Slashdot Log In
Humans Evolving 100 Times Faster Than Ever
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Dec 11, 2007 05:36 AM
from the or-maybe-we're-just-getting-more-intelligently-designed dept.
from the or-maybe-we're-just-getting-more-intelligently-designed dept.
John Hawks writes "A new genomics study in PNAS shows that humans have been evolving new adaptive genes during the past 10,000 years much faster than ever before. The study says that evolution has sped up because of population growth, making people adapt faster to new diseases, new diets, and social changes like cities. Oh, and I'm the lead author. I've been reading Slashdot for a long time, and let me just say that our study doesn't necessarily apply to trolls."
Related Stories
[+]
Recent Human Evolution May Have Been Driven By Self-Selection 448 comments
Slur writes "The New York Times reports an insightful theory of Human evolution that gives credit for our accelerated evolution to the evolving brain. By virtue of our aesthetic and utilitarian preferences we ourselves have been responsible for molding the present human form and consciousness. Applied to other species we call it 'artificial selection,' but the new theory implies we did it all quite naturally, unconsciously, and that the exponential evolutionary acceleration we have achieved as a species in recent time is just what you'd expect. It also suggests that the current lull in our physical evolution is by 'choice' as well."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
adaptation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: adaptation? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:adaptation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm going to look at this from two different sides to try and be fair, but more then likely I'll just wind up pissing everybody off and being modded down all the same ;)
The obvious PC answer to this is that it's also an "essential" part of Judeo-Christianity to stone adulterers to death. I could also point out the various people that have used Christianity as a justification to deny equal rights to gays. Islam also has no history of being used for racial oppression that I'm aware of. Contrast that to Christianity, where many thought (and some extremists still do) that the African race was cursed with the mark of Ham and destined to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (i.e: Europeans).
All of the above is fair criticism of Christianity. But it's also fair to say that modern Christianity seems to be a lot less violent then modern Islam. Consider the fallout over those Danish cartoons [wikipedia.org]. Yes, Islam says that you can't make idols of Muhammad. But that doesn't give you the right to override free speech and force the rest of us to follow your religious restrictions. That would be like Israel trying to tell the rest of the World that we can't eat pork.
Also consider the various death threats and attacks carried out in the name of Muhammad. Do I think this is representative of the whole faith? Certainly not. But it does happen and a lot more often then similar acts (in modern times) conducted in Jesus' name.
You'd have done better to say "in certain muslim countries...." or even "in most muslim countries..." because I can think of at least a few (Turkey comes to mind) where this isn't the case. One would assume that if the Turks have been able to successfully build a secular representative democracy that the rest of the Muslim World will be able to do so sooner or later.
Then again, I don't know enough about the Muslim World to know if they even have democratic leanings and traditions and Turkey could be the exception rather then the rule. The Turks have certainly been influenced by proximity to Europe and have been heavily influenced by Western culture, going all the way back in time to the ancient Greeks. And Western culture has had democratic traditions and practices going all the way back to ancient Athens. Even during the age of kings there were democratic leanings, such as the Magna Carta, the rise of the Common Law, the French revolution, etc, etc.
I suppose only time will tell if secular democracy is compatible with Islam or not. The Western World (*cough* America *cough*) could certainly help it along by treating them less as a source of oil and more as equals. We could certainly help it along by trying to fairly mediate between the Palestinians and Israelis. We could help it along by adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy. They could help it along by renouncing terrorism and violence. They could help it along by understanding some of the concerns on this side of the fence (like why a nuclear armed Iran scares the hell of everybody). They could help it along by understanding why the Western tradition of free speech allows the publication of things they might deem to be offensive or blasphemous.
Bottom line: There seems to be lots of blame to go around on both sides here.
Parent
Re:adaptation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, let's give that a try and see what happens.
Do I really need to go on? The point here isn't to trash Christianity either. I'm attempting to point out that Christianity outgrew most of this stuff. One can hope that Islam will do the same and that a small number of violent extremists don't speak for all one billion of it's followers.
