Research: Gene Identified, Believed to Account For Humans' Big Brain
The human brain is 3 times the size of a chimp's brain and researchers at the University of California, believe they have identified the gene responsible. The gene, called HAR1, is found in all animals.
"The properties of this gene are that it's turned on at about week seven of embryonic development in the same cells that help build the cerebral cortex," said David Haussler, the study's co-author and director.
Little change has been noticed in the gene for most animals, from chicken to chimpanzees. But for humans, in the past 5 million years the human HAR1 has largely mutated and is today approximately 10% different compared to a chimp's HAR1 gene.
1) This suggests we evolved to our advanced levels today by a freak genetic mutation. What? Evolution? Incredible.
2) We really should try developing this gene in certain other animals. That would really be amazing. Of course, the strongly religious would argue that it is trying to play God, a major no no. But, if there is a God, "he" wouldn't give us such toys if that's not what "he" wanted. There is a positive potential in so many ways.
3) A fetus is not truly human until week 7. Check. Some would again argue, on the God basis, but how many of you people consider an egg to be a chicken when you eat it? No? This is science, not religion.
@maverick7h first off, giving other animals higher brain power isn't a very good idea. we're the top species. let's try not to ruin that by adding competition. humans can't even get along with each other. what makes you think a race of super smart animals would be a good idea? the god argument doesn't even need to be factored in to realize that when people play god they mess up horribly. secondly, you should first define "human" before you say something is inhuman.
Of course mutation is part of evolution. Mutation IS evolution. However, mutation is not Creationism. That's what I was implying, if not a bit too sarcastically.
@Manila - I completely understand the risks of giving animals intelligence near or on par with ours. The same risk would apply giving true intelligence and learning capability to a non-living entity (i.e. AI), but that happening is almost inevitable.
The problem, I think, is in humans themselves. If we are going to create intelligence, living or artificial, it needs to be created with LOVE. It is an essential component. Create intelligence without love, and said entity will develop a hatred for its creators. There is little doubt that such scientists would create such things with purely scientific, apathetic interests. Create an intelligent entity, and love it, and let it know that you love it, and its very unlikely that it would ever hate its creator. The next problem would be the intelligent entity learning of all the sins of man, and develop a hatred for our race as a whole. But, then again, something I think about is this scenario. If the entire world was coming to an end, if all of humanity was about to be destroyed, and I was the only one that could save it, and all I had to do was push a button, would I push it? I have a hard time with that question. Sometimes I think humanity has become so corrupt and apathetic and selfish that they don't DESERVE to survive. So who would be right anyway, us? Or Frankenstein?
Ultimately, I stand by my theory that all life is inherently good. Even Frankenstein was good, it was the evil of humanity that gave him a bad image.
The problem is not in the core concept of giving intelligence to something else. The problem is WHO the people are with the power to do this. It will almost always be the wrong people.
