Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, February 4, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

by The Star

Thanks to Gary Walsh for the link

Reposted from:
http://www.thestar.com/article/299886

sprintingFar from having stopped, the pace of 'advantageous mutation' is moving much faster than we thought, a new study discovers

Feb 03, 2008 04:30 AM
LYNDA HURST
FEATURE WRITER

Think that we humans are a fait accompli, a done deal that hasn't changed over the eons?

Think again.

Evidence is accumulating that the species is still evolving, and doing so at an unprecedented rate.

A major new study says that in the past 5,000 years, natural selection – gene mutations that spread because they're beneficial – has occurred 100 times faster than at any other period in human history.

American researchers have found evidence of recent mutations on about 1,800 genes, or 7 per cent of the human genome; traits such as lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europeans and partial resistance to certain diseases in areas of Africa.

"We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals," said one of the study's co-authors, anthropologist John Hawks, at a presentation recently.

Just because modern humans are able to manipulate their environment, says University of Toronto molecular anthropologist Esteban Parra, "doesn't mean biological evolution has stopped. It has increased."

The new evidence contradicts the long-held view that it takes 1,000 to 10,000 generations – or 20,000 to 200,000 years – for an advantageous mutation to crop up in an individual, then spread through a population. The study has compressed the time frame to only 100 to 200 generations, which in evolutionary terms is extremely short.

"That's how long it's been since some of these genes originated, and today they're in 30 or 40 per cent of people," said Hawks. "What we are catching is an exceptional time."

One they've been able to catch only because scientists can now tap into the human genome that was sequenced in 2003.

Researchers analyzed 3.9 million genetic markers in 270 people from four groups: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba people, and northern Europeans. (The DNA was supplied by the International HapMap Project, which is analyzing genetic similarities and differences around the world. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.)

A little background: Mankind's earliest ancestors split from the forerunners of today's chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. Roughly 2 million years ago, the predecessors of modern humans began the long trek out of Africa and into the rest of the world.

About 150,000 years ago, we appeared, modern humans. Some 50,000 years later, our brains made a stunning leap forward, developing complex language and abstract symbols. We had begun the journey to civilization.

At that point, the evolutionary process, having sufficiently ensured humans' survival as a species, basically stopped, slowing to a glacial pace. Or so it was thought.

By the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, for instance. In an essay published in 2000, he wrote, "there's been no biological change in humans in 40,000 years or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we've built with the same body and brain."

Noted British geneticist Steve Jones broadly agreed, but dated the evolutionary slowdown much later, with the rise of agriculture at the end of the Ice Age 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

When humans made the transition from hunting-gathering to raising crops and domesticating animals, the move led to dietary changes and to settled habitats in specific regions. Combined, they ignited a surge in human numbers.

Far from slowing down, it appears that, when there were enough people to, in effect, work with, the process of evolution rapidly began to accelerate.

Even without modern-day knowledge of genes, Charles Darwin wrote in his revolutionary The Origin of Species that in animal breeding, herd size "is of the highest importance for success" because large populations have more genetic variation. The same turns out to be true for us.

Since the advent of agriculture, the human population has grown steadily from about 5 million 10,000 years ago to 200 million in 1 AD (it's 6.5 billion today). But as people migrated to different geographic regions, they had to adapt to a variety of conditions and pressures.

One example cited by the new study is lactase, the gene that helps humans digest milk but which, for most of the planet's population, switches off in adulthood. At some time in the past few thousand years, northern European dairy farmers – living with weaker sunlight therefore less vitamin D exposure – developed a mutation that lets them tolerate health-giving milk throughout their lives. (U of T's Parra says other variations have also shown up in dairy-farming regions in Africa, even though sun exposure isn't a problem.)

Where genetic fine-tuning has been busiest, however, is in disease resistance. When more of our ancestors started living together in set locales, outbreaks of epidemic diseases periodically culled their numbers, leaving behind genetically different and fitter survivors.

Michael Bisson, chair of anthropology at McGill University, cites native North Americans who were felled by various diseases when Europeans first arrived. "But they subsequently developed genetic immunities which they still possess," he says. "So yes, there's been significant evolution even in the last 1,000 years," he says.

Malaria is one of the clearest examples of ongoing evolution, the U.S. study found. It's now known that more than two dozen genetic adaptations have evolved to resist it, including an entirely new blood type, called the Duffy blood type.

Why then does malaria still persist in Africa? Because the mosquito that spreads it is also adapting, says Esteban Parra: Genetically, humans are "in a race with disease, a very dynamic race."

Another recently discovered gene, which originated about 4,000 years ago, now exists in about 10 per cent of Europe's population. It was discovered recently because it's giving some people resistance to HIV/AIDS, though its original function was likely to ward off smallpox.

But with more and better drugs and vaccines, clean water, sanitation and plentiful food (at least for most of the planet), why does the species still need to tinker biologically to survive? Stephen Jay Gould, who died in 2002, was among those who thought it no longer did; that "natural selection has almost become irrelevant."

They were wrong, say those who can now access the complex inner workings of Homo sapiens' 25,000 (or so) genes. They say adaptation appears to be built into our DNA to respond to changing environmental, even cultural, stresses.

That could mean extended fertility spans, says John Hawks: "Any kind of genetic variation that increases the success of later fertility will be selected for," he predicts.

Another area of adaptation is likely to be the brain, as it responds to the pressures of pervasive technology. Brain size grew slowly over a long period of time, but an analysis of skulls by Hawks in a earlier study showed that size started diminishing about 10,000 years ago. Today, the brain is about an eighth of the size it once was. Evolution, Hawks theorized, was making it more compact and efficient

In 2005, University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn reported that two "new" gene variations involved in brain size and complexity are still a work in progress. One emerged about 37,000 years ago and is now present in 70 per cent of humans; the other, only 5,800 years old, has spread to 30 per cent.

"Our environment and the skills we need to survive in it are changing faster than we ever imagined," Lahn said then. "I would expect the human brain, which has done well by us so far, would continue to adapt to those changes."

Most researchers prefer not to speculate on where genetic adaptation will take us next. Esteban Parra will "predict" only that "evolution isn't going to stop."

With one caveat, that is: It won't stop unless and until we do first.


Lynda Hurst is hurtling along the evolutionary highway. She can be reached at: lhurst@thestar.ca

Comments 1 - 50 of 69 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #121694 by ianmkz on February 4, 2008 at 2:09 am

 avatar
Today, the brain is about an eighth of the size it once was.

LMIMHO (Laughing My Incredibly Miniature Head Off)

Someone got the wrong end of the stick here, surely.

Other Comments by ianmkz

2. Comment #121710 by Silviu Gherman on February 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

 avatarIf an average brain weights about 1400 grams and this value (as reported in the article) is one eighth of its "original" size, then the superbrain of our ancestors would have had a mass of 11,200 grams. 11 kilos of brain, now that's a tough one to bear...

Other Comments by Silviu Gherman

3. Comment #121714 by octopus on February 4, 2008 at 3:02 am

I guess that she meant something like "for an (1/8)-th less than before". About 10%.
I also wonder if they are talking about cranial volume.

Other Comments by octopus

4. Comment #121717 by sarah95 on February 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

 avatarWow. It seems as though the human brain may go in the same way as the ipod: smaller and more efficient all the time!

"...American researchers have found evidence of recent mutations on about 1,800 genes, or 7 per cent of the human genome; traits such as lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europeans and partial resistance to certain diseases in areas of Africa..."

I wonder how many of the 1,800 mutated genes have actually been changed enough to make the effect of that gene significantly different, and how many (if any) weren't significantly effected by those mutations. This is where my relative ignorance of mutation really shows. And another question: Did all the observed mutations happen on loci containing mostly coding or non-coding DNA? Ah, I'm so confused (but facinated at the same time)!

