Researchers Say Human Brain is Still Evolving 923
Oleg Alexandrov writes "Two genes involved in determining the size of the human brain have undergone substantial evolution in the last 60,000 years, researchers say, suggesting that the brain is still undergoing rapid evolution. The discovery adds further weight to the view that human evolution is still a work in progress, since previous instances of recent genetic change have come to light in genes that defend against disease and confer the ability to digest milk in adulthood."
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, it's hard to see *any* species as being in anything other than a state of evolution. To suggest otherwise implies a superficial understand of what evolution is about.
I beg to differ. With the current state of affairs in several countries and the way people in the east are connected to what the west does, I propose that we consider not only the human brain, but the human species itself as an exception. We are undergoing convolution [wikipedia.org] instead of evolution. Besides, human evolution is not a safe subject in some countries anymore...
This is news? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every living thing is evolving. No creatures alive are genetically identical to ones living 60,000 years ago. At that time there were wooly mammoths, and saber-tooth tigers running around.
I suppose you could argue that this is useful ammo against the ID folks, but it's really only the Flying Spaghetti Monster acolytes and other True Believers who have the hubris to believe Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the pinnacle of creation, out of the box.
Milk (Score:2, Interesting)
When I was 25 I went for about 4 months withough ingesting any milk products. When I tried again, I couldn't digest them.
When I was 29 I began to occasionally consume milk products and after a few months I was able to digest it again.
I had no idea that there was anything genetic about the production of the lactase enzyme into adulthood.
LK
Race and intelligence? (Score:1, Interesting)
Since East Asians score highest on mental aptitude tests on average, as the article suggests there are probably other genes that are responsible for that difference. Something that strengthens the math-center of the brain perhaps.
Anyway, very interesting stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligenc
Stands to reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Society has changed immensely over the past few thousand years. Evolutionary pressure has changed because the skills required to reproduce successfully are different. Being a good hunter is no longer a core skill. Being able to read and write is.
I wonder to what extent the difference in population growth for various countries will influence this. At the moment, first-world countries have much lower reproductive rates than third-world countries, but if the HIV epidemic continues, that situation could reverse itself.
Re:Milk (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider that natures way of weening many animals is for the young to eventually lose the ability to utilize its mother's milk which requires it to seek nutrition elsewhere.
It's interesting to consider what driving evolutionary force produced this successful gene though... does anyone know how long humans have been consuming the milk of other animals?
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole business with the alleles and DRD4, I don't know anything about that. I just found the way that the conclusion was stated here to be clumsy. Rather than talk about the brain still evolving, a more accurate headline might be "Path of human brain's evolution identified".
The coverage evolution has received of late has been spooky. I'm seeing all kinds of signs that the MSM is trying to accommodate "intelligent design", an agenda that is served by implying that human evolution was thought to have stopped somehow.
Now that I'm looking at it again, maybe it is another case of bad reporting.
When I gaze into my fishtank... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why yes. Take a look over there. Its the horseshoe crab, one of natures "living fossils". Even if you don't have a saltwater reef aquarium, you may notices roaches in your friends apartment...perhaps a sign that he doesn't clean up well enough or perhaps a sign that life will persist.
Evolution occurs as long as it is beneficial, to the organism in question or to its general environment. The oceans haven't presented enough of a change from way back when for the horseshoe crab and many other species to modify its design. Similarly, cockroaches are pretty good at finding corners and crevices to hide in and scavange, thus they have not needed change their modus operandi or physical design.
Humans are in an entirely different environment. In fact it is said that we are the only species which controls and modifies their environment. As such, it is a natural conclusion that as long as the environment and conditions are variable, evolution will continue to progress...always looking for that perfect design for life that maximizes its ability to persist.
Re:Learn the nature of science. (Score:2, Interesting)
Atheists say it as if there were no difference between the principle of evolution and the historic sequence of evolution. There is.
Specifically, we can test and observe and falsify evolution. It occurs in rats, and bunnies, and fruit flies. And humans, apparantly.
Calling the principle of evolution a theory is simply wrong. It's a basic biological fact, as far past theory as Newton's Laws. (We're also slowly approaching the time when we should call Relativity a law. It's not there yet, but it will be eventually.)
Now, since we don't have a time machine, we CANNOT falsify historical evolution. It's just a theory, and absent a time machine we won't ever be able to test it.
Muddying the water between historical and ongoing evolution is responsible for, if not most, then all of the conflict between Creationism and Atheist-evolution. Kindly stop doing it.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:2, Interesting)
Evolution is making our society dumber(er)? (Score:2, Interesting)
It often seems like the people who are really changing ou society are the ones that are deciding not to have kids.
Re:Learn the nature of science. (Score:5, Interesting)
But we can. Find a series of precambrian rabbit fossils, and everything we've constructed regarding the history of life comes tumbling down. A transposon found in whales and cows but not in hippos? That's a real problem with the way things are set up now.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Interesting)
Which goes to show they aren't superior breeding stock. It was probably the bulemia and drugs that caused the problems.
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no controversy. Pastafarianism is a fact, supported by the vast numbers of True Believers. A false creator could never hope to sway such a large audience. False religions, such as the cult of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, simply cannot stand against the light of the truth as shown to us by Him and His noodly appendage.
I've often wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)
How do they know? (Score:2, Interesting)
Whenever I read claims like this, I always wonder, "how do they know?". I'd have to question even if the claim were only 100 years. I have doubts that we have records of the genes in question for the last 100 years, and I'm fairly sure we haven't been watching these genes for the last 60,000 years.
I would assumed that any specific genetic data (aside from that which can be inferred from physical observations) would have been long lost to us. In this case, it seems one must be willing to make the somewhat undesirable claim that we can know that these two genes are the only two genes that control the size of the brain, and have always been the only two genes that control the size of the brain. I could accept that assumption were the claim 100 years, but 60,000 seems a bit much to take on faith.
It seems to me that this article boils down to "Change happened somewhere somehow!" and that doesn't seem particularly insightful. Anyone have more knowledge about how their claim can be observed and verified?
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Interesting)
That just another selecting factor, but who is to say any ones criteria is better for our long term fitness? Being a genius isn't exactly good for your health, a lot of them die young, a lot of them turn out to be gay, insanity is common as well. Because being a Genius is a mutant allele and occurs often in lines with a bad corrective mechanism (high mutation rate). 1/2 of all geniuses are left handed while only 1/3 of the rest of us our, supporting the idea that it occurs in lines more prone to mutations. While havign a genius around once in a while is good (einstien) having us all be genius would be bad (if we were all alan turings, the human race woudl end because we would all be gay).
The best thing for human fitness is to have a diverse rance of genotypes/phenotypes and let the future do the selecting, that way we aren't backing the wrong horse.
Lets say the germans won WWII and there was a massive selective factor for blonde hair blue eyes caucasians, now fast forward 3000 years and we're all blonde and blue eyed and suddenly by some absurd twist of fate a alien species arive that only eats thigns with blonde hair and blue eyes. now we're fucked. Absurd yes, but variations on this is what causes exstinction. Over specialize, lack diversity, and you invite disaster. Generalize or diversify and while you aren't using your resources 100% efficiently (supporting those with lower fitness) you have a better ability to flow aroudn changes in selective factors.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Interesting)
The only objective measure for the success of the human race is its population. The socialist governemnt is best by that measure.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
This is untrue, more intelligent people have fewer children, but these children almost always survive to reproductive age. It's simply a diffeerent strategy. one economic echulon (my spelling sucks) goes for a many children, few survivors method. whiel another goes for few children, but immense resources put into each.
No kidding... (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously, we have room to grow for a reason that we never had before: Caesarean births. Now that we have the technology, the circumference of the human skull is no longer constrained to the diameter of the birth canal. Note how earlier people valued wide-hipped women for their child-producing ability, and how today, popular culture values only women with skeletal stork's bodies...a subconcious acknowledgement that natural birth is no longer a factor in evolutionary development.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, he implemented a super soldier program, where the best soldiers (by physical characteristic measurements and IQ tests) were 'encouraged' to breed with very suitable females. I can't remember what the whorehouses were called but they had a special name. At any rate, there were plenty of births as a result, and I'm sure they're documented.
Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare (Score:2, Interesting)
not forgetting
Re:Learn the nature of science. (Score:3, Interesting)
don't get me wrong, i support evolution theory. but it's far from fact. in fact, the notion of facts and truths don't have a place in science. science is not a new religion (although many people treat it that way).
it's the same as saying that you are an atheist. to think you can have a proof of the non-existence of a God means conforming to the same system as religious people, thus being completely non-scientific, and actually ridiculing your own "rational" argumentation.
give me agnosticism any day. the 7 years i worked as a scientist taught me something very important: scientists are bigger doubters than perceived by the outside world. read some Russel - there's a short essay [luminary.us] on why he became an agnostic, and some really good books like "religion and science" [amazon.com] that enlighten this subject considerably.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Brooklyn, and a nasty part of it none the less. Long story as to why I moved here...
