Comments on: Small tweak to DNA may have given us our unique hands

Small tweak to DNA may have given us our unique hands

homunculus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:35:36 -0800

Fingering What Make Us Human: Did a gene enhancer humanise our thumbs?

By: ZaneJ.

ZaneJ. — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:46:38 -0800

This kind of science has always made my pants tight. Thanks homunculus.

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:48:25 -0800

This totally blows me away!

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:52:33 -0800

It's what makes us such excellent hitchhikers and movie critics. (this is cool.)

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:53:25 -0800

Primate hands are clearly very unique. But are human hands really that different from chimp hands? Looking at this they don't seem different in more than small ways.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:53:55 -0800

I shall bless that gene enhancer every time I need to hold a pen, press the space bar, or hitch a ride.

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:54:53 -0800

God, that makes me sound like a fox news reporter ("Is something you wear everyday trying to kill your family?") - I'm really asking why both articles and the experiment made the distinction between chimp and human hands and how exactly the human hands stand out.

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:56:20 -0800

My cat is nervous at the prospect of mice with thumbs escaping the lab and running amok

By: phrontist

phrontist — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:08:17 -0800

Solon: opposability?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:11:23 -0800

Scientists Find Our Eyes Evolved for 'X-Ray' Vision

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:20:12 -0800

I just figured we had opposable thumbs since it made jerking off easier and more pleasant.

By: zusty

zusty — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:21:33 -0800

Oh, sweet! Would that Hox-generated hand configuration allowed for hacking in opposable pinkies, too. Because that would be neato.

By: cmoj

cmoj — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:29:52 -0800

So where is my bipedal, dexterous, talking mouse?

By: airgirl

airgirl — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:44:32 -0800

This is super cool! Thank you!

By: zerobyproxy

zerobyproxy — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:44:55 -0800

For this reason the banana fits right into my hand! Kidding, what a fantastic article! Thanks for posting it.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:13:22 -0800

Carl Zimmer: Science Writers Need Science History

For some reason, a number of articles on the paper are using the hook that this segment of DNA was once dissed as junk. "A patch of DNA once regarded as 'junk' may hold the key to upright walking and opposable thumbs," according to Wired. These reports seem to be following the language from the original press release. The "Wow! Junk DNA is not junk after all" news hook is a tempting one, but it needs to be resisted. At the very least, science writers need to recall some history. ... The new paper about hand evolution reports on the discovery of a special kind of DNA segment called an enhancer. An enhancer sits very far away from the gene it enhances. But if DNA is folded in on itself, the two come close together. Proteins that clamp down on the DNA can then increase the production of the gene's protein. So, are enhancers an amazing new kind of junk that's not junk? Nope. The first reports of enhancers came out in 1981, 27 years ago.

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:14:02 -0800

phrontist, the page you linked to shows that chimps, gorillas, and a slew of other apes/monkeys/non-primates have opposable thumbs, too.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:16:55 -0800

For this reason the banana fits right into my hand! Hah! that banana thing actually proves evolution, not ID. The plant that the banana comes from doesn't fit comfortably in your hand at all, rather constant artificial selection by human growers is the reason bananas have that shape.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:19:41 -0800

By the way, if you like this kind of thing you should read Carl Zimmer's blog every day. Seriously he puts out stuff this interesting like at least once a week.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:36:28 -0800

I just figured we had opposable thumbs since it made jerking off easier and more pleasant. Would easier and more satisfying masturbation lead to greater reproductive success? I would think the opposite, but I'll defer to your expertise.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:42:20 -0800

Would easier and more satisfying masturbation lead to greater reproductive success? Well, think about it. Jerking off is like practice. The more you do it, the longer you can hold back, which makes you a better lay, which attracts more females for mating, thus more reproductive success.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:48:47 -0800

Solon: my understanding is that it's all about leverage. Small tweaks in bone length and muscle insertion points make big differences in strength vs dexterity. Think about chopsticks: and whether you hold them near the end or at the middle. People often go on about how damned strong apes are compared to humans: well reason they have better grip strength is that their hands are designed to support their weight from branches, and not for making and using tools.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:02:23 -0800

So if I jerk of more I'll get laid more? That's what I call an elegant hypothesis. But it needs testing. The next time I jerk off, I'll be doing it for Science!

By: P.o.B.

P.o.B. — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:03:40 -0800

The more you do it, the longer you can hold back, which makes you a better lay, which attracts more females for mating, thus more reproductive success. I had read reasoning contrary to this. A shorter copulation time allows less time for the back to be exposed to competing males and other possible dangers. Or maybe that was just the reasoning that paricular scientist used to cover to up his *ahem* "premature problems".

By: synaesthetichaze

synaesthetichaze — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:05:07 -0800

constant artificial selection by human growers For anyone wondering, here is what a wild banana looks like.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:05:52 -0800

The next time I jerk off, I'll be doing it for Science! Talk about being Blinded with Science!

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:39:35 -0800

Solon and Thanks writes "But are human hands really that different from chimp hands? Looking at this they don't seem different in more than small ways." Touch the fleshy pad of the tip of your thumb to the pad on the tip of each of your fingers on the same hand. Notice how the paired finger and thumb points out, opposite the length of your arm. This gives you four different padded grips with which to manipulate objects. (Actually more than four, if you include grips like all four fingers opposing thumb, the grip you'd use to open a jar of mayonnaise, or middle-finger and index opposing thumb, the grip for turning a key in a lock.) Now touch the tip of your fingers to the base of your thumb; this is approximately where the tip of the chimp's finger is. You really can't reach your pinkie that far; you can do it with the other fingers, but now the fingers, instead of pointing away from your arm, are pointing back toward your elbow, and the grip is not as strong. You can kind of grip things, but you can't point the fingers out as you do so. Turning a key is right out, opening a mayonnaise jar is much more difficult, turning a screw-driver requires much more concentration. The human hand allows simultaneously a precise grip (well, dozens of kinds of precise grips) and the ability to provide force or torque through that grip.

By: nowonmai

nowonmai — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:19:51 -0800

Endless Forms Most Beautiful is a book largely about the role of enhancers in evolution. It's a good read. Written by a scientist, not one of these breathless journalist types.

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:24:18 -0800

Well explained, orthogonality and i_am_joe's_spleen. Thanks.

By: Free word order!

Free word order! — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:28:47 -0800

Actually this tweaking was engineered by hair, which are old parasites/symbiotes which attached to first mammals long time ago. It seems that hair slowly designed a better, neater self-grooming growing platforms for themselves, humans. Some scientists have learned to use their 'antennas of heaven' to further the understanding of hair, humanity and the world. Having thumbs has obvious evolutionary advantage for hair as it allows for more and faster variation in ecology of hair styles. Standing position helps hair to avoid dirt.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:37:05 -0800

Wing of Bat, and Mouse's Leg: Deciphering how a paw becomes a wing confirms some of eco-devo's basic hypotheses.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:01:03 -0800

Solon and Thanks's diagram confirms what I've always suspected: I am, in fact, a gorilla.

By: humannaire

humannaire — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:36:20 -0800

Nope. The first reports of enhancers came out in 1981, 27 years ago. 1981 was 27 years ago? [head reels] Whoa. I remember being 27 years old. This is blowing my mind. There's like an idea sign flashing in my head now. And it reads, "I am older than I think I am. I am older than I think I am," over and over. I wonder if it's true?

By: humannaire

humannaire — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:38:46 -0800

Also, fricking great post, homunculus! Blue clone thumb me, hoo-ah!

By: penduluum

penduluum — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:14:47 -0800

The next time I jerk off, I'll be doing it for Science! paging...

By: jhc

jhc — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:18:44 -0800

First: The more you do it, the longer you can hold back, which makes you a better lay, which attracts more females for mating, thus more reproductive success. Then: I had read reasoning contrary to this. A shorter copulation time allows less time for the back to be exposed to competing males and other possible dangers. Evolutionary explanations without experimental tests are our Just So Stories -- there are plausible evolutionary forces to cause basically any desired outcome.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:09:00 -0800

I just bought the galactic edition of Spore, and it comes with a Nat Geo video about this topic, and how Will Wright's work was influenced by it. Worth a look, especially if you like smart, creative games.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:20:13 -0800

There's an article about Spore in Seed: Will Wright's eight-year, multimillion dollar project Spore encompasses almost every aspect of science, from star formation to biological evolution. So why does it resemble intelligent design?

By: Mastercheddaar

Mastercheddaar — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:01:29 -0800

Ok I kinda looked and didn't see this: This post gets.... wait for it..... wait for it... TWO THUMBS UP!!!

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:09:44 -0800

Before Evolution Came Prevolution, Say Biologists

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:43:23 -0800

Evidence of evolutionary selection found in 544 genes: By comparing the genomes of humans and five other mammals, Cornell researchers have identified 544 genes that have been shaped by positive selection over millions of years of evolution.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:24:40 -0800

Getting to the bottom of evolution: Genetic study investigates the origin of the anus.