Human Genome change rate increasing?

[David Blacklock]

For full article, see: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09 ... ey-used-to
Article by Kathlene McAuliffe

For decades the consensus view—among the public as well as the world's preeminent biologists—has been that human evolution is over. Since modern Homo sapiens emerged 50,000 years ago, “natural selection has almost become irrelevant” to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proclaimed. “There have been no biological changes. Everything we've called culture and civilization we've built with the same body and brain.” This view has become so entrenched that it is practically doctrine. Even the founders of evolutionary psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, signed on to the notion that our brains were mostly sculpted during the long period when we were hunter-gatherers and have changed little since. “Our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind,” they wrote in a background piece on the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

So to suggest that humans have undergone an evolutionary makeover from Stone Age times to the present is nothing short of blasphemous. Yet a team of researchers has done just that. They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and ever faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species' history.

DB

[jlay]

“You don't have to look hard to see that teeth are getting smaller, skull size is shrinking, stature is getting smaller.”

What? Smaller. Just basic observation over the past 30 years shows that people are getting bigger. I am 5'11" and I am continually astounded that there are so many 8th graders my height and taller and still growing.

I'd like to see some real science for this, instead of making a statment and calling it science.

[zoegirl]

They have actual data, they have the bones.

However one also needs to separate the plasticity of human physiology when making a conclusion. People are growing taller because of nutrition, better health care, and possible influence of growth hormones in the food. (intriguing evidence of puberty starting even earlier). So the height increase may not be bcause of selection but simply becuase of better food or the influence of hormones in our diets.

These are all hard to make conclusions, simply because we cannot perhaps know whether the larger or smaller size is really due to changes sue to selection or to changes in food or environment that are simply bringing about better growth.

Not to mention that in the past 100 years, our disruption of any natural seleciton from us really precludes of from drawing conclusions, at least with those years. Because of orthodontry (dentistry, orthodontry?!?!?), people who perhaps have smaller jaws and smaller teeth are still passing down their genes fine, when perhaps they may not have in the past (would they have produced as many offspring as their straight toothed brethren or sisters?, would they have attracted the same number of offspring?)


Of course, another hypothesis, if teeth size and stature have no bearing on our survival, which in the past thousands of years they would not have, given the impact intelligence has had on food preparation and hunting, then they would bne under no slective pressure and those genes would perhaps be allowed to accumulate, especially if they are linked to other genes, such as intelligence, then we should see an increase in those phenotypes even if they are not selected for.

Just some thoughts.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Jlay - Your information, although perhaps locally accurate, is 100% anecdotal. In science, that type of evidence is worth exactly nothing.

DB

[maxplanck]

For full article, see: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09 ... ey-used-to
Article by Kathlene McAuliffe

For decades the consensus view—among the public as well as the world's preeminent biologists—has been that human evolution is over. Since modern Homo sapiens emerged 50,000 years ago, “natural selection has almost become irrelevant” to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proclaimed. “There have been no biological changes. Everything we've called culture and civilization we've built with the same body and brain.” This view has become so entrenched that it is practically doctrine. Even the founders of evolutionary psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, signed on to the notion that our brains were mostly sculpted during the long period when we were hunter-gatherers and have changed little since. “Our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind,” they wrote in a background piece on the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

So to suggest that humans have undergone an evolutionary makeover from Stone Age times to the present is nothing short of blasphemous. Yet a team of researchers has done just that. They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and ever faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species' history.

DB

Have they observed any beneficial morphological changes, conferring an evolutionary advantage, or perhaps propogating a new species separate and distinct from homo sapiens?

[waynepii]

For full article, see: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09 ... ey-used-to
Article by Kathlene McAuliffe

For decades the consensus view—among the public as well as the world's preeminent biologists—has been that human evolution is over. Since modern Homo sapiens emerged 50,000 years ago, “natural selection has almost become irrelevant” to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proclaimed. “There have been no biological changes. Everything we've called culture and civilization we've built with the same body and brain.” This view has become so entrenched that it is practically doctrine. Even the founders of evolutionary psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, signed on to the notion that our brains were mostly sculpted during the long period when we were hunter-gatherers and have changed little since. “Our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind,” they wrote in a background piece on the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

So to suggest that humans have undergone an evolutionary makeover from Stone Age times to the present is nothing short of blasphemous. Yet a team of researchers has done just that. They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and ever faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species' history.

DB

Have they observed any beneficial morphological changes, conferring an evolutionary advantage, or perhaps propogating a new species separate and distinct from homo sapiens?

I don't have specific knowledge of the subject, but I would expect many of the changes to be detrimental because the advances in modern medicine make many genetic changes survivable where without modern medicine the changes would have reduced the likelihood of an affected individual reaching breeding age and passing on the characteristic.

[Byblos]

I don't have specific knowledge of the subject, but I would expect many of the changes to be detrimental because the advances in modern medicine make many genetic changes survivable where without modern medicine the changes would have reduced the likelihood of an affected individual reaching breeding age and passing on the characteristic.

In other words, natural selection proved to be its own antidote. Now that's one smart cookie.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Maxplanck - As to the character of these mutations,

According to the article, "The new genetic adaptations, some 2,000 in total, are not limited to the well-recognized differences among ethnic groups in superficial traits such as skin and eye color. The mutations relate to the brain, the digestive system, life span, immunity to pathogens, sperm production, and bones—in short, virtually every aspect of our functioning.

