Gene Linked to Brain Boosting

I first struggled to find the "Challenge" in this post. Then it dawned upon the somewhat 2nd hand old brain - the challenge is how to BOOST it!

Right now, here in the Southern latitudes at about 18:30 local time, its time for a sundowner and I'll rather go and BOOZE it!

A very interesting article. I especially like the last quote in the article, from David Haussler, director of the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the University of California Santa Cruz:

"Something caused our brains to evolve to be much larger and have more functions than the brains of other mammals," he points out.

I have long believed that neither the pure evolutionist or the fanatical creationists were correct in explaining The Origin of Man.

Whether you believe in one God, many gods, a Supreme Being, The Force, or just advanced Space Aliens, it seems fairly certain now that something or someone was at work 5 million years ago that set one species of primates on the path to a higher level of intelligence that sets us apart from the apes.

Or was it just pure chance after all?

That something could have easily been a climate shift, a new predator, a new food source, basically anything, it doesn't have to be the force or aliens.

Roger,

I think you missed the point of the article. The things you mentioned, "climate shift, a new predator, a new food source, basically anything", are some of the normal causes of basic evolution. If there weren't such causes, there would be no evolution. Read again this section from the article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are only two changes in the 118 letters of DNA code that make up HAR1 between the genomes of chimps and chickens. But chimps and humans are 18 letter-changes apart. And those mutations occurred in just five million years, as we evolved from our shared ancestor.

"That is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard notes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note, there are only TWO differences in this particular DNA between chickens and chimps, but EIGHTEEN between chimps and man. That is almost one order of magnitude difference! Even the scientist said that is an INCREDIBLE amount of change. To me that says it is highly UN-likely that natural selection caused by changes in man's environment would cause such a difference. Would such a momentous change have also affected other closely related primates in much the same way? Why is the chimpanzee, our closest relative, still so very different? Why is a chimp's brain, at least in this area regarding intelligence, more like a chicken's than a man's?

You'll have to do better than that to convince me that there wasn't some other Force at work here besides environmental changes and natural selection.

BTW, although I am religious and believe in the Bible, I do believe in evolution. I do believe in a literal interpretation of some parts of the bible, just not the creation story. After all, Jesus made his points using stories and parables, and did not always come right out with straight shots. Like Father, like Son, I guess!

The story says there are only two differences for that Genome, not the DNA in general. For DNA in general, there are many differences between apes and chickens, and not so many between apes and man. What the article was saying is that the differences in the DNA between man and ape show up mostly in this particular genome which corresponds to brain functions. The genome didn't start to change until very recently (last 5MY). Usually for this to happen there is external environmental factors that make mutations of this genome favorable. The best example of this type of evolution that everyone has heard of is dwarfism. Species confined to a small habitat will grow smaller over the course of a couple of million years, since with less food around, it's better to be smaller. Quote: "You'll have to do better than that to convince me that there wasn't some other Force at work here besides environmental changes and natural selection."

I'm not going to try and convince you. It's as impossible to prove or disprove what you are saying as it is to prove whether ghosts or aliens exist.

I personally think that these scientists could better benefit themselves and those around them by investing the intellectual capital that God has blessed them with into something other than trying to prove that He doesn't exist. I would think that a scientist involved in genetic research would not squander all the time and work invested in studying their chosen field on such a fruitless pursuit. I'm sorry if the tone of this post sounds judgmental. It's not meant to be. It's only to encourage us open up the mind residing in that highly developed brain to it's only true purpose. Gloifying God.

Yea, ok. The only problem you have there is that evolution is based upon science. And God's existence is based upon...?? what? You can only expect people, especially scientists to doubt Him.

Evolutionary theory is based on speculation based on observation. Observation is a step in the scientific process which is followed by hypothesis. Following that, one sets off on research and experimentation to prove the theory. Ever since Darwin postulated his theory of evolution, science has been trying to prove the theory, and all the research continues to point the other way. Scientists with supposedly open and objective minds continue to ignore the evidence which refutes the evolutionary theory, and instead even go so far as to fabricate hoaxs to try to prove something which continues not to pan out. God's existence just is. It doesn't have to be proven, but just in case you need more evidence than what you find by opening your eyes and looking at the wonder of the world around you, there is ample evidence to be found in the field of archeaology. Thousands of ancient documents continue to be discovered which coroborate the truth of biblical texts. The field of geology also has things to add. The fossil record steadfastly yields no support whatsoever for the theory of man's origin through evolution. The truth is the truth. Acknowledge it and continue life in peace and understanding. Please, thoughtfully consider what I'm saying. Sooner or later every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Phillipians 2:9-11) The only question is: When do you want to do it, before you die or after you die? Your eternal destiny is determined by your answer to this simple question. Your fate is determined by what you believe. Make sure that what you believe is the truth.

FYI there are many great scientists alive today who reject evolution and believe in a creator. If you look at the evidence it really does weigh heavily in favor of creation. Can you give us some scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

For the record, this article has nothing to do with God. Scientists can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. That's the whole point. Just because someone believes in evolution does not make them an atheist. It just means they don't necessarily believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

For the record, you can't prove that this new research has nothing to do with God. On the other hand one cannot prove that it is evidence of God's handiwork, either, but it does fit a model that I will call Evolutionary Creationism.

Of course Scientists can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. If they could there would be no need for Faith and no shared love between God and Man. Faith is what sustains us through troubled times and ultimately brings us back to God.

But, in another sense you are right, this not a forum for religious discussions. Yet, we talk a lot of politics here and this is not a political forum either! (grin)

I don't care if religon comes up, I don't care if politics come up, as long as the science is not misinterpreted.

Can we discuss a fact of science and it's revelance to evolution? Natural selection is said to be involved in the evolutionary process. Do you realize that natural selection actually disproves macro-evolution? For natural selection to work then there must be information to select. Genes contain information. Pure and simple. The question that begs to be answered is 'where did all that information come from?' Anyone who works in the field of genetics knows that natural selection is only working with information that is already present. The 'ancestors' or 'predessessors' must have had tremendous genetic potential based on what we observe today. Logic cannot allow me to believe in evolution. Logic tells me all that information has an intellegent source. Evolution has not explained that source. The source has spoken. "In the beginning God created.." He made all the basic kinds of creatures we know today. All we see is the variation He progammed into those original kinds. I stand in awe of Him. May I suggest you do likewise. You really need to look at the facts carefully before you promote the idea of evolution. It just does not stand up to careful scrutiny, and it does not matter how many scientist say they believe it. Ultimately, you will answer for yourself.

Look, you don't know what your talkinga about. Do you know why it took billions of years for single celled organisms to evolve yet only half a billion years for animals containing trillions of cells to evolve? The answer is because cells are unbelievably delicate and complicated. Cells are tiny labortories where tons of reations take place. You speak vaguely about DNA, but do you even know what it is?, what it does?, how it works? How does DNA determine what we look like? You talk about stored information, there is no stored information in DNA. It is merely a molecule with certain characteristics. When you put that molecule in the correct environment, the DNA reacts in a predictable way. Take that DNA out of it's environment and it's worthless. It's just a molecule.

Roger, Apparently one of us does not know what they are talking about. To say that genes contain information seems to be the most obvious conclusion one can make. What am I missing? Is this just a matter of semantics? What you call 'characteristics' I call information. Is that it? Don't we speak of genetic code? Isn't any code a means of transmitting information? I am amazed that you would say DNA contains no stored information. To prove this by saying that taking it out of it's environment renders it worthless is not proof at all. We could cite many examples of information storage mediums that are useless out of their environment. (A CD is of no value without a CD player.) So, you really have to do much better if you're going to prove I'm the who does not know what he's talking about. Dr. Werner Gitt may have summed up the problem you are having in the preface of his classic book on information science when he wrote "Because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life. All efforts to explain life in terms of physics and chemistry only, will always be unsuccessful. This is the fundemental problem confronting present-day biology, which is based on evolution." Your posts present evolution as if it is a proven fact. This seems to be what's clouding your thinking.

Look, you want to prove you know what your talking about, tell me what DNA does. Tell me how traits are passed on by DNA. The actual physical process. When DNA is sitting in a cell, what is it doing? If you don't know the answer to that, you don't know what your talking about.

You speak of DNA at only the highest levels. What you know of DNA it is based on what you have been told, not any real understanding of the underlying mechanism (how it works). If you did you would understand you objections nonsensical.

I originally posted a reply because I took exception to your presentation of evolution as if it is a proven fact. My concern was that you were not giving credit to the actual designer. I presented what I beleive to be the strongest argument against evolutionary theory. I have studied this subject, but have never claimed to know as much as you ask above. I see nothing wrong with speaking about genetic material at a 'higher level' as you say. I do apologise for my impatience earlier, but I would still like to know more about your response regarding DNA not containing stored information since I've never heard that concept before now, and it is contary to what I have learned. If you would please expand on your earlier remarks it would help me understand where you're coming from. Thanks.

Fair enough. You seem sincere in your request so here goes.

The only way I know how to explain what I mean is to use an analogy. I'll use water. A water molecule consists of 2 Hydrogens and and Oxygen atom in a very particular shape (V Shaped). If you were to place 1000 of these water molecules in a container and lower the temperature below freezing, the water molecules align in a very predicable fashion, a crystal lattice (Ice). Now if you know the molecular structure of the water molecule, you could in theory predict what it's crystal lattice will look like. For water, there are like 14 different solid structures (depending on temperature), all of which can be predicted from the molecular structure. So does that mean that water holds all the information for the fourteen states of ice in its molecule? No not really. It just means that if you put the molecule in certain situations it will do cetain predicable things (Freeze it and it forms ice).

Now DNA is a much bigger, much more complicated molecule, but, it's still only a molecule. It's two polymers that spiral around each other and are glued together. Since the molecule is so big, sections of it can act almost as if they were independent of the entire thing, these sections are called genomes (genes). These sections will behave in certain predictable ways based on their molecular structure with their environment. Alter the structure slightly (mutation) and the result is the genome behaves differently. The point is that the DNA molecule is just doing what it does based on its structure, it isn't some computer that's holding information and passing it on, its a dumb molecule doing the predictable things it does in certain environments.

DNA is located in cells and cells are remarkably stable environments so it behaves in a predicable way most of the time. Take it out of the well regulated cell environment and it wouldn't do much at all. If a cell gets too cold or too warm, to salty or too acidic, to watery or to magnetic, the cell dies because the chemical reactions no longer work inside it.

So you see, a DNA molecule doesn't contain information any more than a water molecule or a CO2 molecule or any other molecule does. When scientists speak of information, they mean it in an abstract sense. Unfortunately people latch on to an idea they think they understand and extrapolate ridiculous conclusions. They then use these misconceived conclusions to refute the much more rigorous scientific facts. You seem like a reasonable guy (or girl) so I'm not trying to come down on you, but if you truly want to have an informed opinion, you need to be informed.

Evolution is real. Great leaps in evolution are real and happen. Many are small changes, but simple change to a specific gene can have some drastic changes. A gene that controls the production of proteins that control the production of neurons, lets just say, that gets changed to make more. In cellular production, this is an exponential growth for that protein which is in step an exponential growth for neuron production. I don't know alot about genetics, but I know a small step in evolution in one certain gene can create a Quantum Leap in Life as a whole.