Ok so those of you familure with epigenetics can probably help me out on this one. So we have genes that code for and regulate protein production. We also have epigenetic factors like histone coding which regulate the tightness of DNA packaging, a non-genetic, but cellular factor now also regulating protein production. Now in evolution, we know that an organism can evolve through a series of mutations in their DNA altering their gene production. If the mutation is benificial to the organism, it survives and mates and the gene is passed on. Enough mutations and the organism just doesn't resemble its previous ancestor any more. We now say it is a new organism. Now chimpanzees and humans DNA are 98% the same. They say that that 2% is what makes us different from our monkey cousins! But this can't be entirely true, I imagine there are a lot of epigenetic factors that differ between humans and chimps. So not only would it be that 2% different DNA, but also epigenetic factors (and possibly junk DNA, what ever that is) that make humans so drastically different from chimps. So if some evolutionary factors are epigentic in nature, could an organism evolve from purely epigenetic factors? That is could there be a build up of so many epigenetic factors that the organism is no longer compatible* with its previous ancestor. In this case two organisms could be completely genetically identical, but they would be different organisms. It makes sense that epigenetics would just be the next higher order of complexity in life, a new language used to encode life. Thoughts,comments. *I use the word compatible because I feel like our brain is whats evolving and I think of our brain as a computer. And the same way computer technology evolves resulting in older "programs" not being able to run on newer systems. I don't think a human now would be able to relate to ancient humans. It would be hard for us to think like them (run their perceptual program), but impossible for them to think like us (run our more up to date perceptual program). Yes the two organisms could mate but there would be a mental affliction pushing them apart almost like a magnetic force. Even dating sites are tapping into the idea of two brains being more "compatible" than two other brains. Its like they're figuring out how to group people with similar "perceptual programs" that work together most efficiently.
A 2% difference in genetic information makes a much larger difference than you're claiming. The difference between a saint bernard and a chihuahua is .2%. Not 2%, .2%.
Well lets take an estimated 23,000 genes that a human has. 2% of 23,000 is 460 genes. Sure that will result in some differential anomalies, but what still of epigenetic factors, non-genetic factors that control gene express which control how the cell and ultimately how the living organism functions. Here's an idea of a stretch of what some modern epigenetic factor could be. Society is the idea that when humans gather together they can interact with each other to meet common needs. People grow up in different societies which effect how their brain develops, thus effecting their view of the world. This invisible thing of society, rules, and learning how to interact with other people is physically changing the structure of the organisms brain. These changes came about because the cells fired and synaptic connections between cells are strengthened by producing more neurotransmitter receptor proteins. What caused this change in gene expression of that protein, not genetic factors, but an epigenetic factor of electrical signals in neurons stemming from the persons perception. I think that epigenetic factors that may be influencing the brain should be explored to help us better understand the working of brains, cognition, and our own consciousness. This is why I ask the question, could human evolve into something not human, purely on epigentic factors. Or could any organism evolve into another organism from the results of just epigenetic factors.
and .2% of 23000 is 46 genes, and yet that ratio is what causes massive differences in size, color, behavior, head and mouth structure, breeding habits, preferred diet, et al. And of course humans can evolve into something that isn't human. All these tiny changes that occur over time will eventually add up to be something massively different than what we are now. We, at present time, are the result of these tiny changes adding up. If we came face to face with a living neanderthal - would we be able to mate with it? I'd be willing to bet there'd be complicated if a pregnancy could even occur just because of the difference.
