November 13, 2009
Did a Gene Mutation Lead to Speech in Humans?
A speech gene is far different in humans than it is in
chimpanzees.
Did a Gene Mutation Lead to Speech in Humans?
A speech gene is far different in humans than it is in
chimpanzees.
SUMMARY: Scientists have identified a mutation in a gene they think might
explain why humans can talk but chimpanzees don't. While probably not the
only gene involved in speech and language, it does look and act differently in
chimps and humans, according to a report in the journal Nature.
Lab tests showed the human version of this gene-named FOXP2-regulates
more than 100 other genes differently from the chimp version. These scientists
think the mutation happened around the time humans developed the ability to
talk. "It's really playing a major role in chimp-human differences," said the
study's author, Daniel Geschwind, a professor of neurology, psychiatry and
human genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles. "You mutate this
gene in humans and you get a speech and language disorder." This tells you
"what may be happening in the brain."
People with a certain mutation can have subtle physical differences in the lower
jaw, the tongue and the roof of the mouth. Eventually, work on this gene and
others could perhaps lead to genetic treatments for some people with
developmental difficulties, such as autism, because it gives researchers targets.
Some experts warned about making too much of this finding. It is too early and
unclear what this discovery means for language and cognitive evolution,
according to Marc Hauser, a professor of human evolutionary biology at
Harvard. And the U. of Hawaii"s Derek Bickerton says the key question is "why
did we get language," not how, since every other species "gets along just fine
without it. We must have had some need that other species didn't have."
(The link to the original article has been broken.)
COMMENT: The main problem with this scenario is what mutations can and
cannot do. Mutations can delete information from the genetic code of an
organism but cannot add it. For instance, a fish can lose it eyesight and
even its eyes when it moves into a cave, but even if this change may prove
to be a modest advantage, it is still degeneration and not evolution. If some
worms who never had eyes were to come out of the ground and grow a pair
of peepers, that would be news.
A second problem, as explained by Derek Bickerton, is to explain why humans
saw the need for speech and language and supposedly somehow
miraculously mutated their genes to achieve it, but chimps didn't see a need
and were satisfied with their grunts and squeals. Indeed, in considering all the
numerous different species of organisms on earth, why is it only humans were
wise enough to "evolve" the powers of speech and language?
Kudos to the scientists for pointing out that humans are different from other
species. Calling humans animals is offensive to Bible-believing Christians,
even though admittedly some people may perhaps act like animals at times.
We not only were given the power of speech and language, we have creative
minds and a soul that makes us accountable to God for our actions. In answer
to Mr. Bickerton's musing on why humans alone have the power of speech, it
is to communicate with and praise the Lord. We have so much for which to
praise the Lord, especially the gift of salvation offered to us through the life
and death of Jesus Christ. As the hymn says:
Oh, that I had a thousand voices
To praise my God with thousand tongues!
My heart, which in the Lord rejoices,
Would then proclaim in grateful songs
To all, wherever I might be.
What great things God has done for me.
(Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal, Northwestern Publishing House,
1993.)
**************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
**************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Which bird has the largest wingspan?
**************************************************************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including
those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity
or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please
allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
**************************************************************************************
explain why humans can talk but chimpanzees don't. While probably not the
only gene involved in speech and language, it does look and act differently in
chimps and humans, according to a report in the journal Nature.
Lab tests showed the human version of this gene-named FOXP2-regulates
more than 100 other genes differently from the chimp version. These scientists
think the mutation happened around the time humans developed the ability to
talk. "It's really playing a major role in chimp-human differences," said the
study's author, Daniel Geschwind, a professor of neurology, psychiatry and
human genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles. "You mutate this
gene in humans and you get a speech and language disorder." This tells you
"what may be happening in the brain."
People with a certain mutation can have subtle physical differences in the lower
jaw, the tongue and the roof of the mouth. Eventually, work on this gene and
others could perhaps lead to genetic treatments for some people with
developmental difficulties, such as autism, because it gives researchers targets.
Some experts warned about making too much of this finding. It is too early and
unclear what this discovery means for language and cognitive evolution,
according to Marc Hauser, a professor of human evolutionary biology at
Harvard. And the U. of Hawaii"s Derek Bickerton says the key question is "why
did we get language," not how, since every other species "gets along just fine
without it. We must have had some need that other species didn't have."
(The link to the original article has been broken.)
COMMENT: The main problem with this scenario is what mutations can and
cannot do. Mutations can delete information from the genetic code of an
organism but cannot add it. For instance, a fish can lose it eyesight and
even its eyes when it moves into a cave, but even if this change may prove
to be a modest advantage, it is still degeneration and not evolution. If some
worms who never had eyes were to come out of the ground and grow a pair
of peepers, that would be news.
A second problem, as explained by Derek Bickerton, is to explain why humans
saw the need for speech and language and supposedly somehow
miraculously mutated their genes to achieve it, but chimps didn't see a need
and were satisfied with their grunts and squeals. Indeed, in considering all the
numerous different species of organisms on earth, why is it only humans were
wise enough to "evolve" the powers of speech and language?
Kudos to the scientists for pointing out that humans are different from other
species. Calling humans animals is offensive to Bible-believing Christians,
even though admittedly some people may perhaps act like animals at times.
We not only were given the power of speech and language, we have creative
minds and a soul that makes us accountable to God for our actions. In answer
to Mr. Bickerton's musing on why humans alone have the power of speech, it
is to communicate with and praise the Lord. We have so much for which to
praise the Lord, especially the gift of salvation offered to us through the life
and death of Jesus Christ. As the hymn says:
Oh, that I had a thousand voices
To praise my God with thousand tongues!
My heart, which in the Lord rejoices,
Would then proclaim in grateful songs
To all, wherever I might be.
What great things God has done for me.
(Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal, Northwestern Publishing House,
1993.)
**************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
**************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Which bird has the largest wingspan?
**************************************************************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including
those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity
or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please
allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
**************************************************************************************
1 Comment
John wrote: Your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and its complexity
makes it easy to understand why your so biased for religion.
You argue as if evolution has to "go somewhere" when you say the fish losing
their eyes is degeneration as opposed to evolution. There is no ultimate step, no
plan for evolution; it's just a process of adaptation. The fish who lose their eyes
do it in direct response to the environment; they are evolving. Since eyes are no
longer needed, over MILLIONS of years eyes slowly shrink smaller and smaller
until they disappear because they provide no benefit in a place with no light. At
the same time, the fish (Genus Satan, by the way) would have developed
adaptations to living in a cave which again debunks your claim of "degeneration"
because you're only focusing on what's left, not what has been gained.
Obviously, the fish have developed some adaptations to live in a cave
environment. Even more, mutation is not the only process in evolution (it is the
smallest cause of evolution [about 1%]), as you seem to imply. There exists
sexual selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. You imply that animals choose
to change, they don't; they change as populations, not individuals, in response
to the environment.
"Kudos to the scientists for pointing out that humans are different from other
species."
Duh. Every species is different than other species, that's why they're called
"species." You're misrepresenting the scientists. Humans are animals that
happen to be able to talk. How are we not animals? We're gentically 90% the
same as EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET. Why would God give us so
many useless vestigial appendages such as a tail bone and an appendix? Is he
trying to trick us or something?
"...why is it only humans were wise enough to 'evolve' the powers of speech and
language?"
Really? As if some of our ancestors grunted to each other: "Hey, wanna just
make our language more advanced so we can convey more specific and abstract
ideas?" If you really want to know why others didn't get speech, it's because: 1)
Other animals didn't have pressure to develop it. 2) It was an advantageous as
opposed to deletorious MUTATION specific to our species. 3)Again, there is no
direction in evolution; it just happens. It's egotistical and myopic to think that the
peak of evolution is a human. We have the most advanced speech, but some
animals have more sophisticated vision/olfactory/feeling senses. Does that mean
they are superior?
We're the most violent, destructive animal of all. We've single-handedly killed
billions of other life forms for no reason but for our own selfish gain. And we do it
everyday, often without even thinking about it. We kill our own species by
creating arbitrary systems of religion/government/trade. How is that "wise?" Will
it have been "wise" once we've used our language to terraform the whole earth for
our agriculture, dwellings and business? What good is a planet where almost
everything is dead? That, I believe, is the greatest sin of all: thinking we have the
right to take more than we leave.
John wrote: Your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and its complexity
makes it easy to understand why your so biased for religion.
You argue as if evolution has to "go somewhere" when you say the fish losing
their eyes is degeneration as opposed to evolution. There is no ultimate step, no
plan for evolution; it's just a process of adaptation. The fish who lose their eyes
do it in direct response to the environment; they are evolving. Since eyes are no
longer needed, over MILLIONS of years eyes slowly shrink smaller and smaller
until they disappear because they provide no benefit in a place with no light. At
the same time, the fish (Genus Satan, by the way) would have developed
adaptations to living in a cave which again debunks your claim of "degeneration"
because you're only focusing on what's left, not what has been gained.
Obviously, the fish have developed some adaptations to live in a cave
environment. Even more, mutation is not the only process in evolution (it is the
smallest cause of evolution [about 1%]), as you seem to imply. There exists
sexual selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. You imply that animals choose
to change, they don't; they change as populations, not individuals, in response
to the environment.
"Kudos to the scientists for pointing out that humans are different from other
species."
Duh. Every species is different than other species, that's why they're called
"species." You're misrepresenting the scientists. Humans are animals that
happen to be able to talk. How are we not animals? We're gentically 90% the
same as EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET. Why would God give us so
many useless vestigial appendages such as a tail bone and an appendix? Is he
trying to trick us or something?
"...why is it only humans were wise enough to 'evolve' the powers of speech and
language?"
Really? As if some of our ancestors grunted to each other: "Hey, wanna just
make our language more advanced so we can convey more specific and abstract
ideas?" If you really want to know why others didn't get speech, it's because: 1)
Other animals didn't have pressure to develop it. 2) It was an advantageous as
opposed to deletorious MUTATION specific to our species. 3)Again, there is no
direction in evolution; it just happens. It's egotistical and myopic to think that the
peak of evolution is a human. We have the most advanced speech, but some
animals have more sophisticated vision/olfactory/feeling senses. Does that mean
they are superior?
We're the most violent, destructive animal of all. We've single-handedly killed
billions of other life forms for no reason but for our own selfish gain. And we do it
everyday, often without even thinking about it. We kill our own species by
creating arbitrary systems of religion/government/trade. How is that "wise?" Will
it have been "wise" once we've used our language to terraform the whole earth for
our agriculture, dwellings and business? What good is a planet where almost
everything is dead? That, I believe, is the greatest sin of all: thinking we have the
right to take more than we leave.
| LSI stands for the Lutheran Science Institute, an organization of WELS and ELS Lutherans interested in science and health issues with a special emphasis on the creation and evolution controversy. This blog's purpose is to search the Internet to find articles of interest to Christians. Views expressed are those of the author (Warren Krug) and are not necessarily those of the Lutheran Science Institute, Inc. |
The wandering albatross (picture
from Wikimedia Commons). A male
albatross caught in the Tasman Sea
in 1965 had a wingspan of 11 feet,
11 inches. With its impressive
wingspan, it is an expert glider and
can remain aloft for long periods
without beating its wings.
Source: www.usefultrivia
from Wikimedia Commons). A male
albatross caught in the Tasman Sea
in 1965 had a wingspan of 11 feet,
11 inches. With its impressive
wingspan, it is an expert glider and
can remain aloft for long periods
without beating its wings.
Source: www.usefultrivia