That is the stripped down definition of what mutation is, is it not? What else do you call this empirical observation other than a mutation?Aristarchus wrote: Your links/studies do not state any empirical evidence for mutations, and this is why the language in them use words like "suggest." What is being found empirically is that information can be lost, rearranged, or added. That is all.
Point well taken, and this brings up a different, but related point. Not to derail the topic, but I have recently become aware of Thread Theory as proposed by Bill Gaede. He has a very interesting approach that rocks theoretical physics to its core regarding conceptualizations, observations and rigorous definitions. I've never considered this same approach to Evolution and biological sciences, but it is worth pursuing. I have probably taken for granted the model conceptualizations of evolution and not considered their interpretations in light of observations.Aristarchus wrote: This is not empirical evidence. It is simply based upon a preferred scientific conceptualization and applying it to the observed data...
You don't know the exact source of the FOXP2 gene, but you're sure it evolved over time from mutations, and yet, you do not source this contradictory claim? You even punctuate your positing with, "I don't know" - twice. With all due respect, but I believe I must establish at this point in our discussion that we're not even on the level playing field of science, but rather, seeking to identify logical constructs. I must also state that you do provide evidence for one of my main themes and interests about how science comports to conceptualizations and not true observations.
Having said that, I do not know of any other mechanism that would explain the appearance of the FOXP2 gene (among other unique human genes). It certainly did not surreptitiously appear and lay dormant for hundreds of thousands of years. Do you have a hypothesis on its origin? Or do you make no claim as to its origin?
That's not what I was referring too. Human's have clearly adapted a higher level of brain functioning than any other species on the planet. Abstract thought is unique to humanity. I was specifically referring to how an animal behavior or psychology can influence its evolutionary selection, but reading further into it I was inferring that other species have shown traits or characteristics that we would call "emotion" on a more primitive level. Several animal's have demonstrated what we would call compassion and mourning for loss. Its hard to fully qualify since we are unable to directly communicate with them, but from a human perspective these traits are observable as primitive levels.Aristarchus wrote: Really? What other species is seeking questions about its origins or its role in nature on a metaphysical level? What other species defends ideals and ideas? What other species examines the specifics of what constitutes scientific methodology?