Evolution is a Fact #9 - Less Chewing More Thinking

by cofty 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty

    If you put your fingers on the side of your head, just above your ears, and move your jaw you will be able to feel your temporalis muscles doing their thing.

    Compared to our primate cousins our temporalis muscles are puny - approximately one eighth the size.

    The reason for the difference is a mutation of the MYH16 gene in humans that produces a protein called myosin heavy chain 16. In primates like the gorilla this protein produces the powerful chewing pressure of the jaw.

    Our closest hominid relative, the chimpanzee have an intact MYH16 gene. Since the rate of mutation can be determined, Hansell Stedman and his team at the University of Pennsylvania have calculated that the mutation that disabled the gene in our line happened between 2.1 and 2.7 million years ago.

    The large temporalis muscle has to anchor to very thick and strong skull bones. A loss of MYH16 in our ancestors permitted the brain-case to become thinner and larger allowing for the expansion of the hominin brain which is one of the defining features of Homo sapiens. The genus Homo first appeared around 2 million years ago. Add to that the thought that a reduction in the jaw muscles would likely lead to finer control of the mandible that is required for speech.

    The story of the loss of our big temporalis muscle is undoubtedly more complex and interconnected with other changes. However the relic of this gene in our genome is another piece of evidence of our common ancestry with all living things.




    Part 1 - Protein Functional Redundancy .................... Part 5 - Vitamin C
    Part 2 - DNA Functional RedundancyPart 6 - Human Chromosome 2
    Part 3 - ERVsPart 7 - Human Egg Yolk Gene
    Part 4 - Smelly GenesPart 8 - Jumping Genes
  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    Super interesting stuff again COFTY.

    What really fascinates me is how they determine how many years (generations) ago a given mutation occurred. Would love to learn more about that process . . .

  • Slidin Fast
    Slidin Fast
    So much evidence, so much to chew over (carefully and delicately as befits our nice little temporal muscles). Thanks Cofty.
  • Mephis
    Mephis

    Just on mutation rate, an article in Nature with links to papers which set out the nitty gritty: http://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutation-clock-proves-tough-to-set-1.17079

    tl:dr of it - currently they're comparing the entire genomes of things to work out a rough estimation of the rate, but the rate may at times be faster and may at times be slower so dating will be an estimation within a band based on slowest known rate and faster ones.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Great OP again.

    I'd love to know when populations of Homo first started to cook their food - thus making it even easier to chew.

    Also, was sapiens the only species to do this? Or did neanderthalensis, erectus and ergaster do similar?

  • Esse quam videri
    Esse quam videri

    '...Hansell Stedman and his team at the University of Pennsylvania have calculated that the mutation that disabled the gene in our line happened between 2.1 and 2.7 million years ago...'


    Are they sure it wasn't between 1.8 and 3.3 million years ago? Oh, he had a team working on it. In that case they must be right.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Notice the contrast between BOC's curiosity about mutation rates which led to a great reply by Memphis and a link to further reading, and the dismissive comment by EQV.

  • Esse quam videri
    Esse quam videri

    Notice the contrast between BOC's curiosity about mutation rates which led to a great reply by Memphis and a link to further reading, and the dismissive comment by EQV.

    I don't stand in awe of someone who tells me what happened 2 million years ago.

  • Slidin Fast
    Slidin Fast

    E q v. One of the refreshing things about science is that it asks questions and looks at evidence for a guide to the answers. It doesn't start with the answer and try to bend the evidence till it sort of fits and then ignore, hide or misquote evidence to the contrary.

    Evidence concerning the age of specimens and events piles up and up. I won't even try to defend the chronology of creation I was brought up on. Don't mock the efforts of science to narrow the margins of error on dating of these changes.

  • cofty
    cofty
    I don't stand in awe of someone who tells me - EQV

    Neither does any intelligent person.

    Rational people carefully check out the evidence and discover how the rate of genetic mutations are calculated, what the degree of error is and whether there is any scientific controversy about the claim.

    In any case the date is irrelevant to the evidence for evolution presented in the OP. It was an interesting aside.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit