MrDarwin

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=624&e=2&cid=624&u=/ap/20020814/ap_on_sc/language_gene_1" target="_blank">Researchers Date Language Gene</a> and <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=594&e=2&cid=594&u=/nm/20020814/hl_nm/speech_apes_dc_1" target="_blank">Apes Lack Gene for Speech, Study Finds</a> (the latter headline is rather misleading, and was obviously written by somebody who either doesn't understand science or didn't bother to read the article)

beausoleil

Fascinating, but it's a shame about the fairy tale

"Paabo said those who first had the gene may have had a survival advantage because their improved communication abilities may have allowed them to hunt better, for example.

"Or tell nice stories to the girls. Or sing beautifully, maybe," Paabo said. "

MrDarwin

I guess they have to grasp to find ways to make science interesting to the average reader. Too bad, but it's probably true that the average reader is woefully ignorant of science.

beausoleil

I think you're right. The media play a role in the urge to make things grabby to the supposed general reader. I remember being asked by one journalist what implications the discovery of life on Mars [sic] had for the existence of God or the truth of Star Trek. (I declined to answer)

On the other hand, these speculations just float a balloon up there for the no-nothings to shoot at. They like to say the evolution camp indulge in wild speculation, leaps of faith and circular arguments and this sort of thing conforms to the caricature (in their eyes).

MrDarwin

Here's coverage in the New York Times:


<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/science/15LANG.html" target="_blank">Language Gene Is Traced to Emergence of Humans</a>

RufusAtticus

I read the paper last night. It's pretty interesting. I've been keeping track of this gene since before it was even sequenced.

Coragyps

Marginally off topic, but....
The gene in question is FOXP2, aka "forkhead box P2." I have read enough to know that the "forkhead" gene family is quite important, but what all the listening audience wants to find out is: Where did the name forkhead come from? It sounds very like a graduate student's perjorative that they somehow cleaned up for publication. Do any of you old bio hands know?

Back on topic: pretty astounding stuff, if these two amino acids turn out to have as huge an effect as this work suggests!

RufusAtticus

I think forkhead refers to the shape of the binding region in the 3d protein. It looks like a 'Y.' I could be mistaken, so don't bet your life on it.

monkenstick

hahah, biologists and their wacky names. One of our professors was telling us about how he worked on a drosophila mutation which caused genitals to grow where its antenna should be. I wish I could remember what they actually called it, you can guess for yourselves what they wanted to call it.

lpetrich

Thus demonstrating a certain serial homology; was that the conclusion that this professor came to?

Some better-known examples of serial homology are between the antennae, mouthparts and legs of arthropods; Drosophila has the well-known mutations Antennapedia (antennae develop as legs) and Proboscipedia (mouthparts develop as legs).

How a limb develops is controlled by what Hox genes are expressed at its location; mis-expression can cause a limb to develop in the "wrong" way.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>