Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct
From: EKurtz99 (EKurtz99_at_TwilightZone.com)
Date: 12/29/04
- Next message: EKurtz99: "'Pseudo-Relatives' Serve No Evolutionary Purpose, Scientist Says"
- Previous message: deowll: "Re: Evolution and other planets"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:09:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote
> University of Chicago researchers now concur that human evolution is
> categorically distinct:
You mean they have finally come to their senses and agreed with you?
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uocm-uoc122304.php
> University of Chicago researchers discovered that humans are a
> 'privileged' evolutionary lineage
snip
> "Humans evolved their cognitive abilities not due to a few accidental
> mutations, but rather, from an enormous number of mutations acquired
> though exceptionally intense selection favoring more complex cognitive
> abilities," said lead scientist Bruce Lahn, an assistant professor of
> human genetics at the University of Chicago and an investigator at the
> Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Who believes otherwise?
>>From a genetic point of view, some scientists thought that human
> evolution might be a recapitulation of the typical molecular
> evolutionary process, he said. For example, the evolution of the larger
> brain might be due to the same processes that led to the evolution of a
> larger antler or a longer tusk.
Who believes such nonsense?
> "We've proven that there is a big distinction. Human evolution is, in
> fact, a privileged process because it involves a large number of
> mutations in a large number of genes," Lahn said. "To accomplish so
> much in so little evolutionary time - a few tens of millions of years
> - requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically
> different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological
> traits."
snip
> According to Lahn, data from the Cell paper secures humans' privileged
> position in the evolutionary tree. "Human brain evolution required a
> major overhaul of the genetic blueprint -- perhaps much more so than
> the evolution of other biological traits," he said.
Maybe, maybe not. Do we know whether the same intensity of adaptive mutation
was involved in the development of the senses and stealth of the cat? No, we
don't. In the toughness and stamina of the wolf? No, we don't. In the flight
control of the hummingbird or the kingfisher? No, again.
> But how did human ancestors encounter an environment where selection
> for better brains suddenly became such a prominent force? Lahn suggests
> that because humans have become a progressively more social species,
> greater cognitive abilities have become more of an advantage.
>
> "As humans become more social, differences in intelligence will
> translate into much greater differences in fitness," he said, "because
> you can manipulate your social structure to your advantage.
Ah, a "Just So" story. So the driving force was social. But Homo erectus was
social, and was around for 2 million years with no dramatic increase in
encephalization.
> "Even devoid of the social context, as humans become more intelligent,
> it might create a situation where being a little smarter matters a lot.
Ah, another story; this time it's individual cognitive advantage distinct
from social advantage. So why the previous explanation? Because Lahn, like
everyone else on the planet, has no idea where human cognitive abilities
came from.
> "The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological
> equivalent of making a large antler.
Again - who believes that big brains are the human equivalent of big
antlers?
> Rather, it required a level of
> selection that's unprecedented,"
...unprecedented when you compare it to rats and mice.
> Lahn said. "Our study offers the first
> genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of
> life. Simply put, evolution has been working very hard to produce us
> humans."
There is no such person as evolution.
If you wish to make the case for human exceptionalism (and I would), you
have to do it by looking at the behavioral phenotypes that set us apart -
cognitive ability, curiosity, response to art, complexity of language,
ability to create complex civilizations.
- Next message: EKurtz99: "'Pseudo-Relatives' Serve No Evolutionary Purpose, Scientist Says"
- Previous message: deowll: "Re: Evolution and other planets"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
