The 'TALK' Gene

hmmm could it be......... God!

you know the grew parrots,
do they have it?

Dolphin's have language.
Chimp's have language.
African Grey Parrot's have been taught the human language and speak it knowing what they are saying (ie. not mimmicking).
As posted earlier, wolf's have lanuage.
Many many many more species have there OWN language. Talking doesn't mean just the human language's, it's communication in general, and we're not that special when it come's to communication within a species. It's easier to 'decode' another human language than it is to 'decode' an animal language. This is why some of you don't think animal's have there own language. Animal's are also very intelligent creture's, although some aren't strictly tool user's like human's.

Our speach abilities are FAR FAR better than that of any animal.

The question is: how come a relatively simple feature that developped in many animals developped into such an advanced one in only one species?

Genetic evolution by natural selection should have created that same capability we have in a very large number of species, simply because it would help them survive (there have been billions of species in hundreds of millions of years..)

The best argument that speach is of immense interest to survival is homo sapiens.

If our "speach" is so much better, how come we can't spell?

The only advantage we have over animals as far as it comes to communication is written language. Human languages are no more complex than animal languages, the difference is we have more to talk about.

Human intellect and curiosity are the factors that have lead our species to develop language. Without civilization, humans would communicate for the same reasons as animals.

We can produce much more sounds than any animals.

Try to have a chimpanzee spell the alphabet.. good luck.. (but we can make the sounds a chimp can). A human can imitate many of ground animal sounds.

To elaborate on my last post, the Chinese term "Wen-hua" means "the transforming influence of the written language" and is used to express the importance of written communication to the development of civilization, or at least my history professor says so.

Anyway, I tend to agree with this. Take all forms of writing away from history- which would include drawing, since most forms of early writing were pictographs- and the possiblity of civilization to come to exist is next to naught.

I think it's only a matter of time before animals like the great apes become as smart as we are.

Once a species developes a certain level of speech and abstract thought, the speed at which they learn and evolve accelerates. This explains why humans have come so far in such a short period of time. And concidering how close humans and apes actually are, I bet the age of talking monkeys will come sooner than we think.

The other species aren't likely to develop more sophisticated languages unless they also evolve to have more of a *need* for developing higher communication skills.

Until humans discovered the usefulness of fire, they never had a need for communication any greater than the other species. The development of language & technology was *stimulated* by fire...through storytelling & the discussion of ideas.

The strange thing that originally set us apart from the others was that, even though most animals fear fire, humans have always had a strange fascination for it. It makes me wonder how we could've gotten *anywhere* without that bit of unusual behavior.

it may be that our facination with fire started because we could control it.It was the one force of nature that primative man could control.They probably considered it a gift from the gods so fire was always treated with respect and reverance.

Then of course they learned to talk about it,just to stay on the topic.

though humans may seem to make more sounds than apes or other animals , all we are doing is nearly mimicking them . unless we speak 'ape' or 'dolphin' who are we to say that we thorougly know how advanced another animals communication skills are ? i don't even think we've come close to cracking the animal communication code . who knows , the way we communicate to one another might be the way a wolf communicates with his pack . ... just not in english . .. . which is a _ human _ language . so its no wonder why we think our language is so sophisticated . .. it's because we understand it , hell we created it . not to mention it's spoken by millions of other _ humans _ . perhaps language is a communication tool that's unique to humans .. . maybe it's not . but communication in general is something that i think animals have down .

I haven't read the whole thread, just the first post.... This one part bother's me greatly....

"Now, what I find interesting is, tiny mutations (macromutations) are only supposed to occur every 100,000,000 years but man has gone through several in 6,000,000 years. (including this one) "

If this were true, then our whole idea of evolution IMHO, is wrong. Look at the evolution tree (or whatever it is called). Now look at that statement one more time. Do a double take if you care too.... See all those species that stem off of other species, and so on? Well, not all of them took 100,000,000 year's to accomplish macromutation's, or evovle from one form to another. It could also be that I didn't fully grasp what that statement meant, if so, could the original poster please clarify?