You seem to keep ignoring the idea of epigenetics here though. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of epigenetics you can always do a quick wiki search to learn more on epigenetics. I am aware of the concept of DNA which contains our genetic information, and changes can come about from differences in genetic information, but in modern biology we have discovered there are EPIgenetic factors (literally translating to above genetics) that can give rise to cellular differentiation. You state that like you just know. But really you are just assuming it. How can you be sure that there are not epigenetic factors at play that cause for the massive differenes in size, color, behavior, structure, breeding, diet. As you can clearly see you are listing a lot of differences and epigenetics could likely be influencing these differences rather than JUST the 46 different genes (but they will still be genetic factors accounting for differences). Yes humans are evolving! And I am almost bold enough to say that we've evolved so much in our minds that we are very different from our most ancient Aztec, Mian, Indian, African, Asian, Greek, Egyptian ancestors. What if we are so different from them mentally that some outside observer looking at the two organisms as different species. I'm imagining a group of ancient Egyptians and a group of modern day people. The Egyptians all believe in Ra and just wanna build pyramids and stuff while the modern people will be all into their cell phones and technology and stuff as they just have a different perception of the world they are living in. The two groups would probably keep to themselves as the brains may just not be compatible. Communicating effectively would be difficult. Maybe, the Neanderthal genome is strikingly similar to ours. Epigenetic factors could be at play with the differences between Humans and Neanderthals also, not only are they obviously cognitively different but epigenetic factors could account for their larger body structure and other physically different traits. There are also theories of ancient Neanderthals mating with our human ancestor. Not saying the pregnancy would go well or even be successful, just stressing my point of epigenetic factors being a new mechanism for controlling evolution
You are also making an assumption. I disagree strongly with that notion. We have written accounts of day to day life and tribulations stretching back to Sumerian times - about 5 and half thousand years of thought. There's nothing in any text, Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek (particularly greek) that show us to think in any other way differently from our ancestors. We might say that their religious beliefs are primitive, but our modern religions are just as primitive. If we go back even further and study the Jomon culture thousands of years before and look at their artifacts and their art, we can see that they lived and thought as we did. Go back 35, 000 years and look at artifacts carved by neolithic man from ivory and see the humour and style they possess. Man has not changed, technology has. I could communicate equally well with an ancient egyptian as I can you if we share a common language. I've read heiroglyphic texts, the only thing that really differs in terms of content with that of today is the grammar and word order. All the sentiments are exactly the same and I feel confident I could have a very normal conversation with one. MelT
I think honestly, if I were to be face to face with someone from an ancient culture and shared a language with them, I would be humbled and feel like they may have a lot to teach me. Ancient man was a harder working man without all this technology to entertain us.
No see I'm not assuming anything. There are things I know and I can ask questions related to things I know. I'm not assuming anything, I'm only asking a questions which no one is answering which is, do you think non-genetic factors like histone coding and possibly other epigenetic factors could give rise to two phenotypically different (what they look like) organisms to the extent which the second organism no longer resembles, nor is compatable, with the previous organism. How we think is more than just religion (I know I used Ra, I guess I was just portraying that a lot of them probably believed in those gods while in modern day, I see less and less of religion its self) Here you are making an assumption that you could communicate equally well with an ancient Egyptian. Why do you just all of a sudden assume that? Because they look like you, and used a language that you can read? You may be able to communicate with them an their level because you are so advanced yourself, but would they be able to communicate on your level? Most likely not. See it is easy for you to understand their language because it is the origins of our own language. It is going to hold similar traits. This is why they say Latin is good to learn because so many of our words originate from them. Looking at Latin text even you can see that we did not think the same as them. Their sentences were all choppy compared to modern linguistic standards. Egyptian heiroglyphics are pre-character. Egyptions didn't even have WORDS! Just think how words have influenced you. We read books, newspapers, road signs. With out words an Egyptian can not think of any of these. An Egyptian does not know what words are. Think of what else an ancient human could not talk about. Again I will repeat, yes of course we can relate with ancient man because we came from ancient man. But to say man has not changed? Come on. And yes technology has changed which brings about a good point. If you are familure with coevolution, it is when two organisms evolve to adapt to each other. If you look at mans relationship with technology this looks awfully similar. Who's to say that the evolution of technology has had no effect on man kind. Technology, an epigenetic factor? This would be a similar thought to the singularity hypothesis for those aware of that.
