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."
It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, it's conceivable that we're at the point where the human brain is the exception to the above. After all, what has been the driving force behind the evolution of the brain? Big-brained people surviving and succeeding in reproduction where little-brained people fail.
This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.
I can't believe how often highly educated people will pontificate on this subject, and get it wrong. Yes, usually the media is to blame -- science reporting is notoriously bad -- but that does not appear to be the case here.
Ironic that they should be so wrong on this of all subjects.
--
You didn't know. [tinyurl.com]
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 s
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Interesting)
What is funny is you don't realize you just put yourself down.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it sure might look that way, but these genes strongly suggest that something related to cognition was under strong selection throughout history.
One of the two genes, ASPM, appears to have come under selection only 5800 years ago; but it is now at around 20 percent, with a frequency of near 50 percent in some Near Eastern populations. Whatever this allele does, it had a selective advantage of more than 5 percent. They don't know it necessarily makes people smarter, but it's hard to think what else it might be.
That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening. Instead, there is every reason to think we have been getting smarter.
The submission doesn't mention the most problematic part: These alleles are high frequency in some populations, but absent or low frequency in others -- suggesting there may be adaptive differences in the brain among human populations. From my weblog post: [johnhawks.net]
--JohnRe:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the morning coffee gene!
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.
I believe you missed the point of the grandparent (Score:4, Insightful)
If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date", so to speak. How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole? By definition, natural selection has been removed and therefore evolution has ceased. Sure, the population is "evolving" (read: reproducing) but with a near 100% reproduction rate amongst those individuals who *choose* to reproduce (again, no evolution here), it is not "evolving" in the Darwinian sense. Only those with severe medical or physical problems are no longer "able" to reproduce, but again this does not evolution make (IMHO).
Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Those things changed what would be regarded as "fitness" in that context but didn't somehow magically suspend evolution.
Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case, your definition of "fitness" is obsolete. In fact, it has been obsolete since humanity started using tools. Had your definition of fitness not become obsolete that long ago, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion on the internet.
I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors.
No, it has not. First of all, evolution is _slow_ compared to human lifetimes. How can you tell that a process has completely stopped that has time constants in the thousands of years ?
Also, these factors did not stop evolution at all. They merely modified the criteria used in the selection process. A very common fallacy of "critics" of evolution is that the criteria for selection stay the same. If this were the case, well, where are the dinosaurs ? They were wiped off the planet by a change in the selection criteria which they suddenly did not fulfill anymore
Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare (Score:4, Insightful)
The tools that allow individuals to actually get that far along the way of reproduction.
Fire. Helps to avoid freezing off important parts during cold winter nights. Also helps to keep your offspring from freezing solid during those nights, and helps to keeps the tigers away that want to snack on you, your partner and your offspring.
Clothing. See above. Can also help to influence potential mating partner's preference towards the wearer.
Jewelry/other adornments. See latter point of clothing.
Weapons. See the part about tigers above. Also help to impress potential partners, keep rivals away and provide food to you, your partner and your offspring.
Blankets. Ever tried to have sex outside during the cold season without one ?
Houses. Better version of blankets for that purpose.
Reducing "fitness" to the short time from intercourse to conception is quite shortsighted (to the point of blindness). Whoever can reproduce and ensure the survival of the offspring is "fit". Regardless of the tools used in the process. If someone can't do this even with currently available tools, well, in that case they should come up with better tool or they'll end up "unfit".
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...
Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare (Score:3, Insightful)
This is wrong. Think about it, selection serves the 'purpose' of creating organisms best suited to the enviroment that challenges them. In no way has fitness any relation to procreation. It's just a correlation that fucking more used to equal being successfully adapted (enough food a) for the fucking and b) for keeping the kids alive). In the natural state, it just happens that the ability to procreate is a prequesite
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Funny)
That's because you don't have it.
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:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Insightful)
The genetic diversity we're accumulating will help ensure that when the inevitable "culling of the weak" comes in some form or another, there are a few people who are strong in the right sort of way to carry on.