There are two 'themes' of developement, one is evolution and the other is mutation.
The 'tree' you mentioned is based on evolution, where a species developes to suit its environment. The other is mutation, where a species develops due to the 'contents' of its environment.
These macromutations are a result of 'things' within the environment affecting the developement of the species living there. I.E, radiation causing cancer and birth deformaties etc.
The 'natural' macromutations, according to scientists, would only occur every 100,000,000 years, as the environment changed. Evolution (see Darwin) works differently. A species changes faster, to suit the environment it lives in. An animal would develope thick fur to protect it from the cold etc. Take a look at the 'sidewinder' for instance. This snake developed a method of moving sideways across sand so it could move faster and prevent itself sinking in the sand. Camels developed a large 'round' foot for the same reason.
Macromutations are different. Early man communicated by grunts and growls and made himself understood, the same way that apes do, but then a macromutation gave him the ability to form a complex language, a language that could be learned and understood by others. Why didn't this mutation occur in similar species (such as apes) within the same timeframe? Are these macromutations natural or are they 'artificial?'

Why does it seem that everytime someone mentions evolution, it always seems like they think the organism is spontaneously altering its own DNA to adapt to its environment, this is always a source of annoyance for me, as I dont see how "Survival of the Fittest" could lead to such diverse evoution in such a relativley short space of time, so far nobody has been able to explain this to me more than say 'But it does', can anyone come to my assistance? *glances at TheCat*

And another thing, they've not been mentioned in the post, but what's the biologial mechanism that makes a gene dominant over another gene, again my teachers just repeat 'The dominant is more useful', that's obvious in most cases, but HOW does it become dominant? not why. *glares at TheCat*

Any assistance welcome, I'm only 14 so i guess ill learn at some point, but hey, I like knowledge

Originally posted by Forevers End
but communication in general is something that i think animals have down .

Same as my sentiments on this every time it comes up. As usual we humans tend to think we do the best and hence anything that isnt like what we do is inferior or somehow non existant in others, even our flaunted facial expressions... I mean heck even a spider can be expressive it just doesnt use its face, cuttle fish use their entire bodies pigments to express. Why is our or primates rubbery faces somehow special?.. they arent.

As a cat owner with over 30 years experience with them (theres never been a time in my life i haven't been in constant contact with at least 2 cats or some form of animal) where a human is say 90% verbal language and 10% body language most animals are the reverse of that and often the body langauge is so subtle or in a form (such as scents) we humans can never understand or register it.

To watch two of my cats one sitting and the other walking by it and seeing the sitting one suddenly become nervous of the other or even out right hissing at them yet on another occasion an hour latter in the exact same situation they ignore each other shows there has to be something going on im not noticing. Occasionally you spot a slight drop in the ears, or a minor change in posture but for all intensive purposes its as uninterpretable as telepathy. Hearing a cat from outside making a specific chirping noise and seeing 5 or 6 others suddenly jump up and rush outside to investigate 'the kill' often before we humans can hear it is language. Two cats, years apart in age running and chirping to each other in and out of hiding through the exotic grasses in the garden is language. A cat rolling on its back and sliding along the floor arms out stretch eyes wide towards another cat that elicits a play response from the other is language... they all do it and they for the most part get the same responses back from each other. Its language jim but not as we (the laymen and those who dont wish to see it) typically know it.

Everything talks... we just cant, will never be able to or simply refuse to listen or acknowledge this fact.

Id go so far as also to say even Plants talk, although their language is one done on a scale of time to large for us to really grasp without alot of effort. Even the simple chemical exchanges between bacteria is language... although for me ive always believed this since childhood and its often hard to think a good deal dont.

Originally posted by Wraithen
And another thing, they've not been mentioned in the post, but what's the biologial mechanism that makes a gene dominant over another gene, again my teachers just repeat 'The dominant is more useful', that's obvious in most cases, but HOW does it become dominant? not why. *glares at TheCat*

Dominant genes can express with only half of it present, a recessive requires there to be both halves to work, its the old red head gene example. A brunette with say BB is brunette while a rr is redhead, a Br is also a brunette but carries the red head gene the B is dominant because even with just one half of the brunette gene they will always turn out brunette over redhead hence the redhead gene is recessive and the brunette dominate. Why? i sort of know but cant really write it properly ive seen it explained in a National Geographic where the gene for neck vertebra numbers and from while the same in all animals, expresses in different results depending on what animals species your looking at and what other genes they have. I guess Br is similar enough to BB that the body just goes with B while rr flips the switch enough (obviously). Hmm that didnt help i guess...

But hey i only did up to final year highschool biology so my knowledge is somewhat limited and rusty given how long ago that was

Why is this thread in the UFO section?

There are two ways of speaking - through the heart - or, through the mind.