Another Hobbit!

[kbs2244]

How much of the FOXP2 gene has been found in flocking birds or schooling fish?

I will admit to not being a fan of media convictions.
But I am always open to well documented opinions.

I cannot remember when I decided that “3 out of 10” are victims of something that means that seven out of ten ire not.
But show me the facts to back up your opinion.

[circumspice]

How much of the FOXP2 gene has been found in flocking birds or schooling fish?

I will admit to not being a fan of media convictions.
But I am always open to well documented opinions.

I cannot remember when I decided that “3 out of 10” are victims of something that means that seven out of ten ire not.
But show me the facts to back up your opinion.

Any facts that anyone shows you will always be naysayed by you. You will say they are opinions & not facts... You have already decided that no one can prove anything to you on any subject. You ALWAYS try to shoot down anything that doesn't conform to your belief system. You are hide bound into a narrow set of beliefs & will not be swayed by any set of facts or proofs or evidence. It is a fool's errand to try to persuade you on any subject. Why do you even bother to comment on this board? I suspect that you are trying to gain converts. Evangelize much?

[Cognito]

How much of the FOXP2 gene has been found in flocking birds or schooling fish?

Very interesting comment, KB, since we were discussing primates. For a review of the FOX2P gene, please see this from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

The following article is for Spice since he will know where I was headed with my Hobbit gene comment vis a vis its morphological similarity to A afarensis: http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm

[circumspice]

How much of the FOXP2 gene has been found in flocking birds or schooling fish?

Very interesting comment, KB, since we were discussing primates. For a review of the FOX2P gene, please see this from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

The following article is for Spice since he will know where I was headed with my Hobbit gene comment vis a vis its morphological similarity to A afarensis: http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm

Wow... That's a lot to take in & process... I have never been a fan of sensationalized headline whoring. They always present an over simplified view of complex issues. My son is a geneticist. I'll ask him to translate this article for me. Thanks for the link to an interesting article.

And yes, I believe I see where you're headed with your comments. I'll need to think on this for a while.

[circumspice]

I can remember a time before the advent of reliable DNA genome sequencing there were many anthropologists who claimed that Neanderthals were non-vocal/non-verbal because a hyoid bone had never been found in an indisputable context with Neanderthal remains. Then a set of Neanderthal remains were found that clearly showed that Neanderthals had hyoids & therefore could probably vocalize/verbalize efficiently... The naysayers then promptly countered that pigs also have hyoid bones & were not considered to be verbal... Hmmm... It would seem that physical proofs weren't good enough to show that Neanderthals probably had speech. The same arguments were carried on when a Broca's Area was observed inside the fossilized skulls of some Neanderthal individuals. What I see is that no matter what the proofs or evidence shows, some folks want to discount it. Perhaps it's because Neanderthals & other Homo species don't conform to some people's biased standards of what constitutes humanity on a shallow morphological level. (ie: they ain't pretty enough to be considered human?)