"...say those who can now access the complex inner workings of Homo sapiens' 25,000 (or so) genes. They say adaptation appears to be built into our DNA to respond to changing environmental, even cultural, stresses..."

I'm not quite sure what they're saying here. Is the "adaptation built into our DNA" just the increased rate of mutation, or something else? I understand that they're implying that the population bomb is a possible cause of this accelerated evolution, but what, if anything else, is helping?
And as for the "cultural stresses" that our genome appears to be adapting to, I wonder what RD would have to say about that...something interesting, no doubt.

"..."We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals," said one of the study's co-authors,..."

That's surprising. It's counter-intuitive to our mistaken perception that genetic evolution always has some outwardly obvious physical indicators(i think...).

Other Comments by sarah95

5. Comment #121731 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 3:40 am

 avatarFascinating! I have to admit I've always tended towards Gould's argument that the effect of natural selection must be lessened with increased control of the environment (houses, clothes, medicine and the like).
I wonder if some of the things that we've done to the environment are actually causing the increased mutation rates? I'm thinking of things like increased exposure to radiation/pollution.

Other Comments by Geoff

6. Comment #121745 by yanco on February 4, 2008 at 4:15 am

 avatarI'm skeptical about the conclusion that the Evolution of humans will go faster. Medicine and plentitude of food in modern countries must inevitably slow down the process, because most people will survive and reproduce even with serious health problems that would some 200 years ago prohibit them to even reach adulthood.

But otherwise very interesting and inspiring article.

Other Comments by yanco

7. Comment #121753 by Vinelectric on February 4, 2008 at 4:38 am

 avataryanco
In fact humans are now suffering nasty infections from novel organisms such as MRSA and VRE that have appeared because of the use of antibiotics. That should ensure that the unfortunate evolutionary race between the host and the infectious organism is likely to continue.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

8. Comment #121755 by UncleJJ on February 4, 2008 at 4:42 am

But yanco; surely the rate of generation of mutations to the genome must be proportional to the human population, or more accurately to the number of children born per year Far more children are born today than in previous times and so the rate of evolution should increase (assuming some average rate of mutation per birth).

Modern societies and their welfare systems will keep many of these mutations alive and in the gene pool long enough to pass on to future generations. So in that sense the rate of evolution should increase.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

9. Comment #121758 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 4:51 am

 avatar
Modern societies and their welfare systems will keep many of these mutations alive and in the gene pool long enough to pass on to future generations. So in that sense the rate of evolution should increase.


Not necessarily. Mutation alone is not evolution. There as to be selection pressure.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #121761 by yanco on February 4, 2008 at 5:11 am

 avatarVinelectric :
Sure that's why I don't think it'll stop completely. My point was that if (hopefuly) medicine will progress at the same speed it did in the past 2 centuries, the natural selection will have less and less individuals to work on.
Mutation doesn't equal evolution. There still needs to be a process of selection be it natural or artificial.

The only biological evolution on humans I can now imagine, would be due to manipulation of our own DNA. But am not sure if it would still count as "evolution"..

Other Comments by yanco

11. Comment #121762 by LorienRyan on February 4, 2008 at 5:13 am

 avatar"That could mean extended fertility spans, says John Hawks: "Any kind of genetic variation that increases the success of later fertility will be selected for," he predicts."

So, with our increasing ability to care for and treat those who would otherwise not be selected for, the selection pressure is being reduced, increasing the number of mutations available to the process of evolution.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

12. Comment #121764 by LorienRyan on February 4, 2008 at 5:27 am

 avataryanco - "The only biological evolution on humans I can now imagine, would be due to manipulation of our own DNA. But am not sure if it would still count as "evolution".. "

Why not? How is it any different, unless you attribute something other than natural processes to human activity. Something magical maybe.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

13. Comment #121792 by babrock on February 4, 2008 at 7:12 am

I can only imigine that the 1/8 thing actualy means 1/8 smaller. some people otherwise quite smart can misuse math as atrociocly asi spell.

Other Comments by babrock

14. Comment #121815 by Steinsky on February 4, 2008 at 7:46 am

 avatarI'm skeptical about the conclusion that the Evolution of humans will go faster. Medicine and plentitude of food in modern countries must inevitably slow down the process, because most people will survive and reproduce even with serious health problems that would some 200 years ago prohibit them to even reach adulthood.

Oh? You're proposing that a major change to our environment and lifestyle is going to stop evolution? Sounds like nonsense to me. You seem to be imagining evolution as a progressive force toward a super race. If, as you assert, most people will now survive and reproduce with serious health problems, when they would not in the past, don't you think that there may perhaps be some consequences for allele distributions? A change in allele frequency caused by the removal of a selection pressure is just as much evolution as one caused by the addition of a selection pressure.

And anyway, the conditions that you are describing appear to assume a Western civilisation, and little migration. Have you considered the possibility that there may be a little evolution going on in those areas of Africa where HIV infection rates are above 50% of the population?

Other Comments by Steinsky

15. Comment #121818 by Steinsky on February 4, 2008 at 7:50 am

 avataryanco said: Mutation doesn't equal evolution. There still needs to be a process of selection be it natural or artificial.

Sorry, this is simply wrong. You may wish to read up on genetic drift and related concepts.

Other Comments by Steinsky

16. Comment #121834 by UncleJJ on February 4, 2008 at 8:13 am

Steve Zara:
"Not necessarily. Mutation alone is not evolution. There as to be selection pressure."

Yes, I know that Steve. I never said it was.

The point I was trying to make was about the rate of mutation which is part of the evolution of humans. The article mentions 1800 genes or 7% of the genome, have changed in the last 5000 years and says this is 100 times faster than at any other period in human history. Since we now have many more humans alive today, and so many more children are being born, I would expect there to be a higher rate of generation of mutations (per year) assuming a constant rate of mutations per birth. Although I wonder if the rate is constant given the various chemicals we have released into the environment in recent years. Will any of those have a significant effect on the mutation rate per birth?

Of course those mutations will still take many generations to spread through the population, if they do at all, so the gene pool as a whole will not be much altered just diversified by the new mutations. In fact since humans (in the Western societies at least) are having less children per generation and are tending to have those children later in life we could expect the spread of mutations to be slower than in ancient times.

Note I've not said anything about natural selection and its impact on the evolution of humans, although that undoubtably occurs even if masked or altered by our society and medical advances.

So without going into a very complex subject like this in much detail, and I'm no expert, I would expect a greatly increased rate of mutation (roughly in proportion to global births per year) but a slower spread of those mutations. What those two effects do to human evolution is hard to tell.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

17. Comment #121846 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 4, 2008 at 8:37 am

Over the course of the last 10000 years selection pressure has been strong, it might have declined steadily but it is still there.

Today we still see people dying from desise, or having problems with it causing them to perhaps not have as many children as they otherwise might have had. We also still have such things as sexual selection.

I'm pretty convinced that we still have plently of selection for evolutionary processes to work with.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

18. Comment #121863 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 9:15 am

 avatarSteve:

Mutation alone is not evolution. There has to be selection pressure.


Not necessarily. What about "neutral" mutations (such as, perhaps, the recent discovery of the ancestral "blue eye" mutation)?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

Other Comments by Geoff

19. Comment #121865 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:17 am

Geoff:

Not necessarily. What about "neutral" mutations (such as, perhaps, the recent discovery of the ancestral "blue eye" mutation)?


Wasn't there speculation that blue eyes might have given a sexual attraction advantage?

Hope so, my eyes are blue :-)

Other Comments by Phoenix42

20. Comment #121884 by Larry Moran on February 4, 2008 at 9:46 am

Steve Zara said,

Not necessarily. Mutation alone is not evolution. There has to be selection pressure.


