










Sprinting down the evolutionary highway
Far from having stopped, the pace of 'advantageous mutation' is moving much faster than we thought, a new study discovers
2. Comment #121710 by Silviu Gherman on February 4, 2008 at 2:51 am
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%.4. Comment #121717 by sarah95 on February 4, 2008 at 3:10 am
5. Comment #121731 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 3:40 am
6. Comment #121745 by yanco on February 4, 2008 at 4:15 am
7. Comment #121753 by Vinelectric on February 4, 2008 at 4:38 am
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).9. Comment #121758 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 4:51 am
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.
10. Comment #121761 by yanco on February 4, 2008 at 5:11 am
11. Comment #121762 by LorienRyan on February 4, 2008 at 5:13 am
12. Comment #121764 by LorienRyan on February 4, 2008 at 5:27 am
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.14. Comment #121815 by Steinsky on February 4, 2008 at 7:46 am
15. Comment #121818 by Steinsky on February 4, 2008 at 7:50 am
16. Comment #121834 by UncleJJ on February 4, 2008 at 8:13 am
Steve Zara: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.18. Comment #121863 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 9:15 am
Mutation alone is not evolution. There has to be selection pressure.
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)?
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.
21. Comment #121898 by annabanana on February 4, 2008 at 10:02 am
22. Comment #121902 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 10:10 am
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.24. Comment #121926 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 11:24 am
25. Comment #121930 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 11:29 am
26. Comment #121935 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 am
Epinephrine.27. Comment #121939 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 11:38 am
28. Comment #121958 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm
;D29. Comment #121969 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Eric J. Vallender and Bruce T. Lahn
Multiple independent origins of sex chromosomes in amniotes
PNAS 2006 103: 18031-18032.
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.
31. Comment #121975 by Sally Luxmoore on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Epinephrine.32. Comment #121976 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm
33. Comment #121994 by Epinephrine on February 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm
34. Comment #122018 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Sorry, off topic.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? "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.
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.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.
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"40. Comment #122064 by ianmkz on February 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm
When inbreeding happens it increases the chances of getting two copies of the same mutation thus causing a genetic disease.
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.42. Comment #122068 by ianmkz on February 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm
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.
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.
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 thread44. Comment #122077 by righton on February 4, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Its too hard to define the selective pressure.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.46. Comment #122080 by BAEOZ on February 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm
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.
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.49. Comment #122193 by Beatrice on February 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hey Hey, My topic.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?
1. Comment #121694 by ianmkz on February 4, 2008 at 2:09 am
LMIMHO (Laughing My Incredibly Miniature Head Off)
Someone got the wrong end of the stick here, surely.
Other Comments by ianmkz