Human brain evolution

[Mallon]

Just stumbled across this. Thought mark might be interested.

Tiny Variation in One Gene May Have Led to Crucial Changes in Human Brain

 

[granpa]

Tiny Variation in One Gene May Have Led to Crucial Changes in Human Brain

The human brain has yet to explain the origin of one its defining features – the deep fissures and convolutions that increase its surface area

A genetic analysis of a Turkish patient whose brain lacks the characteristic convolutions in part of his cerebral cortex revealed that the deformity was caused by the deletion of two genetic letters from 3 billion in the human genetic alphabet.

 

[Incariol]

Tiny Variation in One Gene May Have Led to Crucial Changes in Human Brain


I suspect that there is more to it than 2 letters

Why?

 

[Incariol]

YouTube - ‪Ode to the Brain! by Symphony of Science‬‏

Beautiful video!

 

[philadiddle]

The god of the gaps keeps shrinking. Don't tell MK.

It's too bad some people look to ID for evidence of God instead of looking at what God has done in their lives. These kinds of discoveries can only cause doubt if ID is all you've got.

(For clarity, I'm not implying MK doesn't see what God has done in his life, these are two totally separate paragraphs.)

 

[Assyrian]

Changing 2 letters can break the gene, that doesn't mean a change in two letter was how it formed. Much more interesting is whether dolphins have a similar gene and use it to fold their brains (so hard to manage with flippers) or what the variants of the gene are like in other mammals without folded cerebral cortex, if they have and equivalent gene.

Lends a whole new meaning to the klingon insult Hab SoSlI' Quch!










(Your mother has a smooth forehead!)

 

[mark kennedy]

Just stumbled across this. Thought mark might be interested.

Tiny Variation in One Gene May Have Led to Crucial Changes in Human Brain

Of course I'm interested, thanks Mallon. Got a couple of links that might be of interest later:

laminin, gamma 3 gene card

LAMB3 in Chimpanzee, Human and other species​

At a glance I find it interesting that the human gene is smaller, considerably smaller in fact. What is more it has considerably fewer amino acids.

Chimpanzee gene is 45, 050 base pairs long/15,016 amino acids
Human gene is 37,610 base pairs long/12,536 amino acids.​

Mutations in this gene result in frameshifts causing something called Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa and other dreadful things. How the two genes emerged from a common ancestor is a question that interests me greatly.

The god of the gaps keeps shrinking. Don't tell MK.

It's too bad some people look to ID for evidence of God instead of looking at what God has done in their lives. These kinds of discoveries can only cause doubt if ID is all you've got.

(For clarity, I'm not implying MK doesn't see what God has done in his life, these are two totally separate paragraphs.)

Shrinking? It just grew by over 7, 000 base pairs and nearly 3,000 amino acids. Ask me why this is a problem? Go ahead, ask me....

But seriously, if I concluded tomorrow that we share a common ancestor with apes my core convictions would be unaffected. What would change is how I look at the Scriptures as history and I would have to rethink my hermeneutics.

YouTube - ‪Ode to the Brain! by Symphony of Science‬‏

Beautiful video!

Thought provoking comparison of a requisite change required in addition to the one mentioned in the OP. The odds of getting the 18 substitutions required are 1 in 782, 917, 642, 535, 650, 449 according to the producer of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im0-LTqOHxs

Your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

But seriously, if I concluded tomorrow that we share a common ancestor with apes my core convictions would be unaffected. What would change is how I look at the Scriptures as history and I would have to rethink my hermeneutics.

Why would you rethink hermeneutics based on what you discover through science? Isn't that concordism?

I'm just wondering why you can't set science aside completely and reconsider your biblical interpretation the way scholars do, using the context and culture of the era it was written in.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why would you rethink hermeneutics based on what you discover through science? Isn't that concordism?

No it's called epistemology, if I find that what I believed about the early chapters of Genesis is wrong then the hermeneutics I used to arrive at need work. I do not subject my Christian convictions to natural science but I can adjust secondary doctrines as needed.

I'm just wondering why you can't set science aside completely and reconsider your biblical interpretation the way scholars do, using the context and culture of the era it was written in.

Because the epistemology of theology and science does not change much except with regards to your approach. I have never based my understanding of Scripture on scientific theory or secular anthropology. The historicity of Scripture is the primary source for the culture it was written in, not pagan or secular sources of questionable credibility.

 

[Assyrian]

No it's called epistemology, if I find that what I believed about the early chapters of Genesis is wrong then the hermeneutics I used to arrive at need work. I do not subject my Christian convictions to natural science but I can adjust secondary doctrines as needed.

