaverbird’s nest and umpteen hominid/hominin brains because his sole purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, though you can’t actually think of a reason why he chose to do it this way other than that he chose to do it this way.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 18:52 (2483 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I can’t seem to get you to realize that species consist of varying numbers of individuals. Individuals die, but so long as other individuals survive, the species survives. The invention of tools, weapons, clothes, use of fire improved the survivability of the species erectus for one to two million years. Survivability was not a minor issue or “of no issue”.
Of course at the individual level erectus survived. They had all the skills they needed, but they couldn't advance beyond that until a bigger brain gave them new thought equipment to move forward.
DAVID: I've told you His purpose is reaching the complexity of the human brain and its ability to study His works to the extent that we can understand them. Karen Armstrong's opinion that the Quran is the most advanced study by humans of God, states that we learn about Him only through His works. Yhis is one of the key anchors of my thinking about God.
dhw: You’ve told us that he watches us with interest, wants a relationship with us, and wants us to solve the problems he sets us, but I must confess I’d forgotten this particular reading of his mind: he designed the weaverbird’s nest, and faffed around with all kinds of brains for millions of years, because he wanted a brain that would study his works. And he preferred this indirect route to achieving what he wanted, because he preferred it.
That is all we can tell from the history of evolution. You struggle to dig further. I prefer not to, since nothing I propose proves anything.
dhw: As for learning about God, if he exists, there are only two possible ways of doing so: one is revelation, and the other is by studying his works. I don’t know if you have had any revelations, but I myself am stuck with studying his works, and I find that their history is that of a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans, which might mean that his purpose was to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans. You find it more reasonable to suppose that he created the weaverbird’s nest and umpteen hominid/hominin brains because his sole purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, though you can’t actually think of a reason why he chose to do it this way other than that he chose to do it this way.
Exactly. I also look at works. No revelations. I'm sorry you are disappointed, but I can't dig any further. Your digging into the history describes what we see, nothing more.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
dhw: I can’t seem to get you to realize that species consist of varying numbers of individuals. Individuals die, but so long as other individuals survive, the species survives. The invention of tools, weapons, clothes, use of fire improved the survivability of the species erectus for one to two million years. Survivability was not a minor issue or “of no issue”.
DAVID: Of course at the individual level erectus survived. They had all the skills they needed, but they couldn't advance beyond that until a bigger brain gave them new thought equipment to move forward.
Species consist of individuals! If no individuals survive, the species is extinct! The brain as “thought equipment” is a neat term to support materialism. In case you’ve forgotten, dualists believe that thought comes from the soul and not the brain. See “big brain evolution”.
DAVID: I've told you His purpose is reaching the complexity of the human brain and its ability to study His works to the extent that we can understand them.
dhw: You’ve told us that he watches us with interest, wants a relationship with us, and wants us to solve the problems he sets us, but I must confess I’d forgotten this particular reading of his mind: he designed the weaverbird’s nest, and faffed around with all kinds of brains for millions of years, because he wanted a brain that would study his works. And he preferred this indirect route to achieving what he wanted, because he preferred it.
DAVID: That is all we can tell from the history of evolution. You struggle to dig further. I prefer not to, since nothing I propose proves anything.
There is no proof for any of the hypotheses, which is why they remain hypotheses. See below for “digging”.
dhw: As for learning about God, if he exists, there are only two possible ways of doing so: one is revelation, and the other is by studying his works. I don’t know if you have had any revelations, but I myself am stuck with studying his works, and I find that their history is that of a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans, which might mean that his purpose was to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans. You find it more reasonable to suppose that he created the weaverbird’s nest and umpteen hominid/hominin brains because his sole purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: Exactly. I also look at works. No revelations. I'm sorry you are disappointed, but I can't dig any further. Your digging into the history describes what we see, nothing more.
No disappointment as regards revelations. Looking at the works means describing what you see. You have dug deeper and concluded that what you see means that your God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so solely in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I suggest that your reluctance to dig deeper refers to this hypothesis, because you can’t find any logic in its workings other than “he preferred to do it this way”. I have dug deeper and have proposed a different hypothesis whose workings are completely logical.
Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 15:34 (2482 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course at the individual level erectus survived. They had all the skills they needed, but they couldn't advance beyond that until a bigger brain gave them new thought equipment to move forward.dhw: Species consist of individuals! If no individuals survive, the species is extinct! The brain as “thought equipment” is a neat term to support materialism. In case you’ve forgotten, dualists believe that thought comes from the soul and not the brain. See “big brain evolution”.
In life we cannot get to our s/s/c except by using our material brain. Dualism
dhw: As for learning about God, if he exists, there are only two possible ways of doing so: one is revelation, and the other is by studying his works. I don’t know if you have had any revelations, but I myself am stuck with studying his works, and I find that their history is that of a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans, which might mean that his purpose was to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of life, including humans. You find it more reasonable to suppose that he created the weaverbird’s nest and umpteen hominid/hominin brains because his sole purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.DAVID: Exactly. I also look at works. No revelations. I'm sorry you are disappointed, but I can't dig any further. Your digging into the history describes what we see, nothing more.
dhw: No disappointment as regards revelations. Looking at the works means describing what you see. You have dug deeper and concluded that what you see means that your God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so solely in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I suggest that your reluctance to dig deeper refers to this hypothesis, because you can’t find any logic in its workings other than “he preferred to do it this way”. I have dug deeper and have proposed a different hypothesis whose workings are completely logical.
All of which tries to understand God from a humanizing standpoint. I'll stick with Adler as recognizing that impossibility.
Chimps \'r\' not us: anatomic locomotion differences
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 18:12 (2441 days ago) @ David Turell
Apes and chimps knuckle walk because of their heavy shoulder arm size for climbing. We walk upright in part because of our springy arched feet:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-humans-knuckle-walkers.html
"Researchers at Case Western Reserve University have cracked the evolutionary mystery of why chimpanzees and gorillas walk on their knuckles: The short explanation is that these African apes climb trees and they are mobile on the ground.
"Their bodies—more specifically, their hands—represent a compromise adaptation allowing both forms of travel.
***
"Latimer said much of the research ties anatomy with its relationship to Newton's laws of motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
"'When you walk, there's a reaction from the ground pushing up," he said. "Chimps and gorillas are large bodied animals and, as a consequence, they have trouble dissipating all that ground reaction energy."
"This is especially true given the anatomical adaptations they have for climbing, Latimer said.
"'In running humans, these reaction forces, can be multiples of body weight on a single supporting foot," he said. "That's why we have a uniquely human adaptation the arch in our foot—it's a shock absorber."
"This also why the old saw rings true that people with flat feet can't join the infantry, Latimer said. "Without the shock absorbing properties of the arch, long marches would result in damage to the bones of the foot and ankle."
"In chimps and gorillas, climbing adaptations don't allow them to walk upright. They have long arms, short legs, stiff backs and cone shaped torsos.
"Their triangle-shaped torsos allows for better rotation at the shoulder which also serves as a shock dissipater during knuckle walking, according to the research. In addition, chimps and gorillas also utilize their forearm muscles for climbing and for impact absorption when on the ground.
"'Clearly, when humans stood up, we completely forfeited the use of our upper limbs for locomotion," Latimer said."
Comment: To because us in six million years it took enormous changes with a series of beneficial mutations in rapid sequence. Obviously it required design.
Chimps \'r\' not us: an endurance gene for running
by David Turell , Thursday, September 20, 2018, 21:46 (2257 days ago) @ David Turell
We have a gene unlike a chimp gene, about three million years old, that gives our muscles the ability to run long distances and wear down animals so they stop and we kill them:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/broken-gene-may-have-turned-our-ancestors-marath...
"Despite our couch potato lifestyles, long-distance running is in our genes. A new study in mice pinpoints how a stretch of DNA likely turned our ancestors into marathoners, giving us the endurance to conquer territory, evade predators, and eventually dominate the planet.
***
"Human ancestors first distinguished themselves from other primates by their unusual way of hunting prey. Instead of depending on a quick spurt of energy—like a cheetah—they simply outlasted antelopes and other escaping animals, chasing them until they were too exhausted to keep running. This ability would have become especially useful as the climate changed 3 million years ago, and forested areas of Africa dried up and became savannas. Lieberman and others have identified skeletal changes that helped make such long-distance running possible, like longer legs. Others have also proposed that our ancestors’ loss of fur and expansion of sweat glands helped keep these runners cool.