I'm not too worried about survival (I'll be leaving this winter; moving into a
Still as far as selection goes, my neighbor is clearly the victor. Ultimately his family will in the long term have a much greater chance of survival then mine, based on shear numbers alone. He works as a janitor (kinda), makes maybe 25k-30k, but has 9 kids by three different women (8 really, the 9th is expected in December). I OTOH have none (granted he is 4 years older then me... he is 29 and unmarried, had his first child at the age of 17).
Chances are, most if not all of his children will survive to reproductive age. Its also likely that few will attend college (though this really is speculative, I'm just basing it off of the fact none of their parents or grand-parents did, AFAIK).
Chances are that I will have few or no children: My girlfriend is on the pill and another prescription medication which further limits her fertility because it would require an abortion if she were to become pregnant within a year of taking it (the medication causes severe birth defects).
Even if we do wind up reproducing, I really doubt I will have more then 2 or 3 children. My neighbor OTOH, whom definitely has a lower quality education (intelligence is too subjective to judge) has definitely been far more prolific then I will ever be, though I had and probably will have a far greater quality of life.
Ironically, because we have access to excellent health care (much more so then my neighbor) we are able to choose sterility. That is not the case for my neighbor, whom cannot/will-not control reproduction (as he has complained in his own words during our infrequent conversations).
There is no welfare involved here. All parents mentioned here work and support themselves and their children (to the best of my knowledge).
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the moral of this is that there should be an intelligence test for voting...
Actually, I would like to see each voter have to complete a short multiple-choice test on the opinions of the candidate for whom they are voting, and discounting all votes from people who get less than 70% - if you don't know what your representative stands for, then you have no business electing them to represent you.
Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti (Score:3, Interesting)
Only superficially. Ultimately, science is about questioning and religion is about dogma (or "faith" if you prefer) and in the final analysis that means they are totally opposed to each other.
A nice lie like Chirstianity is still a lie; we're better off not knowing than living with that.
TWW
Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe. In the context of "selection", to me that's anything not caused by FSMs, IPUs or similar entities. Evolution does not really care about the origin of the selection, though, just that the selection exists.
But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.
That is one of the problems with evolution - it has a long memory, but close to zero foresight.
And while dependence on certain substances or tools might look undesirable, look at how many of those dependencies humans already have: a certain range of gravity, pressure, oxygen, a certain temperature range, suitable food, etc. Darwin will get ya if you suddenly take any of those away, too. Happened to the dinosaurs.
Re:Learn the nature of science. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. One could easily propose a secondary hypothesis for how they arrived there. For example, in several thousand years, archaeologists will be able to say that they have found dinosaur bones mixed with human bones.
Historical inquiry always has this kind of "fudge factor". In fact, there are spots where the fossils are out-of-order. The reason given is some sort of geological displacement. That's all well and good, except that at a few of the spots the only evidence for the displacement is that the fossils are out-of-order. That doesn't mean that it's incorrect, just that it's ultimately untestable because noone can know if the secondary hypotheses are correct, or how many of them there needs to be to look at the evidence in the correct light.
Also, you failed to point out that multiple theories can predict the same placements. In those cases, there is no way to tell between two theories. You can keep to one because it's the way its been done, but ultimately you can't test the historical theories to tell which one is true.
Re:"Smart Jews" (Score:3, Interesting)
This was at a time when most people could not read or write. Hence the average jewish male was much more eligable for employment in a clerical position than the average male in the population as a whole.
The higher salaries conferred in clerical positions leads in turn to suppossedly higher "intelligence", due to the increased ability to afford higher education. You'll find most "intelligencia" come from relatively wealthy backgrounds.
Economic factors, not genes, have lead to the results the article describes.
Re:Now, wait a second... (Score:1, Interesting)
>>In fact, there is very little selective pressure in today's society, where the number of offspring you have is rarely related to prosperity or the like.
You refer to todays society as though humans have eveloved as a single society through time. You have totally ignored geography. Even today, indeed arguably more so than any other time, geography is a big factor in human evolution.