Considering the intermixing between cultures that occurs in modern society, as a species we're better off with as much genetic diversity as we can get until we manage to get off planet and remove the risk of a single superbug wiping us all out.
By the way, you're sorely misguided about the whole "stupid people breeding out of control" issue too. The problem isn't the stupid people breeding too much, it's the so-called "smart" people not breeding enough. We're on our way to a societal collapse because of it.
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to sustain our population (which seems a reasonable target) we need to have about 2.1 children per woman. In the US, lower class people are doing just about that. It is the top half of the income distribution that is failing to do its duty by replacing itself in the next generation.
I have seen some estimates that we could lose as much as one point of IQ per generation due to differential numbers of children and mother's age at birth - a pretty scary thought if you ask me.
Unless some amazing new technology comes to save the day, in the next few years we are seriously going to have to consider more government manipulation of birthrates, or our society and culture could disappear.
Re:I (don't) agree (Score:4, Insightful)
I think of myself as pretty smart, but I know a lot of dumb people who earn more than I do. Wealth (and by implication survival in the modern world - although that is another questionable assumption) is far more a matter of luck and inheritance (wealth or status, not genes) than intelligence.
In fact, I suspect that there are far more important qualities, relating to the ability to focus on specific activities or goals that are relevant to an individuals wealth generating ability.
In any event, I would completely reject your implication that we kill off the poor because they are polluting the human gene pool. Your argument is based on false assumptions, could itself potentially remove useful variety from the gene pool, and goes against every compassionate human instinct I possess.
I don't like it.
Sorry.
At this point, I think we should invoke Godwin's law [wikipedia.org], and shut up.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you have more money or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether your 'genes' are hardy enough to survive, propogate and evolve.
The state of modern society has in fact thrown out thousands of years of evolution in favour of 'creationism', and the 'golden law' - ie those with the most toys wins.
This has nothing to do with evolution, it has everything to do with the rich feeding the rich and the rich doing everything in their power to stay rich.
Look at how much 'old money' runs the world (in the US and abroad). You think that these same people, if given the same upbringing, financial situation and social status (ie 'socialist states') are somehow 'better' than those raised in capitalist 'everyone for themselves' environments?
I hardly think so.
The Bush family dynasty is the prime example of how this theory fails miserably.
When you have generation after generation of idiot propogating and continuing their 'dynasty', you inevitably result in the idiots rising to the top - hence gwb II 'the sequel' - and the rest of the old money families that think they know best and flounder around trying to play 'risk' and destroy the world...
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)
Doesn't it seem kind of sick to you that the biggest selective press
Re:It's remarkable how wrong....no, we are wrong. (Score:3, Funny)
Errr, no, never.
* puke * (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, what you wrote is wrong on so many ways... Factually, morally, economically, you name it. People like you consider that misery is a feature of the system rather than a bug. You have wilfully renounced what has always driven human development.
You, sir, are evil.
I have never seen those statistics directly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Funny)
If you mod me down or reply negatively, you lose sex priveledges too
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:4, Insightful)
to see this, just look at dog breeds.
the same could easily be done with humans, certainly.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how that's totally a fact you can back up with data from the local library's copy of "kids of athletes and models - 2005 edition".
But seriously, although eugenics does not sit well with me or anyone most likely, and while your logic is correct - two idiots can breed a genius, I would wager statistics would prove that people with higher educations breed people who contribute more to society, and it probably helps to be more "well off", too.
Before I get flamed to death, I am definitely not advocating birth control in this sense (or eugenics) - the key is in the education, which brings with it the wealth.
To me its always been a shame that one of the most promising tools for improving society gets the shaft over and over again... Not to get offtopic, but its a shame that probably more than half the teachers in our institutions should not be teachers, and that the ones who should teach out of a desire to teach and make a difference (rather than for the small compensation) - most everyone has that really good teacher they remember that really made a difference.
To be a teacher should require as much education as it does to become a Doctor - possibly more, and they should be paid more, too. The day we see that is the day we see some real advances in society.
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Insightful)
if i had time to write a long reply, i'd argue that it is in fact the presence of the "weaker" that allows for a humankind which is strong and adaptive as a whole.
to put it simply: if we were all rocket scientists, the world would be quite a messy place
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:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:4, Funny)
That's probably why I should never be allowed any power...
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, an
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want some ancedotal evidence, look at Hollywood; generally consider
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:5, Informative)
While I'm glad I'm an Alpha, I clearly see the need for Gammas and Deltas. And for them to be in greater numbers than the Alphas and Betas. That reminds me; trash truck comes tomorrow AM...
Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, you were talking about people! Well, @ comes before alpha, in ASCII, so I'm going to be @.
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
Hoist by your own petard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hoist by your own petard (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's virtually never that clear cut. There'll be some attribute(s) that confer a marginal increase or decrease in the likelihood of individuals to reproduce, or not. It's not all or nothing. Over a hundred generations, though, even a 1% marginal difference adds up to a significant population shift.
Re:Hoist by your own petard (Score:3, Funny)
Duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this could be news to people who don't actually understand evolution -- which, given the popularity of pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" and non-science like "Creation Science" -- probably is quite a bit. Unfortunately, experience shows that they don't really care to learn anything about evolution anyway, so chances are they'll do little but mock the findings without even trying to understand them.
Re:Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The scope of this article is over 60,000 years, the headline suggests the brain is "still" evolving. When you consider modern medicine and modern living the most basic mechanics of evolution (natural selection) aren't nearly as powerful as they were in hunter/gatherer societies.
So, it is news, and whats even more misleading is that the suggestion that evolution is happening due to environmental fa
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:3, Informative)
You're welcome.
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is why you are stupid.
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:4, Insightful)
And I say that if you're going to use the term "theory" to mean something other than what scientists mean and then claim that the theory of evolution is on shaky grounds because it is a "theory" by your definition then you're not arguing based upon facts, but upon dishonest semantics.
Which isn't surprising. I've observed that creationists are, in general, shameless liars. You're either one of them, or you're trolling. Your posts are more over the top than most creationists, but I do know that people have seriously expressed the insane and willfully ignorant sentiments that you preach in all seriousness, so it's hard to tell.
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just don't expect to persuade anybody to see your point of view if you refuse to base your conversation on a common usage of specific scientific terms. If you refuse to actually crack open a dictionary and get up to speed on what the word "theory" means (hey, click here [reference.com] for a definition - it's free!), then the first job you'll face is to get people who do use a functional, consistent vocabulary to abando
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you decide to make up your own definition for a word and then claim that scientists must also using your definition when they use the same word... I can think of a better place to put your "bullshit" label.
Theory already has a specific meaning when used by scientists. In this case, the various theories of evolution provide our current best explanations for the many-times-over observed f
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh this straw man again... Okay, tell you what: have a priest bring a brain dead individual back to full function and I'll bite. There has never been a documented case of a brain dead person coming back to any mental function. So you get that done then come back.
If you really want to know, it goes something like this: Doctors generally predict based on
Re: Theory or God?? (Score:3, Informative)
A hypothesis is a testable prediction. A theory is a hypothesis-generating model. A law is a mathematical description.
For example:
Hypothesis: If I throw an object X with a force of Y at a vector of Z, it will land at point Q.
Theory: Gravity is caused by the warping of space by mass
Law: F=G*(m1*m2/r^2)
Note that even with dramatic changes to the _theory_ of gravity, the Law is relatively stable -- it is simply a mathematical
Learn the nature of science. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't.
Evolution is nothing but a theory.
Creationists say this like it means that it's somehow on shaky ground. It isn't. "Theory" is the highest level that any explanation reaches in science. There is no higher label. The dismissing of evolution as "nothing but a theory" only demonstrates that the one making the dismissal is fundamentally ignorant of scientific terminology.
Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory.
And theories never get any higher in rank.
It is not fact.
"Facts" are simply statements about single observations, nothing more. "Facts" really don't mean anything in the long run in science.
It is not a scientific law.
