History of intelligence (550 words)
Posted on March 6, 2012 by James Kohl.
Annals of Human Genetics Volume 76, Issue 2, pages 142–158, March 2012
Genome-Wide Patterns of Genetic Distances Reveal Candidate Loci Contributing to Human Population-Specific Traits (pages 142–158) João Pedro de Magalhães and Alex Matsuda
Summary (excerpt): Our genome-wide scan also reveals novel candidates for contributing to population-specific traits. These include genes related to neuronal development and behavior that may have been influenced by cultural processes.
from page 154: “As populations migrated to new environments, adaptations in terms of behavior driven by climate, landscape, fauna, or flora might have resulted in adaptations at the level of the nervous system. These results may also be explained by cultural processes that could have played a role in shaping the human genome (Laland et al., 2010).”
To my knowledge and despite inferences like the one above, there is no data that suggests any mechanism through which cultural processes might play a role in the biological processes that shapes the human genome. Instead, current scientific evidence argues against the complex “evolution of evolution” required to get from microbial cells to the written language that exemplifies some human cultures via stepwise natural selection for noise, ecosystem and storage technology. There are incalculable odds against a) the simultaneous evolution of two cells that signal and recognize sex differences and immune system differences and b) the simultaneous evolved interaction of 1532 genes required for the morphology of the mammalian placenta and c) the simultaneous appearance of new genes for human brain development. These “abc’s” from our evolved English language attest to the likelihood that something more than natural selection is required for the evolution of any word in any written language. Is “culture” something more than natural selection?
In “a brief history of intelligence”, Mensa Bulletin, November/December 2011, Dr. Frank Vertosick, Jr., correctly infers that written language results from the development of a single cell, but that cell must first be fertilized. If he did not side-step the evolution of sexual reproduction and consciousness, he might be obliged to clarify why stepwise natural selection now appears to be part of a vastly more complex plan; one that may be more evident to molecular biologists.
Are others willing to simply skip from asexual reproduction in microbial cells to the biologically based evolution of human language sans sexual reproduction; the mammalian placenta; and de novo genes required for the evolution of human intelligence, consciousness, and our cultural processes? If not, a paradigm shift may be required to bring scientists and Creationists to a more current understanding of natural selection that helps clarify the history of human intelligence and the written word without simply dismissing “quasi-creationist paradigms” (see for review Collins, 2006).
References:a) Jin, M., Errede, B., Behar, M., Mather, W., Nayak, S., Hasty, J., et al. (2011). Yeast Dynamically Modify Their Environment to Achieve Better Mating Efficiency. Sci Signal, 4(186), ra54.
b) Lynch, V. J., Leclerc, R. D., May, G., & Wagner, G. P. (2011). Transposon-mediated rewiring of gene regulatory networks contributed to the evolution of pregnancy in mammals. Nat Genet, 43(11), 1154-1159.
c) Zhang, Y. E., Landback, P., Vibranovski, M. D., & Long, M. (2011). Accelerated Recruitment of New Brain Development Genes into the Human Genome. PLoS Biol, 9(10), e1001179.
Collins, F. S. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press.
Retired medical laboratory scientist
Try Our Potent Pheromones Risk Free!
Backed by Scientific Research AND
a 100% Money Back Guarantee!
With our no hassle 60 day money back guarantee you have nothing to lose.Read Our Risk Free Guarantee to you!
Order by Mail or FAX
Trademarks & Notices: LuvEssentials is not affiliated in any way with WebMD, CNN, Discovery Health. All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on LuvEssentials are the property of their respective owners.
Orders that were shipped by free USPS Mail and are returned to us will be assessed a return processing fee of $7.00 US Dollars. Orders totaling over $190.00 US Dollars, before any discount, that are returned to us will be assessed a return processing fee of 25%.
Please note, the testimonials we display are all real; however, any photos accompanying these testimonials are stock photography, not actual customers. We do this to protect the privacy of our customers.
Also, in accordance with FTC guidelines, we want to make it explicitly clear that the testimonials we display throughout this website are based on the unique experiences that some of our customers have shared with us. We cannot promise that you will experience similar benefits from using our product. If you are not satisfied with our product for any reason, simply return the product within 60 days for a full refund excluding the costs of shipping and handling. Please contact us with any questions you may have.