Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design

I found an interesting video about gene editing of mice leading to greater vocal complexity and communication in mice.

NOVA1 is a gene that encodes a protein found to be a master regular/controller of how our cells permute messenger RNA into a number of different protein structures via by facilitating different alternative splicings of messenger RNA (source). The wildtype variety of this in humans has been correlated with greater diversity of proteins inside cells.

The human NOVA1 gene has a single amino acid substitution vs the varieties found in our Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors. It binds mRNA and modifies the translation of messenger RNA into proteins. When scientists took human stem cells converted into neuronal organoids and gave them the archaic Neanderthal version of the gene and compared them to the human version, they found the human version contained much higher protein diversity (from alternate splicing facilitated by human NOVA1) and changes to neuronal morphology. Mutations in this gene have been associated with learning and behavioral defects, such as "delay of language development, learning disabilities, motor hyperactivity and behavioral dysregulation" (source).

When this human NOVA1 gene was transfered to humanized mice, they found the vocalizations they used were much more high pitch, much more numerous, and much more complex than the humanized mice with the regular mouse NOVA1. Because of this NOVA1 has been deemed a strong candidate for helping to explain the origins of human language.


In the video the author claims the modified mice were less curious and experienced less joy, but I think that could be attributed to the fact that the mice with modified vocalizations were ignored more by their parents, which would damage emotional development and engagement, OSIT.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, @whitecoast ! Though I have to say that I don't imagine much coming out of these studies. When FOXP2 was first presented as one of the possible "language genes", everyone was super excited. And it turned out that the studies had been flawed. The family with a defective FOXP2 also turned out to have serious issues that didn't have anything to do with language. And then, there were similar cases, but with FOXP2 intact. Besides, I really don't think that one gene alone could be responsible. But I guess we'll see with time! It would be interesting if they could locate those 6 anonymous humans who didn't have the NOVA1 gene.

Speaking of the origin of language, I wrote a little something, FWIW!
 
I forgot to update this thread with the latest, if anyone is interested:

Part 1:

Part 2:

I decided that, even though it may be tedious or too long for some, I really need to go step by step, and hope that as I ask more questions and research some more, answers will come. Or at least a more plausible theory, which is probably the best we can hope for. 😅
 
I found this article fascinating, and figured someone else (@Chu 😉) might as well.
Imagine if and when they get separated and stranded there, you know, if SHTF, in a catastrophic, isolating situation, the brainiac researcher inhabitants already have a start on their own “new world” dialect!

Apologies, @Debra, I thought I had replied. Thank you for the link! It was interesting, but I don't think it's significant in terms of explaining shifts. The sample was too small : 11 people. Among then, eight were born and raised in England (five in the south/southeast and three in the north/northwest), one was from northwest U.S., one winterer's first language was German and another's was Icelandic. Only one sound changed a tiny but (/ou/), and the person who changed it the most, was the German speaker. So, that's more like languages in contact than an actual shift in the language's pronunciation, I think. Nonetheless, it was interesting. Maybe they were cold, and they lips were doing funny things when they had to say "airflow" ;-D
 
Back
Top Bottom