"Some clues came 20 years ago, when Ajit Varki, a physician-scientist at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and colleagues unearthed one of the first genetic differences between humans and chimps: a gene called CMP-Neu5Ac Hydroxylase (CMAH). Other primates have this gene, which helps build a sugar molecule called sialic acid that sits on cell surfaces. But humans have a broken version of CMAH, so they don’t make this sugar, the team reported. Since then, Varki has implicated sialic acid in inflammation and resistance to malaria.
"In the new study, Varki’s team explored whether CMAH has any impact on muscles and running ability, in part because mice bred with a muscular dystrophy–like syndrome get worse when they don’t have this gene. UCSD graduate student Jonathan Okerblom put mice with a normal and broken version of CMAH (akin to the human version) on small treadmills. UCSD physiologist Ellen Breen closely examined their leg muscles before and after running different distances, some after 2 weeks and some after 1 month.
"After training, the mice with the human version of the CMAH gene ran 12% faster and 20% longer than the other mice, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. “Nike would pay a lot of money” for that kind of increase in performance in their sponsored athletes, Lieberman says.
"The team discovered that the “humanized” mice had more tiny blood vessels branching into their leg muscles, and—even when isolated in a dish—the muscles kept contracting much longer than those from the other mice. The humanlike mouse muscles used oxygen more efficiently as well. But the researchers still have no idea how the sugar molecule affects endurance, as it serves many functions in a cell.
"Similar improvements probably benefitted our human ancestors, says Andrew Best, a biological anthropology graduate student at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) in Amherst, who was not involved with the work. Varki’s team calculated that this genetic change happened 2 million to 3 million years ago, based on the genetic differences among primates and other animals."
Comment: This is a perfect example of how God might have stepped in and dabbled to improve human evolution and survival. Just one gene is altered. The work is in mice, but more than likely translates to humans.
Chimps \'r\' not us: brain DNA expression
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 22:01 (1439 days ago) @ David Turell
New studies of this effect:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201216085039.htm
"With only 1 percent difference, the human and chimpanzee protein-coding genomes are remarkably similar. Understanding the biological features that make us human is part of a fascinating and intensely debated line of research. Researchers have developed a new approach to pinpoint adaptive human-specific changes in the way genes are regulated in the brain.
***
"To explain what sets human apart from their ape relatives, researchers have long hypothesized that it is not so much the DNA sequence, but rather the regulation of the genes (i.e. when, where and how strongly the gene is expressed), that plays the key role. However, precisely pinpointing the regulatory elements which act as 'gene dimmers' and are positively selected is a challenging task that has thus far defeated researchers (see box).
"Marc Robinson-Rechavi, Group Leader at SIB and study co-author says: "To be able to answer such tantalizing questions, one has to be able identify the parts in the genome that have been under so called 'positive' selection [see box]. The answer is of great interest in addressing evolutionary questions, but also, ultimately, could help biomedical research as it offers a mechanistic view of how genes function."
"Researchers at SIB and the University of Lausanne have developed a new method which has enabled them to identify a large set of gene regulatory regions in the brain, selected throughout human evolution. Jialin Liu, Postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study explains: "We show for the first time that the human brain has experienced a particularly high level of positive selection, as compared to the stomach or heart for instance. This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"
"To reach their conclusions, the two researchers combined machine learning models with experimental data on how strongly proteins involved in gene regulation bind to their regulatory sequences in different tissues, and then performed evolutionary comparisons between human, chimpanzee and gorilla. "We now know which are the positively selected regions controlling gene expression in the human brain. And the more we learn about the genes they are controlling, the more complete our understanding of cognition and evolution, and the more scope there will be to act on that understanding," concludes Marc Robinson-Rechavi."
Comment: it has been obvious that we are very different from chimps despite the one percent DNA difference in coding bases. It is in 3-D relationships and gene expression controls in the non-coding areas. In teh past I have put here an estimate that the real difference approaches 20%.
https://www.agnosticweb.com/%22http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/...
Chimps \'r\' not us: 3-D DNA shows vast differences
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 19:35 (1377 days ago) @ David Turell
About 30% different:
https://www.icr.org/article/human-genome-radically-different-from-chimp
"...a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse.
***
"One of the best ways to empirically understand the 3-D configuration of chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell is to define topologically associating domains (TADs) in the DNA sequence. TADs are characterized as regions whose DNA sequences preferentially contact and interact with each other in association with specific cell types and biological functions.
***
"One important aspect of 3-D genome structure has to do with the epigenetic modification of proteins called histones that the DNA is wrapped around. A 2011 study showed that a specific type of histone modification had only about a 70% overlap or similarity between humans and chimps.4 Remarkably, another study in 2012 showed that humans had about a 70% similarity for the same feature with mice.5 In other words, humans were as different to mice as they were to chimps for this particular genome conformation metric.
***
"They found that in comparing humans and chimps, “only ~43% of TADs conserved [similar] between these species, but across many different parameters (e.g., resolution, window size, genome assembly) and different downstream analysis decisions, no more than 78% of domains and 83% of TAD boundaries were found to be shared between humans and chimpanzees.”
***
"This new study, along with many others, is continuing to debunk evolution and confirm the uniqueness of the human genome. For example, previous research by this author has shown that the human and chimp genomes are no more than 85% similar, and it’s likely the final findings will be far less than that."
Comment: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.
Chimps \'r\' not us: 3-D DNA shows vast differences
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 22:04 (1348 days ago) @ David Turell
New study demonstrates more differences in DNA genes:
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-technique-reveals-genes-underlying-human.html
"Through two separate sets of experiments with this technique, the researchers discovered new genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. They found a significant disparity in the expression of the gene SSTR2—which modulates the activity of neurons in the cerebral cortex and has been linked, in humans, to certain neuropsychiatric diseases such as Alzheimer's dementia and schizophrenia—and the gene EVC2, which is related to facial shape. The results were published March 17 in Nature and Nature Genetics, respectively.
***
"The Fraser lab is particularly interested in how the genetics of humans and other primates compare at the level of cis-regulatory elements, which affect the expression of nearby genes (located on the same DNA molecule, or chromosome). The alternative—called trans-regulatory factors—can regulate the expression of distant genes on other chromosomes elsewhere in the genome. Due to their broad effects, trans-regulatory factors (such as proteins) are less likely to differ among closely related species than cis-regulatory elements."
Comment: Before genetic studies were so accurate, it was estimated and presented here, the difference is chimps and we are about 79% similar in expressed gene activity.
Chimps \'r\' not us: documentary about Lucy human raised
by David Turell , Monday, April 19, 2021, 20:12 (1315 days ago) @ David Turell
It didn't work:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274938-lucy-the-human-chimp-review-the-ape-that-w...
"Lucy, the Human Chimp, a new TV documentary from KEO Films and Channel 4, explores the meeting of those worlds through the story of one unique relationship: that between Lucy, a chimpanzee raised as a human, and Janis Carter, a graduate student hired to clean her cage. Through the late 1960s, Lucy was the subject of a high-profile study by psychologists Maurice and Jane Temerlin, ostensibly to explore the limits of nature versus nurture.
"The Temerlins brought Lucy up in their home more or less as though she was a human child, to the point of teaching her to dress herself, eat with silverware and even fix a gin and tonic. Primatologist Roger Fouts, whose success teaching a chimp named Washoe a form of American Sign Language was heavily publicised in 1970, likewise taught Lucy a vocabulary of around 100 signs (though the extent of apes’ comprehension of signing remains disputed).
"Eventually, the Temerlins came to regard the chimp as their daughter. Much has been made of Lucy’s story, including an episode of the acclaimed Radiolab podcast. Lucy, the Human Chimp, written and directed by Alex Parkinson, puts forward Carter to share what happened next.
"Carter had been a 25-year-old psychology student within the University of Oklahoma’s chimp research project when, in 1976, she answered the Temerlins’ advertisement for a part-time carer for Lucy. After a frosty start – Carter remembers the chimp as “arrogant, and very condescending” about her poor comprehension of sign language – the two forged a close bond. But the adolescent chimp increasingly posed a threat to her human family, and was confined to a cage.
"In 1977, the Temerlins decided to take 12-year-old Lucy to Gambia to be taught how to live in the wild; Carter went along to help. For her, a trip of a few weeks turned into years as Lucy struggled to adjust to life as a chimp. From 1979, she lived for nearly seven years on an otherwise uninhabited island in the Gambia river, alongside Lucy and a small troupe of orphaned and captive chimps. Carter left the island only after a young male attacked her in 1985, supplanting her as leader.
"More so than might be inferred from its title, the focus of Parkinson’s film is on Carter and her relationship with Lucy, as told by Carter herself. An interview with Jane Temerlin and re-enactments by actors (based on first-hand accounts) provide some context, but little by way of critical distance.
