Science Updates

[Rorschach]

What made us human: 'unique' evolution gene found
November 15, 2012 - 11:08AM

Researchers have discovered a new gene they say helps explain how humans evolved from apes.

The gene, called miR-941, appears to have played a crucial role in human brain development and could shed light on how we learned to use tools and language, according to scientists.

A team at the University of Edinburgh compared it to 11 other species of mammals, including chimpanzees, gorillas, mice and rats.

The results, published in Nature Communications, showed that the gene is unique to humans.

The team believe it emerged between six and one million years ago, after humans evolved from apes.

Researchers said it is the first time a new gene carried by humans and not by apes has been shown to have a specific function in the human body.

Martin Taylor, who led the study at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: "As a species, humans are wonderfully inventive - we are socially and technologically evolving all the time.

"But this research shows that we are innovating at a genetic level too.

"This new molecule sprang from nowhere at a time when our species was undergoing dramatic changes: living longer, walking upright, learning how to use tools and how to communicate.

"We're now hopeful that we will find more new genes that help show what makes us human."

The gene is highly active in two areas of the brain, controlling decision-making and language abilities, with the study suggesting it could have a role in the advanced brain functions that make us human.

It is known that most differences between species occur as a result of changes to existing genes, or the duplication and deletion of genes.

But, according to scientists, this gene emerged fully functional out of non-coding genetic material, previously termed "junk DNA", in a brief interval of evolutionary time.

They said that, until now, it has been difficult to see this process in action.

PA

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... z2CFpNyYEr

Of course one could draw a couple of completely different conclusions very easily.

[mantra]

The team believe it emerged between six and one million years ago, after humans evolved from apes.

Researchers said it is the first time a new gene carried by humans and not by apes has been shown to have a specific function in the human body.

We could draw different "conclusions", but they aren't conclusions - they are only theories. There is still no defining link between humans and apes. Scientists need to test a wider range of animals.

Of course one could draw a couple of completely different conclusions very easily.

I assume you mean humans evolved from Adam?

[Neferti]

I think Rorschach believes in God and that he is trying to get all us Agnostics, Atheists and lapsed Catholics to have a "debate" about it. Am I right, Rorschach?

[Rorschach]

I assume you mean humans evolved from Adam?

Simple answer... no.

I think Rorschach believes in God and that he is trying to get all us Agnostics, Atheists and lapsed Catholics to have a "debate" about it. Am I right, Rorschach?

Simple answer... no.

[Neferti]

That's a relief.

[annielaurie]

We could draw different "conclusions", but they aren't conclusions - they are only theories. There is still no defining link between humans and apes. Scientists need to test a wider range of animals.

First of all, the meaning of the term "theory" in modern science means a working hypothesis that is already backed up with so many proven facts that it has little chance to be disproven.

A Theory in science is not simply a "hunch" or a guess, like the ordinary use of the word.

On defining links between humans and apes, go to sourses such as real science and biology websites and read some peer reviewed science papers on the subject. Here are two examples,

Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry

(excerpt)

Below, I have assembled a series of references and abstracts that document striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes independently of the usual paleontological, morphological, and molecular phylogenetic data that we usually see. I first became aware of this through some postings on the internet of Clark Dorman and Don Lindsay.

When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is immediately apparent that there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance of the chromosomes across the four different species. Yes, there are differences (and I will be addressing these), but the overall similarity is striking. The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs .......

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Gene that gives humans edge over apes decoded

Researchers have discovered a new gene which they say helps explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees.

The gene, called miR-941, is carried only by humans and it appeared after humans evolved from apes and played a crucial role in human brain development and could shed light on how we learned to use tools and language.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh compared it to 11 other species of mammals, including chimpanzees, gorillas, mice and rats.

This finding, published in Nature Communications, brings us closer to answering one of science's leading questions: What makes the human body different from other mammals?

A previous study that also analysed the differences between apes and humans found that the evolutionary genetic advantages that help humans live longer than apes also make them more vulnerable to diseases of ageing, including heart disease, cancer, and dementia.

Scientists led by Dr Martin Taylor at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine showed that miR-941 had an important part in the development of the human brain and can even help explain how we acquire language and learn to use tools .........

http://www.business-standard.com/genera ... ded/79293/

Also,

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

There are many others, just google the subject, and avoid the religious or "creation science" sites, they are bogus and misleading, and not based on real biological findings ..

[Rorschach]

You wanna start a topic on that?

Also...

the·o·ry
   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Note defn 2 Annie.

[annielaurie]

In the biosciences, the Theory of Evolution is so advanced, and has so much evidence to back it up, that it now fits into your definition #1 above ..

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine

Go to the Smithsonian website, to this page, here you have a graph of the genetic family tree leading from 6 million years in the past to modern humans of today ..

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

(not really feeling like starting a separate topic on it at this point)

[Rorschach]

It may be commonly regarded as correct Annie... but there are other theories around, "newer" theories, in regards to the "evolution" of man. Like I said start a topic if you want to discuss it. BTW they can be easily googled.
And there is still that elusive piece "missing".
I find the article I posted less a piece of the "commonly regarded" theory.
I have no intention to turn SN's SCIENCE topic into a creationist argument or one solely about evolution... neither of which, I brought up.

[boxy]

It may be commonly regarded as correct Annie... but there are other theories around, "newer" theories, in regards to the "evolution" of man.

Fucking bullshit. There are no theories (def#2) around with any chance of seriously displacing the theory (def#1) of evolution. Currently, there is just fiddling around at the edges, improving our understanding of the processes involved in evolution.

And there is still that elusive piece "missing".

Fucking bullshit. Considering the difficulty in preserving the fossil record over evolutionary timescales, it is surprisingly complete.

I find the article I posted less a piece of the "commonly regarded" theory.
I have no intention to turn SN's SCIENCE topic into a creationist argument or one solely about evolution... neither of which, I brought up.

Start a topic yourself then.