And it never will be. Despite the ignorant rantings of creationists, theories do not ever become laws. Theories and laws are two different types of statements. Laws are general statements about collections of previous observations by which future observations are predicted. Theories are an attempt to explain the underlying causes of the observation. Example: the "Law of gravity" is a model of the resultant force caused by gravitational attraction between two masses. The theory of gravity -- more commonly known as "relativity theory" -- is an attempt to explain why that force occurs.
Laws are no more certain than theories. Theores do not "graduate" into laws. Laws can just as easily be falsified -- in fact, the "Law of Gravity" as we know it from Newton is false. Saying that "evolution is a theory, not a law" as if this casts some doubt on the validity of evolution again only demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of how science works.
The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.
No, Intelligent Design postulates -- based upon faulty premises -- that certain features in biological systems are too "complex" to have come about through evolution, and therefore must have been "designed" by some unnamed designer. "God" doesn't enter into "Intelligent Design" as it is presented by the shysters who try to shove it into school cirriculums.
That you think that it directly refers to a god -- especially the God that you happen to worship -- only further demonstrates that ID is nothing but a sham to try to sneak religion into schools.
As for "know", I'm sorry but claiming that you "know" something isn't valid justification for scientific consideration. If you have no evidence, then you have no case.
Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.
The Big Bang doesn't cover abiogenesis. Please actually learn the science behind it before attempting to discuss it.
For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening? How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?
You know the statistical likelyhood? Please present the math. Show all of your work. If you can't then you don't have a case. Please avoid the fallacy of pointing to the "likelyhood" of the universe appearing in its exact configuration as it is and pretending that the universe couldn't have just as easily supported life had it come about in a somewhat different configuration unless you can demonstrate that it is the case.
You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.
False analogy, demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of cosmology. Try to understand why physicists say what they say about universal origins before thinking that
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: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
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, thu
Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism (Score:3, Insightful)
Atheism is not the belief that a god does not exist nor does it require any proof of the non-existence of a god. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. A-thiesm means 'without theism' and nothing more. Atheism is not the
Re:Learn the nature of science. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course you can test it. You can make predictions about the way things could have evolved and what intermediate forms may have been present. You can then look for such forms in fossils. For example, there have been several theories about the lineage of whales, and fossil finds have helped test these theories.
In this sense evolution is a lot like cosmology. We can't go back to the early stages of the universe, but we can predict what should be there then look at distant (effectively 'fossil') light with telescopes.
Re:Learn the nature of science. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure we can.
Just one example off the top of my head...
Evolutionary theory states that wings and forearms evolved from the same structure in vertebrates. Therefore, evolution predicts that no vertebrate fossil will possess separate forearms AND wings (something like pegasus). This is a reasonable prediction because we already have plenty of INvertebrates that have forearms + wings (flying insects for example).
This hypothesis c
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Theory and fact are not exclusive. Stating something is a theory and is not a fact implies that the theory is wrong. Scientific laws are just "convenience" wrappers for theories. The things we call "laws" are theories just the same. They are still subject to the same rigor as theory.
The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.
And that is why you are NOT a science. Because you "know." You've moved from theory to statement of fact.
For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?
The probability of the event cannot be determined because we lack understanding of the state space.
How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?
The probability of getting N heads in a row is 1/(2^N). But that is irrelevant to the discussion.
You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.
And you've calculated the probability of this how?
God made life. It is called a soul.
That it is incorrect. Life was bestowed upon the earth when the Flying Spaghetti Monster extended His noodly appendage and brought forth a midget in full pirate regalia.
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.
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that is a loaded statement.
Yes it is.
It doesn't go nearly far enough.
"Pseudoscience" implies that its proponents, cranky or not, at least sincerely believes in it. That is too charitable for "intelligent design".
"intelligent design" is a meticulously planned, focus-group designed, carefully executed fraud.
It is created only to deceive. It's intended purpose is not to explain anything, but only to diminish the public credibility of any real scientific explanatory model of life or the origin of our world.
Re:Theory or God?? (Score:4, Funny)
"intelligent design" is a meticulously planned, focus-group designed, carefully executed fraud.
It is created only to deceive. It's intended purpose is not to explain anything, but only to diminish the public credibility of any real scientific explanatory model of life or the origin of our world.