"Carter’s decades-long dedication to protecting Lucy – and now her species, as director of the Chimpanzee Rehabilitation Project in Gambia – is, without a doubt, remarkable. But Parkinson’s film doesn’t interrogate a view that Lucy, having been born and raised in captivity, was never a suitable candidate for rehabilitation and release into the wild, and suffered in the attempt.
***
"Just as Lucy was raised a human, Carter lived as a chimp. But, after the best part of a decade, she had to extract herself and return to her own kind. She says: “I couldn’t live in both worlds.'”
Comment: It is a giant gap and real domestication doesn't work
Chimps \'r\' not us: brain gentics very different
by David Turell , Saturday, October 09, 2021, 23:38 (1142 days ago) @ David Turell
Non-coding DNA reveals large differences:
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-human-overlooked-dna.html
"Our DNA is very similar to that of the chimpanzee, which in evolutionary terms is our closest living relative. Stem cell researchers at Lund University in Sweden have now found a previously overlooked part of our DNA, so-called non-coded DNA, that appears to contribute to a difference which, despite all our similarities, may explain why our brains work differently. The study is published in the journal Cell Stem Cell.
"In a new study, stem cell researchers at Lund examined what it is in our DNA that makes human and chimpanzee brains different—and they have found answers.
"'Instead of studying living humans and chimpanzees, we used stem cells grown in a lab. The stem cells were reprogrammed from skin cells by our partners in Germany, the U.S. and Japan. Then we examined the stem cells that we had developed into brain cells," explains Johan Jakobsson, professor of neuroscience at Lund University, who led the study.
"Using the stem cells, the researchers specifically grew brain cells from humans and chimpanzees and compared the two cell types. The researchers then found that humans and chimpanzees use a part of their DNA in different ways, which appears to play a considerable role in the development of our brains.
"'The part of our DNA identified as different was unexpected. It was a so-called structural variant of DNA that were previously called "junk DNA," a long repetitive DNA string which has long been deemed to have no function. Previously, researchers have looked for answers in the part of the DNA where the protein-producing genes are—which only makes up about two percent of our entire DNA—and examined the proteins themselves to find examples of differences."
"The new findings thus indicate that the differences appear to lie outside the protein-coding genes in what has been labeled as "junk DNA," which was thought to have no function and which constitutes the majority of our DNA.
"'This suggests that the basis for the human brain's evolution are genetic mechanisms that are probably a lot more complex than previously thought, as it was supposed that the answer was in those two percent of the genetic DNA. Our results indicate that what has been significant for the brain's development is instead perhaps hidden in the overlooked 98 percent, which appears to be important. This is a surprising finding.'"
Comment: no surprise considering the differences in brain function. Another study that kills 'junk DNA'. It is obvious most DNA has important function, removing any last evidence that DNA appeared from random chance mutations. So complex it had to be designed.
Chimps \'r\' not us: brain genetics very different
by David Turell , Monday, October 18, 2021, 15:22 (1133 days ago) @ David Turell
Another review of the study:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/17/no-signs-of-a-climate-emergency-for-w-hudson-bay...
"In a new study, stem cell scientists at the Lund University, Sweden, explore the role of non-coding regions of the genome—previously deemed to be functionless “junk” DNA—and find humans and chimpanzees use a part of their non-coding DNA in different ways. This they claim affects how and when the human brain develops.
"Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. Despite significant similarities in our DNA and few differences in our protein-coding genes, the human forebrain is larger and more complex than that of the chimpanzee.
***
"In the new study, the researchers have discovered a transcription regulating protein called ZNF558 that is expressed in the human but not chimpanzee forebrain neural progenitor cells. Originally, about 100 million years ago, ZNF558, evolved to regulate the expression of a family of transposable elements, but now it regulates a gene called SPATA18 that regulates the selective dismantling of mitochondria.
"The expression of ZNF558 itself is regulated by the size of a non-coding structural element in DNA called a VNTR, short for variable number tandem repeat that is longer in chimpanzees than in humans. VNTRs, also called minisatellites, are families of DNA sequences where a short nucleotide sequence is consecutively repeated, with variations in length between individuals."
Comment: Why should a gene and non-coding DNA that eventually makes us, have appeared way before us at 100 million years ago? Luck or God's purpose?
Chimps \'r\' not us: they are better in some ways
by David Turell , Saturday, March 04, 2023, 20:52 (631 days ago) @ David Turell
Recent better studies:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2023/03/04/the_cognitive_tests_in_which_humans_lo...
"Though humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, we regularly shrug off the biological similarity with a haughty air of superiority, confident that our cognitive abilities — endowed by a brain three times larger, with 14 billion more neurons — firmly trounce theirs.
"We shouldn’t be so sure.
True, chimpanzees have yet to master flight, manufacture semiconductors, or cure a disease, but there are a number of basic cognitive tasks where, in a battle between human and ape, they come out on top.
"For example, in a 2014 study, scientists at the Kyoto University Primate Research Institute pitted pairs of humans and pairs of chimpanzees against each other in a competitive game. A chimp would sit down with another chimp and play a basic strategy game, essentially a variation of “Rock, Paper, Scissors,” in which each player would have to learn from the other’s past moves to predict what their competitor would do next. Ultimately, an ideal game develops an optimal pattern predicted by game theory, in which each player makes the most strategic choice possible. The researchers found that chimpanzees would reach this “equilibrium” well before humans. Considering that chimpanzee society tends to be competitive while human society is often more collaborative, it makes sense that chimps would have an edge in rudimentary competitive strategizing.
"Another test in which chimpanzees top humans — in this case, four- and eight-year-olds — is called the inaccessible peanut task. Here, kids and chimps simply face the conundrum of a peanut or treat placed at the bottom of a vertical transparent tube that’s locked in place. The treat can’t be shaken or dumped out, and it’s inaccessible by reaching in with a finger. When tested at the Yerkes Primate Center in Georgia, chimpanzees quickly learned to fill their mouth with water from the nearby drinking fountain and spit it into the tube, raising the peanut to the surface. Only half of the eight-year-olds and less than one tenth of the 4-year-olds figured out this solution.
"A third study, conducted all the way back in 2007, showcases chimpanzees’ commanding edge over humans in working memory, the ability to quickly remember information and apply it soon thereafter. Both chimpanzee and human subjects played a game in which they were displayed the numbers one through nine on a screen in varying locations. When a player hit the number one, all the other numbers were replaced with blank boxes. Then the player had to click the remaining boxes in the order of their prior numbers.
"The chimpanzees and humans were equally accurate, but the chimps were far faster at completing the task. Moreover, even with six months of training, students couldn’t catch up to the chimps.
***
"Perhaps this bias is why, as a team of researchers argued in a 2017 paper, studies comparing human and ape cognition have for decades been methodologically biased against apes. “All direct ape-human comparisons that have reported human superiority in cognitive function have universally failed to match the groups on testing environment, test preparation, sampling protocols, and test procedures,” they wrote.
"For example, historically, apes have been tested through bars, while humans understandably have not. Research apes also have been been deprived of similar social interactions that humans are exposed to, potentially stunting their abilities. Physical testing procedures in the studies themselves also differed between the species, favoring humans.
"The takeaway? The scientific literature is almost certainly underestimating the cognitive abilities of chimpanzees and other apes compared to our own. In the near future, we may learn of new mental realms where chimpanzees rule."
Comment: an excellent point.
Chimps \'r\' not us: They can perceive alternatives
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 16:38 (522 days ago) @ David Turell
A recent study:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2379077-chimpanzees-can-prepare-for-alternative-fu...
"We are no longer the only animal known to think ahead and prepare for two possible futures – chimps can do it too.
"If you are unsure whether it will be sunny or raining later, you might grab sunscreen and an umbrella before you leave home. This ability to consider different eventualities, known as modal reasoning, is essential to human cognition.
***
"Working at Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda, where the animals can roam in 95 acres of forest, the researchers put individual chimps in front of two tilting platforms, each with a piece of food on it. The first version of the experiment used an opaque cylindrical tube above one of the platforms, through which the team would drop a rock.
"If the chimpanzee didn’t intervene, the food would fall, but if it stabilised the platform with its hands, it was given the food as a reward. In this scenario, the 15 chimpanzees only stabilised the platform they knew the rock would hit.
"The second experiment used an opaque inverted Y-shaped tube with an exit above each platform. Not knowing which platform the rock was going to hit meant the chimpanzees behaved differently. Thirteen of the 15 were more likely to cover their bases and steady both platforms to protect both pieces of food.
“'To my knowledge, they’re the first [non-human] animals who demonstrate competence in a task measuring the representation of alternative possibilities,” says Engelmann.