As others have already pointed out, this is dead wrong. There does not have to be selection for evolution to occur; although it's easy tosee how you might get the wrong impression on this website! :-)

Strong negative selection depresses the rate of evolution. When that selection is removed, formerly deleterious mutations become neutral and they are likely to increase in frequency in the population by random genetic drift.

Thus, the rate of evolution speeds up.

The Toronto Star article discusses a paper that was debated all over the blogosphere last December. The general consensus was not favourable. It seems pretty obvious that Lynda Hurst, the author of the newspaper article, didn't read the blogs. Instead she consulted a few anthropologists who weren't able to give her the help she needed.

I don't have links to everyone else's blogs on the paper but here are a few of my own. Note that the author of the study, John Hawks, participated actively in the debate over his paper. He deserves a lot of credit for doing so.

Is Evolution Linked to Environmental Change?

The False Icon of Progressive Evolution

Are Humans Evolving Faster?

Accelerated Human Evolution


Other Comments by Larry Moran

21. Comment #121898 by annabanana on February 4, 2008 at 10:02 am

 avatarThis is good news. Since we are fairly different from the humans of 5,000 years ago, that means that the Old Testament, at least, doesn't really refer to us. Ok, so we've gotten rid of the old testament, how to conquer the NT?

Other Comments by annabanana

22. Comment #121902 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 10:10 am

 avatarAnna,


NT? It was made up years after Jesus died. It is a total fabrication.



*Throws King James Version of Bible from 21st floor office*


Problem solved.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

23. Comment #121921 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 11:16 am

I wonder whether the widespread habit in muslim populations of marrying cousins is restricting genetic diversity in those groups? I would have thought that had to happen in such circumstances.
In societies where there is more choice (and contraception), is there any evidence as to which sex predominantly does the choosing and therefore which sex is under the most selective pressure?
Eg: is there a likelihood that blondness in women is a sought-after trait? Or intelligence (= ability to provide financially for children) in men?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

24. Comment #121926 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

 avatarsally,


In Saudi there are some problems with the genetic issues surrounding inbreeding. I noticed this with some friends of mine there, they have family members with such difficulties.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

25. Comment #121930 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 11:29 am

 avatarWell, typically, restricting the genepool with inbreeding will cause a flattening of the bell curve (using the term loosely here), as rare traits have a better chance of expressing themselves, or of being eliminated.

As for sexual selection, I find it interesting that in humans it is the female that tends to invest in "beauty" and advertising visually, while in birds and fish it is the male, and I wonder if that's simply which sex is heterozygous for the sex chromosomes (as birds and fishes have heterozygous females, but mammals have heterozygous males).

I am sure that there are some of these features that are sexually selected for, but unless they are located on the sex chromosomes (or somehow influence the odds of producing males/females) I can't see them failing to affect both sexes - if the genes for blond hair are selected for in females, they're just as likely to produce blond haired males.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

26. Comment #121935 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 am

Epinephrine.

Yes, and perhaps we should also take into account the fact that going 'bottle blonde' does not affect the genes!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

27. Comment #121939 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 11:38 am

 avatarHmm, but what about a genetic willingness to dye one's hair?
;)

Other Comments by Epinephrine

28. Comment #121958 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm

;D

I got carried away by my tendency to go for the humour first...
My daughter has recently graduated with a degree in zoology and was very interested in your comments about which sex is heterozygous for the sex chromosomes.
I don't think either of us realised that it's the other way around in fish and birds. That's an interesting divergence. Which way around is the 'oldest' way?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

29. Comment #121969 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

 avatarSally Luxmoore -

It's a good question - and one I hadn't looked for very hard before now. I found a 2006 article though.

Eric J. Vallender and Bruce T. Lahn
Multiple independent origins of sex chromosomes in amniotes
PNAS 2006 103: 18031-18032.


