Evolution Of Human Brain Correlated In Young Genes

Evolution Of Human Brain Correlated In Young Genes

www.medicalnewstoday.com

According to a new study, young genes that appeared after the primate branch split off from other mammal species are more likely to be expressed in the developing human brain. The correlation...suggests that evolutionarily recent genes may be responsible for constructing the uniquely powerful human brain...the genes have so far been largely ignored by scientists...There are some 50 to 60 human-specific genes in the frontal cortex of the brain, the part that makes humans diverge...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.nature.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Human ancestors interbred with related species

This is a continuation of my other post that was titled "Human ancestors interbred with related species". If you haven't read the thread it is at www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first study suggested that there was evidence that we acquired 2% of our genes about 35,000 years ago. Now this most recent study backs it up. It seems there is more evidence that points towards a less stochastic phenomenon of our so called 'evolution'. In other words, It seems less likely that we evolved by chance.

Another study has shown that our mitochondrial DNA is different from Neanderthal mtDNA as shown below:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dbe48147e84f.jpg[/atsimg]
Picture Source

The above picture just shows that differences that exist between us and Neanderthale mtDNA are too great for the neanderthal man to be considered our ancestor.

The headline article further discusses that these new genes code for new proteins that were not existant before we acquired the 2% foreign genetic material which is unusual.



www.medicalnewstoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Only 2%....imagine if it were more!!!

I thought it was common knowledge that we didn't evolve from Neanderthals? Am I missing something?

reply to post by LiveEquation

The first study suggested that there was evidence that we acquired 2% of our genes about 35,000 years ago. Now this most recent study backs it up.

The date when we got these extra 2% genes may be very significant. Around 35,000 years ago we started to do this:

The oldest known cave art is that of Chauvet in France, the paintings of which may be 35,000 years old according to radiocarbon dating, and date back to 33,000 BCE (Upper Paleolithic).[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Our ability to use symbolic images such as in art, took off about 35,000 years ago even though our species is about 200,000 years old.

Just the 2% change in our genes may have made all the difference in the world for us with regards to culture and technology.

Interesting find!

Evolution is a Lie. Was your grandma a monkey???

Just kidding, could you imagine such ignorance?

Anyway, this is very nice. I am not sure what to really add since facts are facts.

Great job OP on finding this!

More evolution fairytales......

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


Thanks for the info. I just googled "how old is the oldest cave painting" and i got this:

Source

Archaeologists in South Africa uncovered two 100,000-year-old abalone shells and assorted bones and stones that served a toolkits to make some sort of ochre-based compound...

A group of Home sapiens came across a picturesque cave on the coast of South Africa around 100,000 years ago. They unloaded their gear and set to work, grinding iron-rich dirt and mixing it gently with heated bone in abalone shells to create a red, paint-like mixture. Then they dipped a thin bone into the mixture to transfer it somewhere before leaving the cave — and their toolkits — behind.

Henshilwood and Wadley agree that its existence reveals that our ancient ancestors were a clever bunch. In fact, Henshilwood said, the oil-pigment-and-binders mixture they created was almost the same as paint recipes used in ancient Egypt only a few thousand years ago.

Would it be wrong to make a hypothesis that these could be our ancestors that we got our 2% genetic make up from?

reply to post by LiveEquation

Would it be wrong to make a hypothesis that these could be our ancestors that we got our 2% genetic make up from?

Could well be. Maybe we're onto something

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Evolution is a Lie. Was your grandma a monkey???

Close enough. My grandchildren will be able to answer that in the affirmative (except to substitute "grandmother" with "grandfather"). Then, without pause, be able to claim evolution is a farce with evidence to back up the assertion.

Just kidding, could you imagine such ignorance?

What ignorance?

Let's please just stay focused on the topic and try not to derail it into a theological debate on the first page.

Thanks.

reply to post by Majic


It's kind of pathetic we can't discuss evolutionary theory without religious bible thumpers trying to force their view of reality on us. Why the desperation?

Sure, science is a fairy tale and the Bible is 100% fact


The OP has shown evidence that our genetic makeup changed about 35,000 years ago through a natural process. It could explain why our species suddenly developed a sophisticated culture and technology. No need for supernatural forces or ETs either.

reply to post by LiveEquation

 

The correlation...suggests that evolutionarily recent genes may be responsible for constructing the uniquely powerful human brain...the genes have so far been largely ignored by scientists...There are some 50 to 60 human-specific genes in the frontal cortex of the brain, the part that makes humans diverge

The precentral gyrus, forming the posterior border of the frontal lobe, contains the primary motor cortex, which controls voluntary movements of specific body parts.

The frontal lobe contains most of the dopamine-sensitive neurons in the cerebral cortex. The dopamine system is associated with reward, attention, short-term memory tasks, planning, and drive.

Source:Wiki - Frontal Lobe

So, intelligence is actually a shift between an organism cognitively reacting and voluntarily action? As well as the ability to learn from others. (the beginnings of human society)

Intelligence IS free will and free thought, that is an interesting thought.

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by LiveEquation

 

The first study suggested that there was evidence that we acquired 2% of our genes about 35,000 years ago. Now this most recent study backs it up.

The date when we got these extra 2% genes may be very significant. Around 35,000 years ago we started to do this:

The oldest known cave art is that of Chauvet in France, the paintings of which may be 35,000 years old according to radiocarbon dating, and date back to 33,000 BCE (Upper Paleolithic).[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Our ability to use symbolic images such as in art, took off about 35,000 years ago even though our species is about 200,000 years old.

Just the 2% change in our genes may have made all the difference in the world for us with regards to culture and technology.

Interesting find!

Actually that's been pushed back another 40k years

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Perhaps it is surprising that the difference makes all the difference?