Some evidence suggests that children aged between 1 and 2.5 years can consider mutually exclusive outcomes, says team member Mariel Goddu at Harvard University. But there are researchers who argue that these abilities don’t develop until the age of 4, when children are able to talk about multiple possibilities. The chimpanzee findings support the earlier age range, showing that this ability may not be dependent on language, she says.
“'The representation of alternative possibilities is fundamental to many cognitive capacities that humans are proud of, like creativity and morality,” says Engelmann. “It’s quite exciting to think that there might be an evolutionary history to this ability as well.'”
Comment: A well-thought-out study. Certainly alternatives can appear in the Chimps simple lives.
Chimps \'r\' not us: shoulder development
by David Turell , Thursday, September 07, 2023, 21:48 (444 days ago) @ David Turell
Our shoulders appear in Chimp's evolution:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/09/230905202500.htm
"Researchers report that the flexible shoulders and elbows that allow us to throw a football or reach a high shelf may have evolved as a natural braking system that let our primate ancestors get out of trees without dying. The researchers used sports-analysis software to compare the climbing movements of chimpanzees and small monkeys called mangabeys. While the animals climb up trees similarly, the researchers found that the shallow, rounded shoulder joints and shortened elbow bones that chimps have -- similar to humans -- allow them to fully extend their arms above their heads when climbing down, holding onto branches like a person going down a ladder to support their greater weight. When early humans left forests for the grassy savanna, these versatile appendages would have been essential for gathering food and using tools for hunting and defense. The findings are among the first to identify the significance of 'downclimbing' in the evolution of apes and early humans.
***
"The researchers used sports-analysis and statistical software to compare videos and still-frames they took of chimpanzees and small monkeys called mangabeys climbing in the wild. They found that chimps and mangabeys scaled trees similarly, with shoulders and elbows mostly bent close to the body. When climbing down, however, chimpanzees extended their arms above their heads to hold onto branches like a person going down a ladder as their greater weight pulled them downward rump-first.
***
"'Getting out of a tree presents all kinds of new challenges. Big apes can't afford to fall because it could kill or badly injure them. Natural selection would have favored those anatomies that allowed them to descend safely."
"Flexible shoulders and elbows passed on from ancestral apes would have allowed early humans such as Australopithecus to climb trees at night for safety and come down in the daylight unscathed, DeSilva said. Once Homo erectus could use fire to protect itself from nocturnal predators, the human form took on broader shoulders capable of a 90-degree angle that -- combined with free-moving shoulders and elbows -- made our ancestors excellent shots with a spear (apes cannot throw accurately).
***
"Mangabeys and other monkeys are built more like quadrupedal animals such as cats and dogs, with deep pear-shaped shoulder sockets and elbows with a protruding olecranon process that make the joint resemble the letter L. While these joints are more stable, they have a much more limited flexibility and range of movement.
"The researchers' analysis showed that the angle of a chimp's shoulders was 14 degrees greater during descent than when climbing up. And their arm extended outward at the elbow 34 degrees more when coming down from a tree than going up. The angles at which mangabeys positioned their shoulders and elbows were only marginally different -- 4 degrees or less -- when they were ascending a tree versus downclimbing.
"'If cats could talk, they would tell you that climbing down is trickier than climbing up and many human rock climbers would agree. But the question is why is it so hard," said study co-author Nathaniel Dominy, the Charles Hansen Professor of Anthropology and Fannin's adviser.
"'The reason is that you're not only resisting the pull of gravity, but you also have to decelerate," Dominy said. "Our study is important for tackling a theoretical problem with formal measurements of how wild primates climb up and down. We found important differences between monkeys and chimpanzees that may explain why the shoulders and elbows of apes evolved greater flexibility.'"
Comment: written in Darwin-speak this study could easily be seen as a designer preparing for the amazing agility of humans.
Chimps \'r\' not us
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 14, 2012, 23:07 (4546 days ago) @ David Turell
And this article offers copious proof. Dogs and some corvids are smarter. Chimps don't even have our larnyx. But aren't their fingers and toes just like us? And they are sort of upright in stature. > > http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo21/a-sound-barrier-why-chimps-arent-talking.php-G... speaking, EVERY book I've ever read about the evolution/creationism debate makes the same statement that "We are not saying we're descended FROM chimps, but that we share a common ancestor..."-So I don't see what the fuss is about... except that some creationists don't read! -Ba-da boom!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"