Quoted for truth

 

[shernren]

Of course I'm interested, thanks Mallon. Got a couple of links that might be of interest later:

laminin, gamma 3 gene card

LAMB3 in Chimpanzee, Human and other species​

At a glance I find it interesting that the human gene is smaller, considerably smaller in fact. What is more it has considerably fewer amino acids.

Chimpanzee gene is 45, 050 base pairs long/15,016 amino acids
Human gene is 37,610 base pairs long/12,536 amino acids.​

Mutations in this gene result in frameshifts causing something called Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa and other dreadful things. How the two genes emerged from a common ancestor is a question that interests me greatly.

Two quick notes:

1. The gene being studied in the link in the OP is laminin gamma 3; your Wolfram Alpha link is describing a different gene (laminin beta 3).

2. The study compares two human alleles for laminin gamma 3: the normal one and the defective one (with two base pairs of alteration), both found in humans. This is not a study comparing between species; your gene card link does show the similarity to orthologs in other organisms, ranging from 84.71% for dogs to 66.31% for chickens (nucleic acid similarity), but there doesn't seem to be an ortholog sequenced yet for chimpanzees.

 

[philadiddle]

Because the epistemology of theology and science does not change much except with regards to your approach. I have never based my understanding of Scripture on scientific theory or secular anthropology.

Do you think that others here have adjusted their understanding of scripture according to scientific theory or secular anthropology? If so who?

Do you think that biblical scholars have adjusted their biblical interpretations to match secular science? If so who?

The historicity of Scripture is the primary source for the culture it was written in, not pagan or secular sources of questionable credibility.

This isn't very clear to me, could you please rephrase it?

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you think that others here have adjusted their understanding of scripture according to scientific theory or secular anthropology? If so who?

Wouldn't want to speculate.

Do you think that biblical scholars have adjusted their biblical interpretations to match secular science? If so who?

I have two words for you, Liberal Theology.

This isn't very clear to me, could you please rephrase it?

My original interest in evidential apologetics was the reliability of the New Testament as history. After years of searching this out I was convinced that the New Testament in general, Luke's Gospel and Acts in particular, have all the merits of a valid historical narrative.

Having seen the unrelenting attacks of Modernism on the miraculous nature of Christian theism I investigated the creation/evolution controversy. What is at issue is natural history based on naturalistic assumptions and redemptive history based on God's sovereign intervention and interaction with creation.

In short, the historical narratives of Genesis represent our true history and lineage as confirmed by the New Testament witness.

To paraphrase, the Bible is a primary source document in all it's 66 books as history. The secular world like the pagan would the Bible was written in, tell the story of history and origins but lack the credibility of Holy Scripture.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable...It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts. (author unknown)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

Wouldn't want to speculate.

How do you think the TEs on this board, in general, interpret the creation account? Why do they interpret it that way and what makes their methodology valid/invalid?

I just want to see if after all this time you've actually listened to understand your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[shernren]

My original interest in evidential apologetics was the reliability of the New Testament as history. After years of searching this out I was convinced that the New Testament in general, Luke's Gospel and Acts in particular, have all the merits of a valid historical narrative.

Having seen the unrelenting attacks of Modernism on the miraculous nature of Christian theism I investigated the creation/evolution controversy. What is at issue is natural history based on naturalistic assumptions and redemptive history based on God's sovereign intervention and interaction with creation.

In short, the historical narratives of Genesis represent our true history and lineage as confirmed by the New Testament witness.

To paraphrase, the Bible is a primary source document in all it's 66 books as history. The secular world like the pagan would the Bible was written in, tell the story of history and origins but lack the credibility of Holy Scripture.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable...It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts. (author unknown)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

(The quote comes from the front covers of Gideon Bibles - the ones that are left in hotels for people to read.)

But mark, there are many Christians (like myself) who hold both that the Gospels and Acts are historical works of the highest veracity, and that Genesis is a treatise which describes the philosophical nature of humanity without necessarily giving a historical description of his origins.

The two views can be held together, simply because of the vastly divergent style of the books themselves. Without reference to any external sources I can cite you several factors that clued me in to the nature of Genesis 1-3: evenings and mornings without a sun or a moon, the structure of poetic refrains in Genesis 1, the elements present that are later treated metaphorically in the rest of the Bible (the Tree of Life, the serpent, and the woman's seed), the heavily anthropomorphic description of God (nowhere else in the Old Testament does the LORD God refer specifically to the Second Person of the Trinity, and yet God was walking in the garden, which is not possible if God is Spirit).

When God sends Jeremiah down to the potter's house to observe how the potter shapes the clay, and then says that like clay in the potter's hand the house of Israel is in God's hand, He doesn't mean that the nation of Israel is literally a clod of mud being worked by ten giant fingers. If we are not to take this literally in Jeremiah, why should we be taking this literally in Genesis?