Americans look like evolving based with obesity as a major factor, though in what way we will have to wait and see. Go to many African nations and youll find food is an issue as well, but not in the same way. Maybe given time we will see 2 subspecies develop, one filling the sparse food niche the other the high tech/food surplus environment. The ability to produce offspring is likely to be under different pressures in each group. Indeed fertility rates are already beneath the rate needed for stable populations in the west, without immigration and increasing life span Americans will eventually die out as things stand, not so in less developed areas of the world, so maybe ability to have offspring is directly related to prosperity - just inversely.
>>The death rate is so low that I can hardly imagine selective forces having a large effect on evolution.
phew! talk about ignorance of the world around you.
Simple survival is still a challenge in many parts of the world. Child mortality whilst very low in comfy western societies, is a major issue in many areas of the world. That may eventually be a huge evolutionary factor, maybe the wests idea of keeping everyone alive will be an evolutionary dead end and those who undergo major selective pressure will become the next step on our tree.
>>I'm one of those people that considers human evolution to be nearly frozen
Look around you, check your facts. Americans are already losing their height advantage they had just 50 years ago to healthier europeans, but are surging ahead in the weight department. As noted the abilty to digest milk is fairly new, and only prevalent amongst those from certain ancestry. Immunity to aids is something that is more prevalent amongst certain european groups due to the evolutionary pressure of the black death and plague just a few hundred years ago. Many africans are resistant to malaria due to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Interesting)
What is funny is you don't realize you just put yourself down.
Human Selective Pressures (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, based on the above assumptions here are some thoughts:
These seem to be macro or large scale pressures, what about some minor, subtle selective pressures? BTW, IANASD (I am not a Social Darwinist). It may not be PC these days to talk about genetic differences between races, realistically, there are differences, and it's ok to want to know what brought about those differences, from a scientific point of view.
*Human races taken from Guns, Germs, and Steel [amazon.com]
Re:The medium is the message.. (Score:2, Interesting)
To understand evolution, you have to know how it works. Any mutation must be applied to a DNA coding that already exists. It can not be applied to coding that does not exist. Is this a silly statement? Not at all. It leads to the way that evolution changes an organism. Mutations are always applied to the existing DNA coding. Evolution makes something new out of something that already exists. If a bear becomes distressed in a given environment, it does not sprout wings and fly. Instead, such things as longer legs or claws will be tested. Also, evolution often does not fix the thing that causes a problem, it patches the problem by doing something unrelated. If an organism suffers a mutation that shortens its life so that it has difficulty rearing its children to childbearing age, that mutation will start being culled from the gene pool. Before that mutation has been completely removed from the gene pool, another mutation may occur which shortens the gestation period or child development period. If this shortens the child caring requirements enough so that the shortened life is no longer a problem, then both mutations would be acceptable as permanent residents in the gene pool.
One must remember that every cell in the human body can perform any function. Two copies of the entire genome are in every cell. A cell that is in the liver chooses to do that function. The cells in bone or in the brain choose to do those functions. When a mutation happens, it is either to the inner function of a cell, or to the size and shape of the overall cell structure (such as a skull, heart, etc.).
Using language as an example to promote the idea of human brain evolution is a good example for the common layman, but it doesn't even begin to touch on the basis and main concepts of the topic; however, that's beside the point.
Moreover, it's common knowledge within the medical feild (and other related sectors) that behaviour IS, in fact, coded....just not genetically. Behaviour has never been a characteristic for genetics, it's more of an entity in it's own right (but still obviously stored in the brain). It's strongly believed and heavily documented that every aspect of a person's life is profoundly affected in the early stages of childhood going into their early teens. For example, if a female is raised in an environment with an abusive father (or father-figure), later in life she'll subconsciously be attracted to the "bad boy" type and will unintentionally repeat that abusive cycle with her children. On the same note, if that same child is raised in a loving, healthy, and positively stimulating environment she'll be more likely to live a successful and fulfilling life.
Moreover, that's not to say that all hope is lost for the first life scenario outlined above. There are many services available to those people who recognize that they have a problem that needs to be fixed (such as AlaTeen and other such 12 step programs) in order for them to survive. The sooner the problem is recognized, the better.
In conclusion, I would just like to state that life on our planet has been evolving and improvising itself over millions of years. Just because the human race has gained the capacity to recognize many of these patterns, that doesn't mean that everything involved with the process will suddenly stop dead in it's tracks...and remember, man is not an intelligent being. He is, instead, an instinctive being with intelligence.
By typing and thinking about this topic, I've come to realize that there are an endless amount of tangents (and even perpendiculars for that matter) that can be brought to the table...but alas, despite the fact that I haven't said everything I wanted and intended to say, I'm going to wrap this up now.