How We Are Evolving

[JBeukema]

New analyses suggest that recent human evolution has followed a different course than biologists would have expected


Thousands of years ago humans moved for the first time into the Tibetan plateau, a vast expanse of steppelands that towers some 14,000 feet above sea level. Although these trailblazers would have had the benefit of entering a new ecosystem free of competition with other people, the low oxygen levels at that altitude would have placed severe stresses on the body, resulting in chronic altitude sickness and high infant mortality. Earlier this year a flurry of genetic studies identified a gene variant that is common in Tibetans but rare in other populations. This variant, which adjusts red blood cell production in Tibetans, helps to explain how Tibetans adapted to those harsh conditions. The dis*covery, which made headlines around the world, provided a dra**matic example of how humans have undergone rapid biological adaptation to new environmental circumstances in the recent past. One study estimated that the beneficial variant spread to high frequency within the past 3,000 years—a mere instant in evolutionary terms.

How We Are Evolving: Scientific American

 

[Old Rocks]

Another older beneficial mutation that has been very critical in some populations survival is the ability to digest milk as an adult.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I keep getting confused over this "mutation" business. You mean a gamma ray hit a cell and magically altered the DNA?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

 

[editec]

Mankind started dramatically changing the genome when we went from migratory hunter gatherers to a more collective system of farming.

First the genome changed because our diets changed, secondly since we lived closer together those with better immunity systems thrived.

The next major impact on the human genome began (and is probably still impacting it) because of industrialization. Since that system rewards those with superior mechanical skills, and those rewards insure a biofeedback system whereby those with those skills tend to do better, hence breed better than those without those talents.

Now we're rapidly approaching a technology where machines are doing out thinking for us.

Ironically, this might have the effect of dumbing down the average human genome.

Man is a social animal.

So as society changes, the genome of mankind is likewise effected over time.

It's a socio-bio-feedback effect.

Consider that the natives of the most primative place in the world (New Guini) actually have statistically significant higher IQs than people in industrialized world.

Why?

Because they NEED higher IQs to survive in that primative (and very violent) world of theirs.

I SUSPECT that their higher range and the rest of industrialized mankinds were once on a par, but the effect of civilized life (since we started farming and living in more dense demographics) makes people with superior auto-immune systems more likely to breed successfully than those with superior IQs.

Ironic, isn't it?

A primative man has to have superior intelligence and mastery over his society's every technology to make it.

We living in highly evolved societies mostly have NO mastery over our technologies and yet we can breed like rabbits.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

rocky, that was not the way to convince anybody.

DNA is very complex, and does not copy over very well. the collapse of the copy system is one of the causes of aging.

From generation to generation, mutations in the copy mechanism make for differences in the genome. 99% of them are really bad ideas. Humans miscarry at a level of 40% of all pregnancies. Lots of mutations don't make it out of the oven.

Of those that do, the majority cause problems, but in the natural order, most of them die in a hurry. Prior to the 20th century, no more than 20% of children born in normal households survived to maturity. And lots of those who did, died in wars or famines. there is a huge selection pressure on the species, partly due to the fact that most of the human population lives far away from its natal areas. (And East africa is even more miserable for raising up a child in a natural state than anywhere else on the planet, what with lots of horrible parasites and large cats and dogs who regard us as lunch.)

So if you throw away 90% of the changes, the few remaining might be beneficial.

A good way to think of DNA mutations is like a poker hand. The average normal hand is say, for example, the King, queen, jack and 9 of spades and a nine of diamonds. It is a pat hand. In the world of evolution, you have to turn in a card. If you turn your nine of diamonds, and get a two, you are busted. You might get a nine of hearts or a nine of clubs, and you are back where you started. but if you get a 10, you have a winner, and if you get a 10 of spades, you are better yet.

You always have mutations. Most of the time, you bust. 'Sometimes you stay static, and sometimes you get real real lucky.

 

[konradv]

I keep getting confused over this "mutation" business. You mean a gamma ray hit a cell and magically altered the DNA?

Magically? That would be creationism not evolution, Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

Alligators haven't evolved in over 300 million years, but man evolved in less than 3,000 years? You sure you have a solid grasp on this mutation business?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Aligators don't change because the pressure is on them not to change. You make a change, you don't survive.

Humans are in all kinds of weird environments. And we make our own. Human populations are spread all over the place. there are huge pressures that make for huge differentiations.

Alligators can't do much about the fact that they need hot temperatures and fresh water.

Humans are everywhere, and we are infinitely adaptable. But our environments all put different pressures on us which can cause large cosmetic changes in very few generations.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Let's not forget the Incredible Hulk and the X-Men.

I evolved once when I fell into a vat of toxic ooze!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aligators don't change because the pressure is on them not to change. You make a change, you don't survive.

Humans are in all kinds of weird environments. And we make our own. Human populations are spread all over the place. there are huge pressures that make for huge differentiations.

Alligators can't do much about the fact that they need hot temperatures and fresh water.

Humans are everywhere, and we are infinitely adaptable. But our environments all put different pressures on us which can cause large cosmetic changes in very few generations.

But my understanding is that random mutation don't care if you need to change or not, that's what they're called "Random"

 

[konradv]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

Alligators haven't evolved in over 300 million years, but man evolved in less than 3,000 years? You sure you have a solid grasp on this mutation business?

3,000 years??? More like 300,000!!!

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans evolving and alligators not evolving don't have anything to do with each other, except that the former was a response to environmental pressure, while the latter is evidence of a lack of environmental pressure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

Alligators haven't evolved in over 300 million years, but man evolved in less than 3,000 years? You sure you have a solid grasp on this mutation business?

3,000 years??? More like 300,000!!!

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans evolving and alligators not evolving don't have anything to do with each other, except that the former was a response to environmental pressure, while the latter is evidence of a lack of environmental pressure.

You might want to have read the OP before you posted. I know if goes against every fiber of your being to actually read what people link to, but you should definitely pick it up, at least as an occasional habit.

 

[konradv]

That's a trait not humans in general. Perhaps reading isn't enough, Frank! You have to read with COMPREHENSION. Maybe that's why you don't really get evolutionary theory. The facts and data are out there, you just have to be able to read and interpret them.

 

[JBeukema]

I keep getting confused over this "mutation" business. You mean a gamma ray hit a cell and magically altered the DNA?

Don't worry, someone made a book just for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis-PhD/dp/0470117737

 

[JBeukema]

Aligators don't change because the pressure is on them not to change. You make a change, you don't survive.

Humans are in all kinds of weird environments. And we make our own. Human populations are spread all over the place. there are huge pressures that make for huge differentiations.

Alligators can't do much about the fact that they need hot temperatures and fresh water.

Humans are everywhere, and we are infinitely adaptable. But our environments all put different pressures on us which can cause large cosmetic changes in very few generations.

But my understanding is that random mutation don't care if you need to change or not, that's what they're called "Random"

You're an idiot. There is more to evolution than mutation- you know, like natural selection and genetic drift...

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

Alligators haven't evolved in over 300 million years, but man evolved in less than 3,000 years? You sure you have a solid grasp on this mutation business?

Well for sure you do not. Our species, Homo Sapiens, is about 200,000 years old. The Homo group, Erectus, Habilus, Neanderthal, about 2 million years old. Man in no way evolved in only 3000 years.

 

[frazzledgear]

New analyses suggest that recent human evolution has followed a different course than biologists would have expected


Thousands of years ago humans moved for the first time into the Tibetan plateau, a vast expanse of steppelands that towers some 14,000 feet above sea level. Although these trailblazers would have had the benefit of entering a new ecosystem free of competition with other people, the low oxygen levels at that altitude would have placed severe stresses on the body, resulting in chronic altitude sickness and high infant mortality. Earlier this year a flurry of genetic studies identified a gene variant that is common in Tibetans but rare in other populations. This variant, which adjusts red blood cell production in Tibetans, helps to explain how Tibetans adapted to those harsh conditions. The dis*covery, which made headlines around the world, provided a dra**matic example of how humans have undergone rapid biological adaptation to new environmental circumstances in the recent past. One study estimated that the beneficial variant spread to high frequency within the past 3,000 years—a mere instant in evolutionary terms.

How We Are Evolving: Scientific American

I'm not sure what your point is with this post except to point out that man has been successful at adapting to changing environments. In fact man's physical appearance is affected by both his environment and diet and always has been. But this doesn't in any way prove "evolution" the way most people understand evolution to be. Evolution is typically understood to be one species turning into a totally different species over time.

But this article only proves what has been known for a fact in science for a long time -that over time, a species will undergo changes whether due to outside pressure from its environment, mutation, accident or by natural selection. But at all times, it remains the same species. The horse has been around for millions of years and looks dramatically different today than it did millions of years ago -but its species is still horse and has not turned into a different species.

Yes there have been changes within our own species over time -and this is just one of many. Our jaws have become smaller over time as well and now doesn't hold as many teeth as it used to -which is why so many people have to have their wisdom teeth pulled and now many people never develop wisdom teeth at all. Does any of it in any way prove that your descendants are going to be of a different and non-human species as Darwin theorized would happen? Not in the least. And nothing has ever been found proving your ancestors were non-human either. Since it is an indisputable biological fact that two individuals of the same species can ONLY produce offspring of that same species and cannot ever produce one of a different species than themselves -MY ancestors were all definitely human. And all my descendants will be too. Even if there are future adaptations made within the species due to pressure from their environment etc.

 

[JBeukema]

But this doesn't in any way prove "evolution" the way most people understand evolution to be. Evolution is typically understood to be one species turning into a totally different species over time.

By people who know nothing about evolution, maybe.

And nothing has ever been found proving your ancestors were non-human either.

And nothing has ever been found proving your ancestors were non-human either. Since it is an indisputable biological fact that two individuals of the same species can ONLY produce offspring of that same species and cannot ever produce one of a different species than themselves -MY ancestors were all definitely human.

That does not follow logically. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of specialization.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

Why do people keep repeating that stupid sound bite?

Mutations, like anything else, are subject to probability. Unless you can point to some actual reason for evolution to be the only exception to this, mutations are going to split roughly evenly between being harmful and being helpful. If we factor in natural selection (which is almost always understood to be something it is not) this actually means that most mutations are beneficial because the really harmful ones will die off before they have a chance to be passed on.