But don't take it from me, the Pope will do as well. The man who said this:

Right down to our own time – even in these days of advanced communications technology – the faith of Christians is based on that same news, on the testimony of those sisters and brothers who saw firstly the stone that had been rolled away from the empty tomb and then the mysterious messengers who testified that Jesus, the Crucified, was risen. And then Jesus himself, the Lord and Master, living and tangible, appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and finally to all eleven, gathered in the Upper Room (cf. Mk 16:9-14).

The resurrection of Christ is not the fruit of speculation or mystical experience: it is an event which, while it surpasses history, nevertheless happens at a precise moment in history and leaves an indelible mark upon it.

- Benedict XVI's Urbi Et Orbi message [Easter Sunday] 2010, ZENIT - Benedict XVI's "Urbi et Orbi" Message
​

also said this:

At the Easter Vigil, the journey along the paths of sacred Scripture begins with the account of creation. This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being.

- Benedict XVI's Easter Vigil Homily [Holy Saturday] 2011, ZENIT - Benedict XVI's Holy Saturday Homily
​

And so the two can coexist.

 

[Mallon]

The two views can be held together, simply because of the vastly divergent style of the books themselves. Without reference to any external sources I can cite you several factors that clued me in to the nature of Genesis 1-3: evenings and mornings without a sun or a moon, the structure of poetic refrains in Genesis 1, the elements present that are later treated metaphorically in the rest of the Bible (the Tree of Life, the serpent, and the woman's seed), the heavily anthropomorphic description of God (nowhere else in the Old Testament does the LORD God refer specifically to the Second Person of the Trinity, and yet God was walking in the garden, which is not possible if God is Spirit).

Not to mention the different creation orders between Gen 1 and 2, the different dialects used, and the description of an ANE cosmology.

 

[mark kennedy]

Two quick notes:

1. The gene being studied in the link in the OP is laminin gamma 3; your Wolfram Alpha link is describing a different gene (laminin beta 3).

Your right, thought there was something odd about that.

2. The study compares two human alleles for laminin gamma 3: the normal one and the defective one (with two base pairs of alteration), both found in humans. This is not a study comparing between species; your gene card link does show the similarity to orthologs in other organisms, ranging from 84.71% for dogs to 66.31% for chickens (nucleic acid similarity), but there doesn't seem to be an ortholog sequenced yet for chimpanzees.

That's pretty much what I came up with when I tried to track it down. I'll keep looking.

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you think the TEs on this board, in general, interpret the creation account?

Figuratively.

Why do they interpret it that way and what makes their methodology valid/invalid?

Naturalistic assumptions, the effort is to reconcile the scientific explanations for origins with Christian theism. While there are dangers of being too literal and 'making the text walk on all fours' when dealing with figurative language, Genesis is an historical narrative. Their approach negates the ordinary meaning of the language and intent of the author.

I just want to see if after all this time you've actually listened to understand your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I listen, I consider and understand what they are saying and why. I just disagree based on the clear testimony of Scripture and the uniform teaching extended beyond the Genesis account to the New Testament witness.

A few things you may well consider. First of all I am a YEC based on the New Testament witness regarding Genesis, in other words, the totality of Scripture. I am a YEC by default and reserve the right to remain unconvinced by the conjecture stemming from naturalistic assumptions intrinsic to evolution as natural history.

My efforts here are to learn more about evolutionary biology but reconciliation is always the most important effort anyone makes in these discussions. While I want, above all things, to be able to extend the right hand of fellowship to TEs it cannot be at the expense of doctrine and conviction.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Not to mention the different creation orders between Gen 1 and 2, the different dialects used, and the description of an ANE cosmology.

I'm not as convinced by those, although some people find them helpful. The ANE cosmology in particular seems to be reading too much into what is essentially a phenomenological description. But phenomenological descriptions occur in both literal and figurative accounts. "I walked my dog at sunset" is phenomenological (the sun doesn't move, it only appears to) and literal (it isn't an analogy for anything) ... and fictional (I don't actually have a dog).

There is enough intratextual evidence for the complexity of Genesis 1-11 that I tend to shy away from using ideas like ANE cosmology to read the text or to argue for my interpretation, especially since the latter tends to rile creationists up with the unavoidably charged comparisons with geocentrism and flat earth.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not as convinced by those, although some people find them helpful. The ANE cosmology in particular seems to be reading too much into what is essentially a phenomenological description.

I'd retort that ANE cosmology is based, in part, on phenomenological description (e.g., geocentrism).