Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
humans smart because of genetic defect?
- Thread starter zimv20
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
Isn't the idea of evolution kind of that there aren't genetic faults, just successful and unsuccessful variations (well, perhaps I'm overstating the case).
Isn't the idea of evolution kind of that there aren't genetic faults, just successful and unsuccessful variations (well, perhaps I'm overstating the case).
not to surprising. I saw a study that said that the brains convoluted shape was due to tension between the eyeballs and the occipital lobe during development. There is so much of the body that works on feedback for development that it could simply be cutting back on the muscles increased brain size.
btu I hve a VERRY powrful jah!
On a side note, I have a genetic defect: a centromere inversion on my (I think) number 14 Y-chromosome (might be number 10 though, can't remember). Apparently no bad effects, though.
*Involuntarily Twitches*
On a side note, I have a genetic defect: a centromere inversion on my (I think) number 14 Y-chromosome (might be number 10 though, can't remember). Apparently no bad effects, though.
*Involuntarily Twitches*
Very interesting. Could explain why my lower teeth have been getting scrunched together as I got older. I've also seen this in many other people. I'd say most people.
Could also explain why wisdom teeth are removed too.
Could also explain why wisdom teeth are removed too.
"The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature (search), not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia."
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115107,00.html
Funny if the "biologists and plastic surgeons" turn out to be right, and the anthropologists are wrong...
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115107,00.html
Funny if the "biologists and plastic surgeons" turn out to be right, and the anthropologists are wrong...
miloblithe said:
You could look at it that way in a philosophical sense, but as I understand it, an incomplete or otherwise damaged gene can still be said to be flawed...it's just that a flaw can be a successful variation.
I have a theory that nature only selects for intelligence in the human species within a range of slightly above average or less. Basically the idea is that the truly brilliant, genius-level intellects are more likely to spend their time on discoveries and inventions and such, rather than raising families. On the other hand, those at the lower end of the intelligence scale are less likely to engage in family planning, resulting in many more children. This trend is also probably accelerating, at least in developed countries, because the time when everyone was expected to have as many children as possible is now past.
Or, as Harvey Danger so aptly if cruelly put it: "I looked around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding."
Nicely put rueyeet.
But genius does have its price. Genius is invariably linked to eccentricity. An unattractive trait to anyone. Would you want to mate with someone who is brilliant but capricious?
The term 'brilliantly impaired' wasn't coined for no reason. I just wish that education systems could learn to recognize people like this very early and harness their talents before latent neuroses may arise. But alas, education systems are meant to just educate the masses - "McDonalds education" I call it. Tasty and for everybody. Not cater to genius.
But genius does have its price. Genius is invariably linked to eccentricity. An unattractive trait to anyone. Would you want to mate with someone who is brilliant but capricious?
The term 'brilliantly impaired' wasn't coined for no reason. I just wish that education systems could learn to recognize people like this very early and harness their talents before latent neuroses may arise. But alas, education systems are meant to just educate the masses - "McDonalds education" I call it. Tasty and for everybody. Not cater to genius.
Why is it a defect? Its evolution and it is something that allowed us to survive, so I don't think it should be called something negative.
But its cool to show that there is a major contributing factor to humans getting bigger brains
D
But its cool to show that there is a major contributing factor to humans getting bigger brains
D
JesseJames said:
It goes beyond that. Children of engineers are 8 times as likely to be autistic and children of 2 engineers are are somewhere around 50 times as likely.
zimv20 said:
to get massively off topic, autism has had several things attributed to it over the years. One is that it is a disease of mainly the wealthy and well educated. The other is that it is an expression of extreme maleness. The engineer thing came out of who was most likely to approach the medical community and subsidize research for autism. In the 20th century, as the not the incidence of autism, but the awareness of it grew, it seemed to be a disease of the wealthy. More recently, it has been found to occur somewhat more indiscriminately. As for the extreme maleness aspect- more males have it than girls. autism society of america's website states:
as for the original topic, other studies have shown that other primate infants are born more advanced than human infants, but around age 2 i think, the similarity drops off, as human babies continue to grow, and primate babies, whose skulls seemed to have fused long before human infants' skulls do, really slow down in learning. The recent discovery of the gene is the 'why' aspect of the timing of skull fusing.