Many of these DNA variants are unique to their continent of origin, with provocative implications. 'It is likely that human races are evolving away from each other,' says University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending, who coauthored a major paper on recent human evolution. 'We are getting less alike, not merging into a single mixed humanity.'"

The article elaborates and is fascinating - although it stops far short of suggesting a new species.

DB

[Gman]

In other words, natural selection proved to be its own antidote. Now that's one smart cookie.

That's right folks.. Hi, I'm Vince with a new product called Natural Selection chop...



Natural Selection is the ultimate chopper that allows you to chop, dice, and mince anything in seconds! Use to easily chop up genes, genomes, eukaryotes, and more. From chopped up to finely minced theories, with Natural Selection, the more you slap, the finer the theory gets. The best part - no switching !

Tired of boring theories? Stop having a boring life! Place some ribosomes, DNA and chloroplast in your Natural Selection theory and in no time you'll have a perfect mixture for a delicious word salad. Slice up proteins or amino acids with a single chop. Add a few pieces of fruit and make an amazing fruit genome salad. With Natural Selection and chance, the possibilities are endless!

Other choppers are nearly impossible to test. Natural Selection opens right up, allowing you easy access for adding even more impossible explanations to it and it's safe to put in the dishwasher!

When you order Natural Selection chop through this special offer, you will also receive the Graty Cheese Grater. Just put cheese in, turn, and you get perfectly grated cheese instantly!

[godslanguage]

I have read this article twice just in case I was missing something substantial. I was right the first time around that it is laughable the way the so called evidence is presented, all jumbled and gobbled around, compiled with speculations, assumptions, taking some obvious jabs and pokes at creationism and ID as well as itself for that matter. Its basically a big title designed to draw attention back to Darwinian evolution for a second or two.

Its basically yelling: "Hey, hello, look here , its me, Darwinian Evolution, I'm not expired after all "

If the rate of change is of this magnitude, then it should be that much easier to show how molecular machines arise, since ultimately changes occur at the molecular level. Computer code doesn't change when I launch an executable, I have to obtain the source code, use a text editor to make modifications, create the object file/s, subsequently use a linker and compiler to turn the code (object files) into machine language using its instruction set. I can observe myself making these modifications to code, I can predict what will happen before I run the executable, and I can confirm my prediction/s after I observe the executables results (ie: the "effect" the modification generates)

If natural selection and random mutation is tinkering with these molecular machines, then we have a much bigger problem then the article even begins to suggest, that is, we are probably heading towards extinction, quite opposite that we are evolving. You don't just leave core hardware out in the open and expect stable, good or even better things to happen overtime, but that is the fact of reality, all designs left in the open exposed to the harsh realities of nature are overtime subject to deterioration, degradation etc...Can we say that mindless natural processes have ever had any care for integrity of data or physical form or for that matter flesh and bones? If so, then i ask what is the control mechanism keeping everything of so high importance intact and functional? Do you have a non-design explanation for these control mechanisms used to maintain functional integrity that are keeping you and me alive?

If no control mechanism exists to regulate and prevent changes from occurring nothing is said that once it gets to point b it maintains its state for any extended period of time. We don't have reassurance in that case, not even for a minute or a second. Now, either the control mechanism/s are completely internal and built-in else its external to the system which I highly doubt since like I said you don't just leave hardware out in the open sort of speak. Similarly you don't leave the kernel exposed to paint or word processing software. You can have a way through to interact with the kernel through an interface (shell) using built-in control code that allows limited or no access while preventing unlimited access to the hardware. Systems are designed this way to prevent failure, system wide failure, and I see no reason why code can even begin to evolve without any intermediate code that regulates effects since most effects in nature don't construct but destruct and this is a FACT.

The article is another puzzle fitting contest.

[David Blacklock]

>>I have read this article twice just in case I was missing something substantial. I was right the first time around that it is laughable the way the so called evidence is presented, all jumbled and gobbled around, compiled with speculations, assumptions, taking some obvious jabs and pokes at creationism and ID as well as itself for that matter. Its basically a big title designed to draw attention back to Darwinian evolution for a second or two.<<

Hi Godslanguage - I commend you for reading it twice. The evidence is presented, "jumbled up and garbled with speculations," because it was written by a journalist for public consumption. The original articles would have had far more evidenciary detail and been in conventional scientific article format - tedious to read unless you're a research scientist in that immediate field. I agree with you that the speculations are just that - speculations. Those are found in the scientific articles as well - set aside in a specific area for speculations. Scientific readers are expected to take those areas with a grain of salt. Journalists usually key in on them and ignore the rest.

Finally, don't you think creationism and ID deserve a few pokes and jabs?

DB

[godslanguage]

Finally, don't you think creationism and ID deserve a few pokes and jabs?

DB

Not really. Although, they have been doing a measly job attacking Darwinian evolution, IMHO, they could be doing much much more...If they deserve a few pokes and jabs, its for not trying hard enough.

[David Blacklock]

>>doing a measley job of attacking Darwin<<

Attacking the opponent is one of the Socrates fallacies of logic. So I guess that's a disguised compliment to the creationists and IDers.

DB

[godslanguage]

>>doing a measley job of attacking Darwin<<

Attacking the opponent is one of the Socrates fallacies of logic. So I guess that's a disguised compliment to the creationists and IDers.

DB

Attacking failed Darwinian logic is the logical thing to do.

[David Blacklock]

What failed Darwinian logic?

DB