[/quote]
OK, broadly the same could be said about religion in general and most political statements.
But that doesn't mean people don't BELIEVE it.
My sister just can't believe we're somehow sharing traits with apes, while to me that's maybe our most redeeming quality
Re: Theory or God?? (Score:3, Informative)
Who in the ID community is being dishonest?
"It's possible that someone could offer "intelligent design" as a conjectural explanation for some poorly understood phenomenon"
Actually, most people offer up "intelligent design" for well-understood phenomena. Would you say that the works of Mozart are not intelligently designed? Or perhaps that the Apache server was not intelligently designed? ID sim
Counter-evidence... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess these guys have never browsed Slashdot at -1 then... And how do they explain George Bush, Beanie Babies and the Crazy Frog? And where did they get a 60,000 year old brain from to find these genes - Joan Rivers' skull? No no no, none of this is adding up...
Re:Counter-evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution optimizes for survival, nothing else. And unfortunately, in this country, there is a strong selective pressure against intelligence.
Sarcasm and "bling" on the other hand....
Re:Counter-evidence... (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds promising.... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
The human brain... (Score:5, Funny)
We actually think with our stomachs.
Obviously the cooling needs of the human body are still increasing over time. Probably linked to global warming.
Re:The human brain... (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. Getting warm though. Little lower...
Now, wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now, wait a second... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now, wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that human engineering will likely eclipse natural selection in the near future, I have to say that from my observations, at least of modern industrialized society, that the number of offspring is still related to prosperity. However the relation is probably backward from what you were thinking. It seems that the poorest (and least educated so maybe that is the deciding factor) members of our society are the ones having children at the youngest ages and having more children over their lifetime.
Nope. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes?
Congratulations, you just participated in the ongoing process of natural selection. You yourself have applied selective pressure in favor of whatever it was that attracted you to him/her, regardless of what the nature of the attraction was or whether you can even spell it out.
Multiply by six billion and you have the human race... evolving.
Re:Now, wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dominant != good. Dominant means it tends to happen with hetrogenious parents. Dont' confuse the two. My Alpha thalasemia is dominant but in areas without malaria it's a bad trait.
Gene distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Another geneticist, David Goldstein of Duke University, said the new results were interesting but that "it is a real stretch to argue for example that microcephalin is under selection and that that selection must be related to brain size or cognitive function."
Basically this study shows that the 2 genes they studied are distributed with different frequencies in different populations, but occur more often in these populations now then 60,000 years ago. Anything else is just theory and speculation.
Re:Gene distribution (Score:4, Informative)
The "related to brain size/function" is somewhat speculative, in that the gene could have additional unknown functions.
That the mutation makes us smarter is much more speculative. (Indeed, I don't think the paper's authors went this far.) It could, for example, make us 0.1% less smart, but reduce the brain's metabolic cost by 0.5%.
(Note: I've only read the linked article, not the scientific paper.)
Depends on how much spaghetti you eat (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
"Smart Jews" (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm
It seems that discrimination in Europe may have led to higher intelligence.
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
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.
Will this result in evolution or branching? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, we still have the genetic randomization going on, resulting in differences in humans. But, then what happens? All the strains of humans just keep going.
Does this result in the spectrum of humans spreading increasingly wider, so eventually subjects at two extremes barely resemble the same species?
Will any noticeable branching happen? In previous evolution, one group survived and thrived, replacing members without an adaptation. Now, since the others still survive, and the difference between the weak and strong won't result in a dramatic difference in results for either group. Probably not anything recognizable outside the normal differences between tall & short, thin & fat, smart & dumb.
WE HAVE STOPPED EVOLUTION! (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology has given people with hereditary conditions like diabetes and nearsightedness the same chance to pass its genes to the next generation.
We are a weaker race because of it. Not that I am complaining
Cheers,
Adolfo
I've often wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evolution (Score:3)
Existed in its present form since the dawn of time : 42%
Evolved over time : 48%
Guided by a supremem being : 18%
Guided by natural selection : 26%
Don't know : 4%
Don't know : 10%
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repo
Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,000 adults, 18 years of age or older, from July 7-17, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. For results based on Form 1 (N=1,000) or Form 2 (N=1,000) only, the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
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
Duh! (Score:3, Funny)
"Researchers Say Human Brain is Still being intelligently designed."