It would seem that the oldest system (among the amniotes) is not genetic at all, and is the temperature-dependent method associated with crocodilians, some turtles, and some lizards. According to the article, mammals likely split first (~315 million years ago) with the XY sex determination, then the snakes and lizards developed ZW sex determination, and split off from the crocodilians, birds and turtles around 260 million years ago. The birds subsequently independently evolved the same ZW system that the snakes and lizards use.

I'll have to look for when fish devloped their system, but it's worth noting that X0-XX sex determination also exists (in C. elegans, for example), and that insects have their own systems too. Sex determination also happens in plants, and would have evolved independently there.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

30. Comment #121970 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Medicine and plentitude of food in modern countries must inevitably slow down the process, because most people will survive and reproduce even with serious health problems that would some 200 years ago prohibit them to even reach adulthood.

I wouldn't have thought it would slow any process down. Think about it, for millenia we've had a gut full of worms of various sorts and we were always just this side of starvation. Now, we're worm free and eating more than we can cope with. This should lead to fatness and allergies and it does - obesity, as far as I have read, is a global phenomenon with did I read more fat people now that thin people? And the immune system which kept bugs in check and which was suppressed by the worms et al is now redundant but still active - hello, bunch of allergies etc. I know that with better diagnoses we can say a lot of the allergies are those which were not thought of before - but there does seem to be a rising rate of them in teh West at least.
See, plenty of room for evolution!

Other Comments by Goldy

31. Comment #121975 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Epinephrine.

Wow. (Whooshing sound as a lot of that went over my head)
I will dig that out and give it a go. I think I should also do some digging in my copy of 'The Ancestor's Tale' as well.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

32. Comment #121976 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm

 avataral-rwandi, it would be delightfully ironic if that bible landed on a fundy...

Other Comments by Geoff

33. Comment #121994 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm

 avatarAgain to Sally Luxmoore -

Hmm, I thought ZW was more common in fish (though I did recall that some fish like the clownfish swap sexes) but apparently fish biology is much more complex than I had thought (to be fair, I am most familiar with people and rats). I apologise for my earlier comment that fish are ZW, they are all over the map, including ZW.

Looks like guppies are XY; bettas (fighting fish) are somewhat XY, but removal of their ovaries turn some male, some stay female. Breeding the males made from spaying XX females with other XX females allows production of males, though only a small portion of them (so it's not purely genetic). Clownfish start out male, but if the dominant female disappears one male will become female (and grow) to take her place. Seems like there's a whole world of fish sex out there.

Interestingly, the platypus sems to have both the xy and zw systems to some extent. I think I remember reading this back in 2004, but it completly slipped my mind.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-1.html

Hope you and your daughter enjoy your readings :)
I'm working through The Ancestor's Tale at the moment as well, I'm still on apes though.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

34. Comment #122018 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Sorry, off topic.

Someone should do a study on the link between alzheimers disease and religion.

I would hypothesize that it would be more prevalent in the religious and less prevalent in the atheist. My initial hpothesis is backed up by the religious not using the critical thinking parts of thier brains as much as atheists. An inactive brain has been linked to an increase in alzheimers.

Other Comments by righton

35. Comment #122029 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 2:16 pm

"I wonder whether the widespread habit in muslim populations of marrying cousins is restricting genetic diversity in those groups? "

It absolutely is. I work in a lab that does research on growth hormone insensitivity which is usaully caused by mutations in the growth hormone receptor.

We get samples from all over the world from people with very short stature, between 3-4ft final height. A great majority of these cases come from pakistan. We also get a lot from south america/ecuador where people live in small communities. Also, Utah.

Other Comments by righton

36. Comment #122043 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm

We get samples from all over the world from people with very short stature, between 3-4ft final height. A great majority of these cases come from pakistan. We also get a lot from south america/ecuador where people live in small communities. Also, Utah.

Interesting. Up the valley a bit from where my mother comes from in Austria is a town called Alpbach. My mother always said you could tell a true Alpbacher by their size as in-breeding has made them smaller.

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #122048 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 2:37 pm

A lot of you probably already know this but I will tell you anyway.

Most people carry a few mutations in important genes. What gets around this is the fact that we have two copies of almost all of our genes(one from mom and one from dad) so if one is bad the other one makes up for it. When inbreeding happens it increases the chances of getting two copies of the same mutation thus causing a genetic disease.

Other Comments by righton

38. Comment #122051 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 2:40 pm

When inbreeding happens it increases the chances of getting two copies of the same mutation thus causing a genetic disease.

Hence cretinism...

cre·tin (krtn)
n.
1. A person afflicted with cretinism.
2. Slang An idiot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christinus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian; see Christian.]
:-D

Other Comments by Goldy

39. Comment #122061 by Electric Monk on February 4, 2008 at 3:03 pm

"Another area of adaptation is likely to be the brain, as it responds to the pressures of pervasive technology. Brain size grew slowly over a long period of time, but an analysis of skulls by Hawks in a earlier study showed that size started diminishing about 10,000 years ago. Today, the brain is about an eighth of the size it once was. Evolution, Hawks theorized, was making it more compact and efficient"

Why more compact and efficient? - maybe we're just not as smart as our ancestors.

Yanco: "I'm skeptical about the conclusion that the Evolution of humans will go faster. Medicine and plentitude of food in modern countries must inevitably slow down the process, because most people will survive and reproduce even with serious health problems that would some 200 years ago prohibit them to even reach adulthood."

But that also means that negative consequences of otherwise beneficial genes will have less of an effect on fitness. Thus progress in combating these negative effects might allow genes to spread that might, in the 'natural state' have been on-balance, deleterious.

Other Comments by Electric Monk

40. Comment #122064 by ianmkz on February 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm

 avatar
When inbreeding happens it increases the chances of getting two copies of the same mutation thus causing a genetic disease.


...or a superpower!

Other Comments by ianmkz

41. Comment #122066 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Iankmz - like it :-) Actually, did trigger a memory I have of reading an article on a village in Italy (I think) where things like heart disease etc were exceedingly rare. Turns out they are all inbred too. Story just sticks in my head from a comment made by one of the villager to the effect that while royalty had enough money to keep the badly inbred alive long enough to breed, they were too poor for that and all the "bad" genes (bad in the sense of not condusive to good healthy living) ended up in the children that died before they could breed. Can I find the article? can I hell - I think it was in the NY Times but I can't for the life of me find anything.
The Chillingham cattle seem to be OK with inbreeding too.

Other Comments by Goldy

42. Comment #122068 by ianmkz on February 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm

 avatar
In 2005, University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn reported that two "new" gene variations involved in brain size and complexity are still a work in progress. One emerged about 37,000 years ago and is now present in 70 per cent of humans; the other, only 5,800 years old, has spread to 30 per cent.

New Scientist had an article (March 2007) about evidence supporting the idea that modern humans interbred with neanderthals. They refer to 37,000 year old brain size gene variation mentioned above.
The obvious interpretation is that the new version arose 40,000 years ago via a chance mutation in the microcephalin gene. Lahn thinks otherwise. In a paper published last year, he looked at a haplotype within microcephalin. On the basis of sequence differences between the old and new versions of the gene, he concluded that the two are so different that they must have diverged at least 1 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 18178).

This combination of deep ancestry on one level and shallow ancestry on another suggests that something very unusual might have happened. It is as if the new version of microcephalin split off from our evolutionary lineage a million years ago, then jumped back in 40,000 years ago. According to Lahn, that is exactly what happened. By far the most likely explanation, he says, is that the newer version of the gene evolved in a separate species of human - probably Neanderthals - and then entered our lineage through interbreeding.


Other Comments by ianmkz

43. Comment #122072 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Well, if we're going to bring H neanderthalis into here, I'll donate this ref again from another thread
http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

Other Comments by Goldy

44. Comment #122077 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Its too hard to define the selective pressure.

Because of things like wellfare and other things that help the people who do not thrive as well as "successful" people, the most fit dont have an advantage.

Actually statistics show that more of the lower class/poorer/uneducated people have more kids than upper class/educated.

Im not saying that the lower class are genetically inferior but what exactly constitutes the selective pressure. You could make the argument that poorer people have a selective advantage in the sense that they are having more children.

Other Comments by righton

45. Comment #122079 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I do hate it when people say we stopped evolving. The frequenceies of a specific gene in the worldwide population are always changing and certain genes of course can still give someone a selective advantage for reproduction over a variant of the same gene.

Other Comments by righton

46. Comment #122080 by BAEOZ on February 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm

 avatarWhy then does malaria still persist in Africa? Because the mosquito that spreads it is also adapting, says Esteban Parra: Genetically, humans are "in a race with disease, a very dynamic race."
This seems wrong. A mosquito is not malaria. It carries malaria. The malaria would need to adapt to changing blood groups and other immune system changed. Perhaps they meant that mosquitoes have adapted to human attempts to eradicate them with poisons. But that would not be relevant to a discussion on beneficial adaptations against malaria.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

47. Comment #122092 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Actually statistics show that more of the lower class/poorer/uneducated people have more kids than upper class/educated.

Im not saying that the lower class are genetically inferior but what exactly constitutes the selective pressure. You could make the argument that poorer people have a selective advantage in the sense that they are having more children.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html?pagewanted=print

Other Comments by Goldy

48. Comment #122191 by babrock on February 4, 2008 at 10:21 pm

I may be misunderstanding something big. I know I donot understand aleles. but I donot understand realy how Gould could be wrong and there being any acual evelutionary presure pushing in any particular diection nowadays w/ us having manipulating our environment such that much of anything counts as unfit for survival.

Other Comments by babrock

49. Comment #122193 by Beatrice on February 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Hey Hey, My topic.
Long ago I started my genetic research based on the issue of disease. Ah, so much to say since then. Can humans win the battle against disease? It's questionable. Higher population density, greater mobility, higher resource cost for raising children and all that.
Then you remove all natural selective effect you can. That's called human progress. Of course then something the opposite of what people consider evolutionary development will occur. Tsk Tsk.
Of course disease does have a good side for those that don't have an adaquate survival strategy to prevent over population. It's better than us having to do it ourselves.
You could still have one heck of a lot of evolution without another mutation. Come on, it's just a change in gene frequency.
Then again there is that hybridization stuff, but I'm afraid you'd have to read C. D. Darlington to grok that.
Maybe the real problem will be genetic load. No, not from mutation. From recombination. It's far quicker, that one.
So how do you solve that? Humans must adapt to a new ecology and fast. I figured it out though. It's pretty cool and not so hard to do. I call it the Transition to the God Ecology. All species that use technology will have to do it. Then what?
Ah, but I doubt you would care any. This is about atheism, not human survival. Talk to me when you can answer the Third Forbidden Question in Science and I'll tell you the answer to the Fourth one... What can science say about God?
You call that sprinting down the evolutionary hiway. I'm talking about a jet.
Remember, anything for a cheap thrill.
Enjoy, Beatrice

Other Comments by Beatrice

50. Comment #122195 by babrock on February 4, 2008 at 10:37 pm

For instanc it said that in northen europe, blue eyes have become more comon. Maybe for up to about 200 years ago, but w/ all our advances in our quality of life, it is hard for me to see any brown eyed, unfair skined, disease prone, or even outright stupid people having any particularly less likly chance to pass on their genes just as readily. Also for instance, I have eyes so bad I am sure I would hae missed my share of food and predators.Nowadays none of this is much of a life or death problem, thank goodness. So where is the presure coming from for us to evolve from any particular unfitnes traits?

Other Comments by babrock
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: