Pace of Human Evolution Increases

[New Tet]

And still our social institutions lag behind!


The pace of human evolution has been increasing at a stunning rate since our ancestors began spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago, quickening to 100 times historical levels after agriculture became widespread, according to a study published today. By examining more than 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people, researchers identified about 1,800 genes that have been widely adopted in relatively recent times because they offer some evolutionary benefit. Until recently, anthropologists believed that evolutionary pressure on humans eased after the transition to a more stable agrarian lifestyle. But in the last few years, they realized the opposite was true– diseases swept through societies in which large groups lived in close quarters for a long time. Altogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7% of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. –“Study Finds Humans Still Evolving, and Quickly: The pace has been increasing since people started spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago,” Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times... (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-evolution11dec11,0,5882337.story)

http://www.harpers.org/

[thethinkingchimp]

I don't know what is considered fast evolution in genomic mutations over the spectrum of species on earth. If humans are evolving quickly, I would suggest it is because we have spread so far from our origins, relative to other species, we take the cake for travel miles. I refer to this travel as a cumulative distance over generations, some species log serious miles in just a year, but every year travel the same areas. Humans are really now ubiquitous to all terrains. We have had many populations diverge and become isolated from others. At least early in evolutionary history of humans, this was probably a significant driving force behind evolutions of humans, as isolated populations change to meet the requirements of new terrains. I apologize if this is helter skelter, I am trying to do math homework and check revleft at the same time:blushing:

[Invincible Summer]

ltogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7% of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So does that mean the current "mapping of the human genome" is for an "old" version of it?

[New Tet]

So does that mean the current "mapping of the human genome" is for an "old" version of it?

Probably more for the current human genome. The evolutionary change has occured fast but not that fast, I think.

[red cat]

The recent change is supposed to have spanned at least a few thousand years. I think that quick evolution is possible because we are able to overcome the ill-effects of almost all mutations with our technology(like medicines, agriculture etc.). This enables individuals who would have been eliminated through natural selection otherwise, to offer the positive aspects of their genetic mutations.

[Invincible Summer]

Probably more for the current human genome. The evolutionary change has occured fast but not that fast, I think.


The recent change is supposed to have spanned at least a few thousand years.

Ah that makes sense.

[Devrim]

The recent change is supposed to have spanned at least a few thousand years. I think that quick evolution is possible because we are able to overcome the ill-effects of almost all mutations with our technology(like medicines, agriculture etc.).

Surely there must be counter pressures, the most basic one being the population size. There is a lecture by Steve Jones on the pace of human evolution, which I have downloaded from itunes and plan to listen to soon.

Devrim

[Manifesto]

Interesting although this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1070671/Evolution-stops-Future-Man-look-says-scientist.html) says about the exact opposite (sorry if it seems smushed together or else it would be too big):

For centuries, writers have attempted to predict the future of the human race.
Some have argued that we are destined to evolve into super-beings, others that we are turning into dim-witted goblins incapable of anything more demanding than watching TV.
But according to a leading geneticist, both visions are wrong because human evolution has ground to a halt.
From ape to modern man: A leading geneticist told a lecture human evolution has ground to a halt
Professor Steve Jones (http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/people/jones_steve), of University College London, says the forces driving evolution - such as natural selection and genetic mutation - no longer play an important role in our lives.
The people living one million years from now, should Man survive, will resemble modern-day humans.
'We now know so much about the process of evolution that we can make some predictions about what might happen in future,' said Professor Jones in a lecture on Monday.
Evolution is driven by natural selection and mutation.
Genetic mutations create traits which, if helpful, give individuals a competitive edge over rivals.
For most of human history, life was so tough that huge numbers of children died before they reached adolescence.
'In ancient times, half our children would have died by the age of 20.
'Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21,' he continued.
In a harsh environment where people are competing to survive, natural selection is a potent force.
So in Ice Age Britain, a mutation which gave a baby more resilience against the cold or famine also gave it a strong competitive edge, making it more likely to survive and pass its genes on to others.
But in a modern world of central heating and plenty of food, the same mutation is far less likely to give a child any advantage.
Fewer older fathers means fewer genetic 'mistakes'
Professor Jones argues that mutation is also slowing down because of a drop in the number of older fathers, whose sperm deteriorates and contains more genetic 'mistakes'.
He added: 'In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.'
Who's the daddy? Moulay Ismail, King of Morocco, is said to have fathered 888 children
He mentions the famously fertile king, Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is said to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is believed to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years.
The professor continues: 'The evolution exam has two papers. Most people pass the first, for they stay alive until they grow up. The second is harder, for candidates must reproduce. The more children they have, the higher their marks.
'Men can score higher than women, for females are limited in their success by the mechanics of pregnancy, while males are free to spread their sperm to a multitude, if they can find them.
Some societies still turn on that simple biological fact. Mohamed bin Laden, father of Osama of that ilk, had 22 wives and 53 children, while his famous son had, last time they were counted, five wives and 22 children.
'Plenty of his henchmen now have no chance of finding a mate and will die without issue.
'The Irish were much the same. A fifth of the men of Donegal share the same Y chromosome - the mark of male descent - and trace ancestry from the same man. In Old Erin's glorious days, marital bliss was an exception.
'Turlough O'Donnell, who died in 1423, had 18 sons. He descended from the High Kings of Ireland, who themselves sprang from a fifth-century bin Laden, a warlord called Niall of the Nine Hostages.
'Niall's chromosome proves how, for centuries, just the mightiest passed on their genes. The weak and the powerful are now closer than they were. The important figure is how much inequality there is in the number of offspring.
'Differences in death rates and sexual success can be combined into a single figure. Across the world, it is in decline. India's cultures range from tribal hill peoples to affluent urbanites, together with millions of peasants, who live as mediaeval Europeans once did.
'Natural selection has lost nine-tenths of its power among the Indian middle classes, compared to their tribal ancestors. The same is true when we compare modern Britain with our predecessors in Darwin's day.'
Professor Steve Jones believes human evolution is over
Decline of 'random change'
A third factor - randomness - is also an important ingredient in evolution.
Small populations which are isolated can change at random as genes are accidentally lost, he said.
But as the world's population becomes increasingly connected, the opportunity for random change is dwindling.
'Almost everywhere, inbreeding is becoming less common. In Britain, one marriage in 50 or so is between members of a different ethnic group, and the country is one of the most sexually open in the world,' Professor Jones added.
'Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that.
'Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now – about the size of the population of Glasgow.
'History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown.
'So, if you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, don't. At least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you are living in it now.'