The Gene for Abstract Thought

This correlates very well to a theory that I've developed on my own, independent of the TV Series. The key point of the episode is (rhetorically asking) "how could the gene for abstract thinking evolve on Earth?"

If it did evolve naturally on Earth, then dolphins or elephants should be fairly capable, too!

But furthermore, they do mention something that ties together several loose ends. One is that there must've been various DIFFERENT visiting EBE's that had experimented on early hominids. Maybe during different epochs way back, that they have no direct contact with each other, instead just having the evidence in the form of different types of hominids.

And so today, we have various visiting EBE's abducting, testing and monitoring people to see whether they're related to us. And whether they could benefit. Other EBE's observe and maybe continue to steer human development. There's no one dominant EBE. It's like a cosmic competition where the rules are universally ordinary. Earth is just one of many fertile planets.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic

If it did evolve naturally on Earth, then dolphins or elephants should be fairly capable, too!

They are! Well, elephants are anyway.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


so we've only had a few decades to understand psychology and evolutionary biology with advanced technology.....

Yet you have already given up on a natural evolutionary explanation for human consciousness.

Pathetic.

reply to post by windword


Thanks for the video, this is truely amazing and proves even more that animals are more conscious than some people would like to think !

"There's no explanation for human beings. They shouldn't be here on this planet."

I totally agree.

Abstract thought is not something were born with. Children cannot think abstractly but rather think in concrete terms. Abstract thought (executive functioning) develops over the lifespan through about the age of 25 when one can safely assume its fully present. If it was from an alien life form it would be present from birth. It's evolutionary.

There's no gene for abstract thought. Abstract thought is what scientists call an "emergent" property. Which is a clever way of saying, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Somehow, it exists, but we can't account for it in a scientifically observable way.

Originally posted by windword

It should be noted that the elephant was trained to replicate this painting, it didn't just decide it wanted to paint itself out of its own creative mind. Still very impressive and a testament to the intelligence of an elephant to be able to learn how to do that properly.

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
The key point of the episode is (rhetorically asking) "how could the gene for abstract thinking evolve on Earth?"

There is no such "gene".

If it did evolve naturally on Earth, then dolphins or elephants should be fairly capable, too!

Okay, let's pretend there is such a gene.. Then my answer would be:
Are you lacking the logic-gene?
If the trunk & fin gene evolved naturally on Earth, then we should have a trunk and fins, too!

Where does evolution stop making sense to you?

And so today, we have various visiting EBE's abducting, testing and monitoring people to see whether they're related to us.

No. We do not. At all. Ever.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by FormerSkeptic

 

so we've only had a few decades to understand psychology and evolutionary biology with advanced technology.....

Yet you have already given up on a natural evolutionary explanation for human consciousness.

Pathetic.

Well, I think you are both on an excellent track here! It is good to realize that you both think there are some things that science can explain, such as certain spiritual things like free will, and also dreaming, lucid dreaming, etc. and some Eastern stuff, also culture... death... remote viewing... etc.

a single gene cannot in any way account for any sort of higher level functioning. that is just not what genes do.

for sake of simplicity, let us assume a "one gene, one protein" rule. that one gene has a single transcriptional product, and results in many copies of a single protein.

that protein is merely a tiny component in a vast and convoluted network of both structural and signalling proteins which must all act concertedly in order to produce a single higher level behavior.

"higher level" as in: belching.... is there a belching gene? no.
breathing gene? walking gene? no and no.
abstract thought gene? nope.

the question doesent even make sense.

(disclosure: I think that genetic seeding is plausible. but let us not talk nonsense.)

reply to post by Nevertheless

Where does evolution stop making sense to you?

Though I believe in some form of evolution there are still some things that don't make sense to me. For any changes to occur there has to be some form of intelligence weaved into the fabric of all DNA. I can see life evolving as far as the creation of blind, limbless, bone-less worms, but as time went on the DNA in the creatures of this planet decided that it would grow eyes, limbs, sense of smell, hair, tails, claws, produce defense mechanisms such as poison... Also, there seems to be a rule of evolution that doesn't allow for such things as eyes to grow on trees, or for grass to crawl like spiders... Trees have been stuck and have remained victims of their environment since the very first tree. It sure seems like they would have evolved a way to become mobile by now, instead of just dropping seeds and hoping that other creatures will move them along.

Flowers grow pollen in such a way that it requires a totally different species (bees) to transport the pollen from one plant to the next. How could mindless organisms evolve such cooperation between species?

It is said that it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, and that evolution takes place when a pattern is repeated over and over, from one generation to the next - like man evolving an opposable thumb to better grasp tools with. Yet, no environment has remained unchanged for more than 100,000 years, not nearly long enough for whole new species to evolve from previous species. We have Ice Ages occurring every hundred-thousand years or so. Whole regions of the world have gone from verdant forests to deserts, from oceans to land, from flat lands to mountains. Forest fires had to have been quite frequent before anyone was around to fight them.

So, if the environments of earth change in less than 100,000 years, forcing life to keep moving into different regions with different climates, different food sources, different predators, and if evolution takes millions of years, can anyone else see the conflict here? If it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, then that species had to STAY in a set environment for millions of years, while no environment has remained unchanged for more than 100,000 years.

Point being, ALL the information in DNA, that allows for things to evolve, it would be so easy to believe that that information had to have come from an intelligent source.

...Could it be safe to assume that Cromagnons and Homo Sapiens were more capable of abstract thought than say..Neanderthals...?

Originally posted by jiggerj
Though I believe in some form of evolution there are still some things that don't make sense to me. For any changes to occur there has to be some form of intelligence weaved into the fabric of all DNA.

No, there is no intelligence in either DNA or evolution.

I can see life evolving as far as the creation of blind, limbless, bone-less worms, but as time went on the DNA in the creatures of this planet decided that it would grow eyes

No, the predecessor to eyes were not "not eyes", but organs that were worse than eyes in reacting to light.
If reacting to light was essential for survival, then those who reacted to light the best had an greater chance to outlive their peers.

It has been shown quite recently that there are parts of our bodies that react to light. Or rather, that our brains are affected by the body-parts receiving light.

Also, there seems to be a rule of evolution that doesn't allow for such things as eyes to grow on trees, or for grass to crawl like spiders...

plants are rooted so it's hard not to be rooted. Also, I'm not good at all at plants, but please do think about what else is necessary than an eye to actually use an eye, and why an eye won't evolve otherwise.
Anyway, if you look at the leaves over a day, you will see how nicely they usually follow the sun.

Trees have been stuck and have remained victims of their environment since the very first tree.

Trees are one of the things on this planet that lives the longest, and that spread out all around the planet without legs. I think they are quite successful victims - in that case.

It sure seems like they would have evolved a way to become mobile by now, instead of just dropping seeds and hoping that other creatures will move them along.

Wind usually does that to trees, but, they don't need to hope (well, of course they don't, as they don't have any brains), they're doing just fine.

The evolving has occurred in the different climates that have surrounded them. And they now do fine there as well.

Flowers grow pollen in such a way that it requires a totally different species (bees) to transport the pollen from one plant to the next. How could mindless organisms evolve such cooperation between species?

Before insects, wind took care of it. With insects, suddenly there were accurate agents that were doing a fantastic job. Relying on wind was no longer a must. Relying on insects can have the consequence that wind is no longer doing a good job. Partly because of how the flowers look, partly because it's OK with more sparse flowers, as insects know how to find the next flower.

It is said that it takes millions of years for a species to evolve

This is not that accurate. For us to see such an obvious difference, then yes, we need a very long time before we consider two being to be of different species.

, and that evolution takes place when a pattern is repeated over and over, from one generation to the next

No, evolution takes place constantly. Every generation. Every individual.

- like man evolving an opposable thumb to better grasp tools with

That would be a new species, yes.

. Yet, no environment has remained unchanged for more than 100,000 years, not nearly long enough for whole new species to evolve from previous species

If it gets colder or warmer, it has no impact on whether or not a thumb will be there.
It will however impact those who are less prepared for it. Those who are not will be the gene-pool that sets the immediate future.

. We have Ice Ages occurring every hundred-thousand years or so. Whole regions of the world have gone from verdant forests to deserts, from oceans to land, from flat lands to mountains. Forest fires had to have been quite frequent before anyone was around to fight them.

So, if the environments of earth change in less than 100,000 years, forcing life to keep moving into different regions with different climates, different food sources, different predators, and if evolution takes millions of years, can anyone else see the conflict here?

No, we evolve all the time regardless where we are.

If it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, then that species had to STAY in a set environment for millions of years, while no environment has remained unchanged for more than 100,000 years.

Why? A human does human things all around the world. And needs human attributes.

reply to post by Nevertheless


Very thorough response, NTL, but I feel as though you might have missed the underlying context of my post. That being: The information for even the slightest evolutionary change had to already have been wired into the DNA right from the very first single cell.

A primordial worm species would crawl on its belly throughout all of eternity if the information to grow legs isn't in its DNA - no matter how much the species needed to dig or climb or run faster. Even with so-called sudden mutation where stubs are formed that will become legs in future generations, this information had to already be there. Imagine a Swiss army knife with all of it's gadgets: Some of the gadgets will be used (screwdriver, scissors...). Some of the gadgets might not be used (cork screw, can opener), but the information - the tools - are there just in case they might be needed in the future. BUT, you simply cannot produce a crowbar if the Swiss knife doesn't already have one.

All of the information, the range of evolutionary possibilities, had to have been placed into the DNA on this planet.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Very thorough response, NTL, but I feel as though you might have missed the underlying context of my post. That being: The information for even the slightest evolutionary change had to already have been wired into the DNA right from the very first single cell.

But the information isn't there. The DNA mutates "randomly".

A primordial worm species would crawl on its belly throughout all of eternity if the information to grow legs isn't in its DNA - no matter how much the species needed to dig or climb or run faster

That is correct.

. Even with so-called sudden mutation where stubs are formed that will become legs in future generations, this information had to already be there.

The mutation needs to exist in the DNA, yes.

Imagine a Swiss army knife with all of it's gadgets: Some of the gadgets will be used (screwdriver, scissors...). Some of the gadgets might not be used (cork screw, can opener), but the information - the tools - are there just in case they might be needed in the future.

But in the case of the worm, there is no such leg-tools in the DNA, unless such a mutation occurs - in the DNA.

BUT, you simply cannot produce a crowbar if the Swiss knife doesn't already have one.

That's why you need to hope that the blueprint of the swiss-knife mutates.

All of the information, the range of evolutionary possibilities, had to have been placed into the DNA on this planet.

It's the DNA that mutates.

reply to post by Nevertheless


I think more people should accustom themselves to the possibility that "DNA" i.e what makes up our genes, might not be all there is to making the "something" that is the world we experience. I guess it's a just a cautionary feeling I have - there have been plenty of instances in mankinds historical past where what was considered "irrefutable" scientific fact became replaced by a newer and more complicated picture. Science is ever evolving, and the theories we devise are only approximations of the objective reality.

Genetics is a hypothesis in motion. It claims all sorts of wonderful things, but so much of what genetics claims - such as being the underlying basis for everything that exists - contrasts starkly with the knowledge we actually have. For example, a mouse and human possess more or less the same number of genes. And yet look at the Mammoth structural and functional differences between humans and mice! It's insane. Where's the information that creates this difference? How can two species so utterly different from each other be made up of the same primal 'stuff'. Where is the information hiding?

Again, I don't disavow the worth of the theory of genetics, but I think there might be more to it than scientists generally like to lead on. In any case, at our current pace (we our gaining more and more knowledge everyday with how the genes which make up fruitflies produce wings,eyes, sexual orientation, etc... YES - a fruitfly!), with our current understanding of the relationship between genes and structure/function, it'll be hundreds of years before we have a workable knowledge of how genes (which includes particular genes, in a particular order, at a particular time, at a particular range) make us who we are.

I'm not holding my breath.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
I think more people should accustom themselves to the possibility that "DNA" i.e what makes up our genes, might not be all there is to making the "something" that is the world we experience.

DNA is not what makes up the "something" that is the world we experience. DNA is what describes the properties of organic life as we know/define it.

I guess it's a just a cautionary feeling I have - there have been plenty of instances in mankinds historical past where what was considered "irrefutable" scientific fact became replaced by a newer and more complicated picture. Science is ever evolving, and the theories we devise are only approximations of the objective reality.

That DNA describes the properties of organic life IS an irrefutable fact. We know DNA well enough to use it to understand many aspects of different species, and we use it to transfer properties from one organic being to another. It just happens to work that way.

Genetics is a hypothesis in motion. It claims all sorts of wonderful things, but so much of what genetics claims - such as being the underlying basis for everything that exists

Who (except you) words that genetics is the underlying basis for everything that exists..?

- contrasts starkly with the knowledge we actually have. For example, a mouse and human possess more or less the same number of genes. And yet look at the Mammoth structural and functional differences between humans and mice! It's insane.

It's not insane. The number of genes doesn't matter. It's the actual genes that matter.

Where's the information that creates this difference? How can two species so utterly different from each other be made up of the same primal 'stuff'. Where is the information hiding?

In the DNA...? Perhaps you need to study how it works more. There's nothing utterly strange about it. How can two software be so different if they are both just... "software"?

Again, I don't disavow the worth of the theory of genetics, but I think there might be more to it than scientists generally like to lead on. In any case, at our current pace (we our gaining more and more knowledge everyday with how the genes which make up fruitflies produce wings,eyes, sexual orientation, etc... YES - a fruitfly!), with our current understanding of the relationship between genes and structure/function, it'll be hundreds of years before we have a workable knowledge of how genes (which includes particular genes, in a particular order, at a particular time, at a particular range) make us who we are.

Genetics give us properties, they don't define who we are.

So if there is a gene for abstract thought, there is also a gene for needing to believe in things. There is no doubt humans need to explain things that they don't understand. Humans have been believing and telling stories and creating myths since they have been here. Which came first, the aliens or the stories? Maybe aliens implanted a disinformation gene in us.

reply to post by Nevertheless

It's not insane. The number of genes doesn't matter. It's the actual genes that matter.

Care to clarify? If the numbers of genes are more or less the same - and the genes in question are the same, how can two utterly different species arise from this same informational pool?

I wasn't denying the fact of DNA, btw. I guess I didn't do a good job expressing that. Rather, my point was that there seems to be more to the issue than what we so far know. James Le Fanu touches on this in his book "Why Us". The human genome project created as much difficulties as it edified. I don't see how someone can be so closed minded to the fact that genes are either a) far too complex for our finite minds to comprehend or b) there may be some some non-physical source which "informs" DNA, which causes the corpus of genes to interact in such a way to produce a fin instead of a hand.