Well, you seem to assume, without actually knowing the subject you're describing, that what I'm saying is purely personal opinion. It isn't and hasn't been for a long time. That, with all due respect, is nonsense. Please read any Roman author or commentator on Roman daily life to see that Roman's were simply us without the benefit of computers and cellphones. There are plenty of personal texts, such as letter written home by legionairres, we know what they thought about - and wanted all the things that we do. Youre mistaking the structure of a language with the ability of the people who use it to think and be human. There are still exceptionally basic languages alive in the world today, such as some of the Polynesian languages. Are these people backward because they speak with a restricted alphabet and a non-european grammatical structure? Of course not. . LOL! Again, you're mistaking how the egyptians wrote wtih how you think they thought and acted. Heiroglyphs ARE complete words, it's just that vowels are inferred and not written. It's a perfect shorthand for use on buildings and stele. The egyptians weren't 'pre-word', the heiroglyphs represent words and sentences, stories, math, art, poetry - and in fact uses a clever system to imply meaning in words that we don't have, so is in some respects a richer form of expression. What a strange idea to think that if people are incapable of writing something down they're incaplable of thinking about it or talking about it? MelT
Haha ok so I don't know why yall are fighting me when you refuse to answer my questions, or even think about the main idea of the question in general. Instead every one is going on tangents about our ancient ancestors. Besides do you really think that an ancient human is as smart as modern day man? Thats perposterous. The Flynn effect is an observation made through IQ tests, and the Flynn effect describes that even in modern times, generation after generation of humans are becoming smarter. Talk to an ancient man and he may tell you that the world is in the center of the universe. I know that the world is not. I know more about reality than the ancient man. Of course they had common traits to us like poetry, stories, music, but even those are very different from modern poetry, stories and music. It was a very different world that they lived in then which is going to effect their perception of the world. As for modern day language, YES differences in ones native language effects how a person thinks. Depending on what words are used in the language and how they are used effect how a person thinks and perceives the world. These differences can be seen in things like Russians words for blue, feminin and masculin words in other languages, and even some languages that when giving directions, they give them according to their North South West East orrientation. These last people are always mentally oriented with where NSWE is, while I know I am not. That is just a difference in how we think and how language has effected that. Language itself could be considered an epigenetic factor. So lets get back to the subject of epigenetics. Does any one think that there could be so many non-genetic difference between two organisms that they could be classified as different organisms.
Twas the aliens! I don't think they are fighting with you OP, it's just a confusion that what you are doing is theorizing and developing new concepts and ideas. It's not all facts, and that is okay; it's what builds future ideas and truths.
look up the studies on the brains in monks. compassion /meditation etc leads to a physically more developed brain. that's evolving in my opinion.. it shows higher gamma wave output, for instance. and it's technically epigenetic.. above genetics.. our free will. ENCODE YOUR DNA MAN (JK) btw, our thumbs supposedly have gained dexterity/strength or something.. since we've been playing games more. idk you may want to double check that.. that's an epigenetic factor stemming from technology.
hahahah. wow. in my opinion, we're just as bad as we used to be.. except for now we have mass means of subtle poison. talking on our cellphones doesn't make us any more evolved.. it emits radiation. i tend to believe the studies i've seen on the effect it has on your brain.. and i guess u didn't know that the bible and all that is based off SUN worship. are we any less primitive? our bible is just as contradictory and nonsensical as the main religious views of old times.. and just think about bohemian grove.. those are some of the top elites.. and it's obviously something kookoo if we can't go there and armed police guard the entry..' and i'm not going to say that i'm not connected to my egyptian brethren!! they were all governed by the enneagram like us. just like all things with a consciousness. and another thing... my uncle can not speak taiwanese. yet he fell in love with a taiwanese woman. who could not speak english. they only knew a couple things to say eachother. they've lived together in taiwan, happily married, having children.. and they still aren't learning the other's language. they don't need to! i'm sure he knows more than he used to, but it's not a big deal to them. their kid speaks both. getting to know eachother and become "intimate" (which doesn't have to be sexually related) doesn't require advanced communication
But the reason we're doing that is you used it as a basis for proving that your thesis was true, that man was progressing mentally over and above the Egyptians. But you weren't just wrong about that, you completely misunderstood the subject you were talking about (writing and intelligence), which of course makes me wonder how much of the OP you understand? Why do you want to argue about things you don't know about? Modern man can talk about the internet and computers, he has things that are obviously beyond the knowledge of egyptians, but that means nothing. If I were to meet an Egyptian priest or builder he would run rings around me with his grasp of higher mathematics, something that it's well known that the Egyptians posessed. He would also know more than me concerning medicine and astronomy, so who would be the 'backward' one, him or me?. That he can't grasp - initially - the idea of mobile phones is neither here nor there, it's not a measure of intelligence. Ahhh, bad choice. The Flynn effect can simply be countered by showing that the basis of the questions in most IQ tests regard broader general knowledge through exposure, that's not intelligence. Knowing that the earth goes around the sun is knowledge, not intelligence. You're mixing the two up, and it will help your theory if you learn the difference between the two. Access to greater knowledge does not make us smarter or any different from our ancestors, it just means that some of us (note that well) know more than others. On the whole though, there just as many people with/without intelligence as there have ever been. That's knowledge, not intelligence. Sorry, you're still wrong. Ever read the Bhagavad Gita or the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Norse poems and stories? This is Sumerian, a prayer/poem, one of many, that was written before the Egyptians arose nearly 6, 000 years ago. Tell me in what way it sounds like the people writing it were savages?: "...I, Culgi, king of Urim, have also devoted myself to the art of music. Nothing is too complicated for me; I know the full extent of the tigi and the adab, the perfection of the art of music. When I fix the frets on the lute, which enraptures my heart, I never damage its neck; I have devised rules for raising and lowering its intervals...Even if they bring to me, as one might to a skilled musician, a musical instrument that I have not played previously, when I strike it up I make its true sound known; I am able to handle it just like something that has been in my hands before. Tuning, stringing, unstringing and fastening are not beyond my skills. I do not make the reed pipe sound like a rustic pipe, and on my own initiative I can wail a sumunca or make a lament as well as anyone who does it regularly..." "...Grand achievements that I have accomplished which bring joy to my heart I do not cast negligently aside; therefore I give pride of place to progress. I give no orders concerning the development of waste ground, but devote my energies to extensive building plots. I have planted trees in fields and in agricultural land; I devote my powers to dams, ......, ditches and canals. I try to ensure a surplus of oil and wool. Thanks to my efforts flax and barley are of the highest quality..." Does any of that that really sound like a primitive person who, as you claimed, doesn't even have proper words? Again you have it back to front. Words come after experience and cultural conditioning, they describe it. Words don't make our world, they reflect it. MelT
I'm just going to address this statement real quick because I'm getting a little tired of this. Any good scientist knows they are not out to prove any thing, we only look for the results of what is. And my theory is not that we have progressed mentally over the Egyptians at all, just kind of a heady, plausible example to get people thinking, but I guess in the wrong direction. My theory is much broader than this and you should start thinking out side the box, don't even think about humans any more think about any other organism. I will clearly state AGAIN, my theory. I am wondering can epigenetic factors alone can support evolution? Answer this question, and this question alone, and we can have a meaningful conversation. (Please, do answer this question, it is the whole reason I made this thread) And as for how much I know, I am finishing my degree in cognitive psychology and biochemistry, so take from that what you will. EDIT: So I was just thinking. I guess what you want from me is to say that you are right, we have not evolved beyond our ancient ancestors. That may be, I do not really know and I just looked back and when I mentioned humans it was in a side thought in the astrix, not even in the main body. But the question can still be asked do you think that the human brain can be influenced by epigenetic factors to such an extent that in some distant future, modern man and ancient man are no longer the same organism.
How can anyone hold a discussion with you about epigenetic factors when you don't even have a solid example of what differences you could be talking about?
It's not even the difference that matter, but rather are epigenetic factors strong enough to make such a difference (what ever the difference may be), that the difference between two organisms separates them to an evolutionary extent. The thing is, as of now I do not even know of any examples where epigenetic factors alone have resulted in evolution, so any example to give is only going to be a plausible thought. As for epigenetics in general, it plays an important part in our body. Epigenetics are involved with differentiating our cells. What is it that makes our eye cells different from our heart cells from our liver cells? Really that is an intriguing question because all of our cells have the same genome (same DNA). It is epigenetic factors like DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling that regulate gene transcription, which determines the proteins produced in the cell, which determines what that cell is and how it functions. So I thought hmm epigenetics, translating to "above genetics", what other "things" could be epigenetic in nature, that is what other "things" could influence what an organism is, that are non genetic? Could technology be considered an epigenetic factor? Society? Consciousness?(Props to iMaven for bringing up the monks and their brain development, and seriously could ones own consciousness influence some one so much that they transcend human race... ooo hows that for heady) This is the stretch that I am making. Say in the future the human mind is some how linked with the internet. This is a non genetic factor. Would this organism be comparable to previous man? (Rhetorical question, think about it, but stay focused on the idea of epigenetic factors and their strength)
Okay. Let's start over. I think perhaps that your definition of what's epigenetic and what's 'normal evolution' may be a little off. We don't think of evolution anymore in a purely darwinian sense, that it's all just survivial of the fittest. Stress and change of diet always affect an organism, as they may lead to mutated DNA or mutated sperm amongst the healthy. Temperature, everything, will affect what lives and what dies. - but many positive changes can take place in an organism through random mutations, errors in DNA, not because of its programming. MelT