College doesn't equal intelligence! (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution is a process. It doesn't freaking select anything! ID may freaking select something. You have to prove an enity of actually meddling with humanity though to bring up ID though. We could invent some AI that lives in nano-bio-virsus that we inject into everyone and it subtly could control us or aliens could be meddling with us. When God decides to let the basic rules decide it is evolution.
I'd be curious about how humanity has evolved in the last 3000 years. Attendance at educational environments beyond HS or middle school do not show that US humans have evolved to be smarter than those that don't have that educational system in place.
What it does show is that those in attendance to any educational environments beyond HS produce vastly reduced numbers of offspring than those that didn't attend these environments. Attendance at an educational institution has no relation to an individual's intelligence.
What would be interesting is seeing a graphs of occupation and/or income vs number of childern. Hint: those that have less than 2 children are being selected against. Heck, put one up showing different religions vs number of childern or even number of toliets vs number of childern that would trully show a family stress level.
Evolution doesn't even care about numbers though. As long as we muddle through and reproduce and survive that's all that is needed.
Re:take that you intelligent desing thoricists (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:Milk (Score:3, Insightful)
I both lost and regained the ability to digest milk as an adult.
This is more likely due to changes in your intestinal flora over time than evolving at the age of 29 a gene for adult production of lactase.
Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteria (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of people have stomach, mouth, and fungus problems of various natures which they try to treat with symptoms with pepto-bismal and other over the counter drugs when they would do much better to go out an eat yogurt every day for a week. Yogurt is high in friendly bacteria and will fix many symptoms you may have had for years.
One big cause of losing your friendly bacteria is taking anti-biotics. Some people take anti-biotics and struggle with intestinal and fungus problems for years because their friendlies have been wiped out by the anti-biotics. Doctors rarely prescribe yogurt with anti-biotic, but next time ask your doctor if taking pro-biotics is a good idea, and he will probably say yes. Why they don't bring it up on thier own has always been a mystery to me.
Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can someone explain... (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the world's population can't digest lactose (milk sugar) after the age of about 4. The ability to digest lactose appears to have evolved along with dairy farming. Those parts of the world which did not practice dairy farming remain lactose intolerant.
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/june/lactos
Re:Can someone explain... (Score:3, Informative)
There are similar patterns with respect to alcohol metabolism, based on whether populations boiled water or used diluted alcohol in order to kill bacteria. This also occurs for other drugs, such as warfarin [nih.gov] (a common anticoagulant drug).
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
The intelligent are now protecting the stupid in much the same way mankind has protected cattle. The stupid tend to breed with other stupid while the intelligent tend to breed with other intelligent people. At some point this should lead to a split in the species as the two groups evolve in different directions. Still it'd take quite a change to make the two groups incompatible for mating so you'll likely see the occasional mix.
Stupid people tend to breed faster than intelligent people but they also tend to live less healthy lifes which probably increases their mortality rate. I'd still imagine stupid people produce more children that live long enough to themselves reproduce than intelligent people though. To bad this topic is taboo because it'd be pretty interesting to study.
In the meantime - geeks unite and breed! Don't let the moron inherit the Earth! The fewer children you have the more likely they'll be wage slaves to stupid people. Fight back - have sex (with yourself doesn't count)!
This isn't stopping evolution... (Score:5, Informative)
LSD is NOT a mutagen/teratogen... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings4
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_229.html [straightdope.com]
http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/chromoso
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/chromosomes.htm [serendipity.li]
Re:I Think I Missed Something Here (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the gene now no longer serves its intended function (which is why it can get replaced with its "faulty" version that allows adult mammals to tolerate lactose).
Having the gene in the first place makes perfect sense to anyone who know a bit about mammalian reproduction physiology. Nursing inhibits ovulation in the female. Forcing the offspring to stop nursing