zimv20 said:
I think Wired. I know they had an article about it. There are a lot of similarities between "good" engineering thought processes and autistic behaviour. The discovery of Aspberger's syndrome suggests that autism is truly a disease of gradients where there is a continuum from normal to the full blown autistic who just sits and keens.
I know when I heard about the symptoms of Autism I saw a lot of similarities with myself.
Mr. Anderson said:Why is it a defect? Its evolution and it is something that allowed us to survive, so I don't think it should be called something negative.
But its cool to show that there is a major contributing factor to humans getting bigger brains
D
i was actually thinking about something like that the other day in school. isn't evolution just the progression and not a step backwards? although it's opinion, it's a good subject to think about.
Of course humans are smart because of a genetic defect. Based on theories of mutation and natural selection every trait in every animal is the result of a "genetic defect" somewhere along the line.
But just to be pedantic, it's only a "defect" in other animals. When we're talking about humans, its a defining characteristic, so it can't be considered a defect.
But just to be pedantic, it's only a "defect" in other animals. When we're talking about humans, its a defining characteristic, so it can't be considered a defect.
Forgive me but I had to say this - evolution is a bunch of donkey poo. I mean seriously, how on earth could everything fit together so well BY CHANCE? Test this by randomly dropping a bunch of toothpics on a table. Do they line up to make something? Of course not. Same goes here.
- iindigo
- iindigo
iindigo said:
Reasoning by anology is the ultimate in poor logic. Evolution does not state that dropping toothpicks on a table will lead to a lined up pattern.
Things don't fit together well by chance. It's millions of years of natural selection. Traits that help survival tend to be passed on; those that don't tend to be killed off. Given a great amount of time for all that to be sorted out, and things start to work together quite well. Oh, and while we're at it, all your emotions are just chemically and biologically induced. And there's no such thing as free will. So you really can't blame me if I hate so many people.
iindigo, all i have to say is this... drop those same toothpicks a few hundred billion times over the course of about 4 billion years, if theres still nothing then your post is valid, if not then dont talk. and either way, if you could see 4 billion years from now, you would see huge natural changes in the human race.
I'm also not entirely clear on the difference between a mutation and merely a change, but I think the point is that the change was drastic and sudden (something got screwed up in a generation), as opposed to gradual lean in one direction or another (like the 2.4 million years of evolution of larger brains after the sudden change that made it possible for those brains to get bigger).
No, like English, the construction of life built up over a very long period of building on existing things, trial, error, adjustment to current circumstances, and the occasional accident. It wasn't conciously planned to end up the way it did, but it's worked out quite well.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that there was no intelligent force behind the construction of the universe, or that humans are merely an accident--if there is an all-powerful being and you give it credit for the creation of all things, surely that being is capable of planning evolution so it produced interesting things as it moves along, or perhaps nudged it in the right direction on occasion.
Amusing analogy in how utterly unrelated it is. That's like saying "Do you really think the English language developed so effectively by chance? Test this by banging on your keyboard for a few minutes--do the characters make intelligible sentences? No!"iindigo said:
No, like English, the construction of life built up over a very long period of building on existing things, trial, error, adjustment to current circumstances, and the occasional accident. It wasn't conciously planned to end up the way it did, but it's worked out quite well.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that there was no intelligent force behind the construction of the universe, or that humans are merely an accident--if there is an all-powerful being and you give it credit for the creation of all things, surely that being is capable of planning evolution so it produced interesting things as it moves along, or perhaps nudged it in the right direction on occasion.