Of course, the more I read your posts, the more I'm starting to think that you are probably just a troll. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting something constructive.
Parent
Re:adaptation? (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I have to start going to church again.
Parent
Re:adaptation? (Score:5, Funny)
Just sayin'.
Parent
Not anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not anymore (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
And what you describe allows lots of evolution to occur. Extremely high selective pressures will punish variability. But when everyone (or almost everyone) can reproduce and selective pressures are low (abundant resources and few dangers) then all those little mutations that would have been selected against get to be passed on to a new generation. Resulting in much faster rates of change over time, as well as much higher variability in the population.
Parent
Re:Not anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
This is perfectly normal, as conditions have changed, so has humankind, and now humans are worse prepared for some conditions, although better for the ones we have now. Thing is, the conditions we have now are created by humans, and not neccesarily in accordance with the real changes outside civilised areas. Therefore, we have evolved, moved by the conditions we have created, so if we cannot maintain these conditions, we will suddenly be far worse off than if they had never been created.
It is some kind of artificial evolution, that is supported on changes made to the environment, which create more changes on the species, that change environment again. I think up until now, on evolution, environment has never been so much under control of the evolving species. I just don't know how good is that.
I don't know if what I wrote is understandable, I'm not too good with long explanations in english.
Parent
Re:Not anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
If you transplanted an indivdual back in time 3000 years ago then yes they may well have a hard time of it but that's nothing to do with evolution.
Parent
Re:Not anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble with your argument is that you are pre supposing that at some point in the future we may no longer be able to manufacture glasses and therefore being shortsighted will be a disadvantage to those individuals affected. Based on that assumption you could implement your plan to guide evolution and prevent short sighted people from reproducing but then when the future turns out to be very different your meddling may well have artificially reduced genetic diversity and impaired our ability to cope with what may be radically different environmental circumstances.
Perhaps global warming will spiral utterly out of control and somehow wreath the world in dense fog eliminating any disadvantage of short sightedness.
Parent
I dispute your point (Score:4, Interesting)
It is true that people are dying young less, but that doesn't mean that selection pressure has decreased, it has just changed.
Think about what sort of basis people are allowed to reproduce on now, and ask yourself what the likely outcomes are. There are a number of factors. People who are too uneducated or dumb to practice birth control are reproducing at a significantly higher rate than the educated population. People who are more physically attractive are more likely to find mates in general. Now that second point isn't really a problem as attractiveness is connected to health. However, let's look at the things that are no longer selected for.
While in the past people with wealth and power tended to be selected for, and poor families tended to slowly die off, especially in feudal societies, this is no longer true as the wealthy tend to be educated and thus practice birth control. This might be good from a social justice picture, but it also means that intelligence has virtually no way of being selected for any more. After all, if intelligence didn't select for itself by helping to acquire wealth in human society, how did it select for itself?
The main question is now, is intelligence in any way still being selected for? If it isn't, then it seems likely that there will be a backwards slide in human intelligence until the situation changes.
Parent
Re:I dispute your point (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice post.
"The main question is now, is intelligence in any way still being selected for? If it isn't, then it seems likely that there will be a backwards slide in human intelligence until the situation changes."
Yes, human intellingence is still being selected for, by sexual selection. It is the women who do the selecting, and they are more choosy than ever. The proof of this could be the fact that people in rich countries have fewer children.
Most of the posts here simply ignore the "sexual selection" part of the evolution. This doesn't make sense, since this could be the 60% of all the reasons for human evolution. In Darwin's work, sexual selection is side by side with "survival of the fittest", but after that it kind of gets ignored, at least until last 20 years.
Human intelligence is basically shaped by sexual selection. Humas/monkeys survived just fine without super intelligence. Human brain is basically a giant sexual ornament, analog to peacock's tail. Many aspects of human intelligence like humor, music, language are a result of sexual selection. "Survival of the fittest" can explain none of those traits. Women always mention "sense of humor" when they talk about desirable men. Being bold might get you killed, being an arrogant rock star will get you laid like, well, a rock star.
Selection for survival and sexual selection are often in conflict. One selects for a trait that the other selects against. Peacock's tail is a giant handicap. However, surviving despite having such a handicap sends a strong message that can't be faked.
Ah, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that by having more humans, and increasing sexual selection pressure, combined makes for a faster human evolution.
Parent
Re:I dispute your point (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, I know that it's "common knowledge" that only the stupid breed, but can you actually source it?
And you have to look more than one generation ahead. If a "stupid" couple have 5 kids can this happen?
- One dies after eating styrofoam
- One ends up in jail
- One ends up on the streets
- One ends up with the slightly-better genes, goes to community college, and scores a reasonably-intelligent wife/husband
- One dumbass knocks up another dumbass and they have 5 more kids
In the end, those 5 kids are a wash - one's genes enter "normal" society, and only one of them carries on the pattern.
I know there are the outlier 15-kid brood-mares out there, but I really do think they are outliers. I'm really not as pessimistic about the future as, say, Idiocracy, because
- Smart people are still having kids, and will continue to have kids. This will not stop (natural selection - the smart people in 20 years will be the offspring of smart people who wanted kids)
- If the pattern does continue to extremes, then the extremely smart will have no problem managing the extremely stupid. Look at how often this happens today (cults, Nigeria scams, televangelists). We may see a decrease in *morals* - particularly towards the dumb - but not in an intelligent caste.
- Carried even further into the future, the extremely-dumb could never take care of themselves on their own. As soon as the extremely-smart decide to stop carrying them, they would be dead by their own incompetence.
Parent
Re:Not anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Mutations that in earlier times were fatal are now viable. They may now lead to offspring. So these mutations will live on more than before. We have more mutations surviving and spreading, we have more diversity, not less.
Among this diversity, a few will be a leap ahead. Just like we can have a mental genius with a physical disability, who could not survive in an earlier age but can survive today, similarly we can have evolutionary changes that are in some way a leap forward but come combined with disability, able to survive today. Later recombinations through procreation might keep the leap forward while overcoming the disability.
The probability is of course low, but that's the case with all evolution through random mutations. You need long time spans.
With a greater diversity we should have faster evolution.
Parent
Backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Backwards? (Score:4, Funny)
Australia is on the east. Yay!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no such thing. Your group either stays as it is because situations don't force a change, or your group undergoes some change and certain traits become more desirable than others. And either way, the group then either prospers or it doesn't, either because of the change or in spite of the change (but in the long run, usually because of the change).
Saying that evolution has a direction indicates you think that there's some end design t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Check Out the Sample Size (Score:5, Insightful)
The researchers looked for the appearance of favorable gene mutations over the past 80,000 years of human history by analyzing voluminous DNA information on 270 people from different populations worldwide. (Emphasis mine)
This is what I can't stand about science by press release (and yes, I'm a scientist). Pretty sweeping conclusion drawn from a miniscule sample size.
Re:Check Out the Sample Size (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Check Out the Sample Size (Score:5, Informative)
Since they peer-review their articles, I would imagine that other experts thought 270 people ought to be good enough for everyone...
Parent
Re:Check Out the Sample Size (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Quite an opinion... (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony of this statement is overwhelming.
Not only evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Evolution or mutation? (Score:3, Insightful)
And maybe Chernobyl helped
Millenia of "progress" (Score:4, Funny)
Time scales (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting result to be sure, and not far-fetched at all, considering things like Belyaev's silver fox research from the mid-20th century, where artificial selection was shown to greatly accelerate the evolutionary process in terms of behavior.
My question, though, concerns the time scale of accelerated human evolution over the past 10,000 years versus the apparently much faster rate of "evolution" of technology. Some have argued that technological advancements stunt evolutionary change by reducing the severity of natural selection pressures such as the ability to provide food for oneself or to make contact with a mate. (For example, my vision, while corrected to normal levels through the technology of lenses, would have made my chances of reproduction several hundred years ago even lower than they are now.)
Since technology progression has increased to such a fast rate in the past 100 to 200 years, has the rate of technological improvement outstripped the capability of evolutionary processes to keep up? Will we see a decrease in the rate of evolution during very recent history (and, er, future history) due to this increasing difference in time scales, i.e., was the accelerated evolution rate during the past 10,000 years due in part to technological advancement reaching a sort of "sweet spot" that has since been (or will be) surpassed?
Not that any of this will matter once our new robotic overlords take over the planet, but it's still academically interesting.
Re:Time scales (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Time scales (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the thing: that change that makes it OK for you (and me) to wear eyeglasses releases us from selection to some extent against myopia. But by itself that would only cause a very slow, slow response -- mutations that harm vision won't increase quickly under drift alone. But any genes that are selected for other reasons and have the side effect of myopia may increase much more rapidly. These new selected variants are what we are finding, and they relate to many so-called "diseases" of civilization.
All selection cares about is mortality and fertility. Within the past 200 years, mortality variation has reduced in many human populations. But fertility variation hasn't -- if anything, it may be increasing. So selection for disease resistance -- one of the largest sources in the last 10,000 years -- has probably reduced in importance. But selection on fertility -- things like sperm production, for example -- may still be increasing.
Parent
Evolving OR Mutating faster? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought evolution, didn't occur until selective environmental pressure, weeded out the non-favorable traits. I really don't *think* that happening at a higher rate. I suspect we just have a giant gene pool with a lot of variability.
So which is it John? Are we mutating faster or evolving faster?
P.S. Fascinating work. Kudos.
Re:Evolving OR Mutating faster? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Trolls on Slashdot?!? (Score:3, Funny)
Evolution... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Science (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the answer: natural selection takes initially rare mutations and magnifies them to large numbers, spreading them to most of the population rapidly. Our survey was looking at things between 20 and 80 percent frequency in living populations. That means that the average person has around half the new selected mutations, even though each mutation is very recent. As a result, genetically today's people really are radically different than the average person living 5,000 years ago -- it's within the last 5000 years we are seeing the most rapid change in frequency of these new alleles.
This rapid evolutionary change has also been skeletal -- bodies really have changed during this time period. But the skeletal changes are just the tip of the iceberg -- most of the changes are metabolic, or pathogen-host interaction, or brain development -- things we will never see from the archaeological record.
Parent
LIARS!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Not evolving faster. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mutation != evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
No it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution is how many changes are occuring over a period of time. You can measure a rate of evolution, i.e. whether the number of changes over time is increasing or decreasing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prof. Hawks, is this evolution evenly distribut (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prof. Hawks, is this evolution evenly distribut (Score:4, Informative)
For example, skin pigmentation genes causing lighter skin in Europeans are largely different from those in East Asians, even though they have the same general effect. Still, some specific effects, like hair pigmentation, may be quite different.
Other genes respond to selection pressures that have historically been very different. Malaria is a huge source of selection in African populations historically, but it was much less important in Europeans, for example.
As far as behavioral variations, the fact is that we don't know what most genetic changes may do. So we certainly can't say that some populations have undergone more or less behavioral change than others. Most of these changes are genetically very simple, so we're not looking at any kind of radically new changes in phenotype -- no growing antlers. The same would be true of any kind of behavioral changes under selection.
Parent
Applying it to trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Applying it to trolls (Score:5, Funny)
"I think it does indeed apply to trolls and prist fosters: evolution does not necessarily mean progressit can simply indicate a species adapting to fill a niche."
[X] Hey, I resemble that remark, you ignorant clod!
[X] Its like open source, you "have a niche you want to scratch".
[X] This explains the global obesity epidemic. As supermarket aisles get wider, people evolve to fill that niche.
Parent
Re:PLAGARISM in its worst form (Score:5, Funny)
(Unless you're a raving cultist yourself. Er... I have somewhere else to be, quickly.)
Parent