Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Human Intellect Degenerating?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Geneticist Gerald R. Crabtree reviews evidence showing genomic mutations are degrading the 2000 to 5000 genes needed for our intellectual and emotional function:

New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile. . . .
Between 2000 and 5000 genes are needed for intellectual and emotional function. . . .
A recent study of the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database, although incomplete, indicates that about half of all human genetic diseases have a neurologic component, [6], frequently including some aspect of [intellectual deficiency], consistent with the notion that many genes are required for intellectual and emotional function. The reported mutations have been severe alleles, often de novo mutations that reduce fecundity. However, each of these genes will also be subject to dozens if not hundreds of weaker mutations that lead to reduced function, but would not significantly impair fecundity, and hence could accumulate with time. . . .
It is very likely that within 3000 years (~120 generations) we have all sustained two or more mutations harmful to our intellectual or emotional stability. Recent human genome studies revealed that there are, per generation, about 60 new mutations per genome and about 100 hetrozygous mutations per genome that are predicted to produce a loss of function [7], some of which are likely to affect genes involved in human intellect. . . .
we, as a species, are surprisingly intellectually fragile and perhaps reached a peak 2000-6000 years ago. . . .

Gerald R. Crabtree Our Fragile Intellect. Part 1 Cell Press, TIGS-995

[6] Marin, O. And Gleeson, J.G. (2011) Function follows form: understanding brain function from a genetic perspective. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 21, 237-239.
[7] MacArthur, D.G. et al. (2012) A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes. Science 335, 823-828.

It is fascinating to see recognition of substantial cumulative genomic degradation rates. This affirms John C. Sanford’s thesis of accumulating mutations degrading function as described in Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome. In Mendel’s Accountant, Sanford provides software to quantitatively model this accumulative genomic degradation. See: John C. Sanford and Chase W. Nelson (2012). The Next Step in Understanding Population Dynamics: Comprehensive Numerical Simulation. In: Studies in Population Genetics, M. Carmen Fusté (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0588-6, InTech.

This raises the questions:
How did this remarkable number of coordinated genes come into being in the face of this rapid rate of genomic degradation?

Is neo-Darwinian evolution possible with such rapid cumulative genomic degradation?

Do these 2000-5000 genes for intellectual and emotional function constitute Complex Specified Information?

Comments
Nick Apologies on my inference. I understand Crabtree referring to actual mutations that degrade human intellect. He uses mutation(s) 40 times, intellectual 34 times, intellect 4 times, versus intelligence once. On mutations the intellect, see: X-Linked Intellectual Disability (XLID)
Intellectual disability can result from both environmental circumstances and genetic causes. Genetic causes, which account for up to 50% of moderate-severe cases, include chromosomal anomalies, specific syndromes, and single gene disorders. Approximately 10% of the protein-encoding genes on the X chromosome have been implicated in XLID. Although the numbers of mutations and reported families are small, collectively the impact of these genes is significant. This panel includes analysis of 91 X-linked genes that are known to be involved in syndromal and nonsyndromal intellectual disability.
Thus physical degradation of related genes impacts the intellect and/or emotions. A common example is the chromosomal duplication causing Down Syndrome.DLH
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Try actually reading Crabtree’s paper. Be warned that he relies on actual experimental evidence.
I read the paper before posting the first time. I am underwhelmed by the evidence presented. "Intelligence" refers to behavioral abilities, not to specific genes. And, as the paper says, there are many genes involved in producing intelligence. With that many genes, one cannot jump to conclusions about the effects on behavior from what is seen in the genes. The kind of conclusion expressed would require some solid testing of actual observed intelligence. Crabtree's first sentence:
I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues.
I see intelligence as adaptive. If that average Athens citizen were to appear, he would be badly malapted to modern society. We would likely see him as confused and of low intelligence. I'm not at all sure what Crabtree takes "intelligence" to mean, but it would appear to be very different from what I understand it to mean.Neil Rickert
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
I changed "intelligence" to "intellect" in the title to distinguish from genomic evidence from evidence of degenerating intelligence.DLH
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
sagebrush gardener According to Crabtree, all ancient children would be above (today's) average (with apologies to Prairie Home Companion.)
I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. . . .
Neil Rickert Try actually reading Crabtree's paper. Be warned that he relies on actual experimental evidence.
Perhaps the most effective way to estimate the number of genes in humans that are needed for full intellectual function is to rely on studies of X-linked intellectual deficiency (XLID). Present studies indicate that mutation of about 215 intellectual deficiency (ID)genes on the X chromosome give rise to XLID and/or emotional disability [1,2]; this represents about 25% of the genes on the X chromosome.
Caution: He abbreviates "intellectual deficiency" as ID.DLH
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Based on the evidence, I think your chances are better than that, Mung.sagebrush gardener
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
So there's at least a 50/50 chance I am in the upper 50 percentile?Mung
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
In fact, shocking studies reveal that half the population of the US has below-average intelligence! (Sorry, couldn't resist. :) )sagebrush gardener
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Neil, the Wikipedia article you refer to indicates that the Flynn effect (a general increase in IQ scores beginning around 1930) is only a short-term spike due to 20th century developments such as increased schooling, a more stimulating environment, improved nutrition, and a decrease in infectious diseases and environmental toxins. Several studies show that average IQ has actually been decreasing for the last 20 years, and Flynn (for whom the original effect was named) has predicted further decline for the future. There is a limit to the IQ gains from environmental factors and it appears that dysgenic factors are beginning to reverse the trend.sagebrush gardener
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Is Human Intelligence Degenerating?
To me, this seems unlikely, in the light of the Flynn effect. There might be a lot of change going on in that part of the genome, but change is not necessarily degeneration.Neil Rickert
February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply