Maybe: There is this "disorder" called Marfan Syndrome where your limbs, fingers etc become longer than usual. And it seems to help with physical and Musical performance, e.g. Phelps is suspected of having it, Paganini had it, and guitar virtuoso Paul Gilbert (who I'm very envious of) also does. Now the question is, does superior athletic and musical performance lead to higher reproduction? Also, Marfan's is linked with a risk of heart disease, so this might hinder progress. It's definitely an experiment that evolution currently performs.
> does superior athletic and musical performance lead to higher reproduction?
Is this really the relevant criterion here? As long as it doesn't lead to badly reduced reproduction, these properties will remain within our human gene pool, and that's all we need to evolve.
I'm not sure it's the relevant criterion, but it probably is one.
For instance in the original article, they talk about lactose tolerance and how up to 30% of the adult population currently tolerates lactose. They would not have mentioned this ratio it if it were not important.
If new mutations show up and barely keep existing without gaining any predominance, isn't it more genetic drift than evolution?
Yes. One of the signatures of evolution/selection on a gene is it spreading far faster than any random walk. For a single variant to go from 0 to up to 30% in a few thousand years is extremely fast, so that instance of human evolution was detected early on.
But there are many other instances where it's a whole set of variants affecting a particular trait, all of which get slightly increased in frequency to collectively sculpt humans to their local environment; this is much harder to detect because the increase in each variant is much smaller. But it's still doable, especially with whole genomes, so look forward to more discoveries in the next few years.
Both Paganini and Gilbert had only one son. Not exactly a huge reproductive success. Though arguably successful artists have many female fans and possibly lots of illegitimate children.
I think it is a popular misconception that human evolution is a thing of the past. One reason for that is maybe that evolution has been explained as a matter of premature deaths, more than of relative number of descendants. The idea is sometimes articulated as "there are no predators anymore, and medicine saves also those who would otherwise die of illness and accidents"- but of course the opposite is probably true, the fact that we're pretty much all fed and cured is a major driver of evolution today.
Another even more naive misconception about evolution is tied to the idea of "mutants", individuals possessing obvious and possibly extreme characteristics (and their notable absence as a proof of the missing evolution); while in fact evolution is mostly variation in the relative proportion of existing, very subtle differences.
Still you keep hearing people say this. Dad takes 5 pills every day, mother takes 3, kid needs 8. Complete bogus, and not only because sexual reproduction vents out genetic errors, there are a lot of other objections to such logic.
Even the introduction of birth control is likely to lead to or has already started to lead to evolution. Women allow men to procreate after much more time and stop anti-conception only when a man has proven himself (at least to a higher degree than say 100ths of years ago). This will probably lead to short term behavioral/cultural differences but it is fun to think what it may do in the long term. One can go on for a long time doing such though experiments.
People also often think evolution has some "forward" direction but if being short, ugly and smelly suddenly confers a reproductive advantage, natural selection will favor short, smelly, ugly people. It's all about niches and fitness in terms of "fitting".
19 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 66.3 ms ] threadStrictly in the scientific definition of evolution.
Certain genes proliferate more effectively in their environments. Therefore the population evolves.
People imagine evolution to be faster/stronger/better/smarter. Sure, often it's related to that - but it is not necessary.
Is this really the relevant criterion here? As long as it doesn't lead to badly reduced reproduction, these properties will remain within our human gene pool, and that's all we need to evolve.
I'm not sure it's the relevant criterion, but it probably is one.
For instance in the original article, they talk about lactose tolerance and how up to 30% of the adult population currently tolerates lactose. They would not have mentioned this ratio it if it were not important.
If new mutations show up and barely keep existing without gaining any predominance, isn't it more genetic drift than evolution?
But there are many other instances where it's a whole set of variants affecting a particular trait, all of which get slightly increased in frequency to collectively sculpt humans to their local environment; this is much harder to detect because the increase in each variant is much smaller. But it's still doable, especially with whole genomes, so look forward to more discoveries in the next few years.
Erstwhile successful mating traits have chiefly been replaced by financial and social status.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/21/michael-phelps-unint...
"Humans Once Actually Thought They Stopped Evolving (2216)"
If someone claimed to possess evidence that we did stop, that is a paper I should read with interest.
Even the introduction of birth control is likely to lead to or has already started to lead to evolution. Women allow men to procreate after much more time and stop anti-conception only when a man has proven himself (at least to a higher degree than say 100ths of years ago). This will probably lead to short term behavioral/cultural differences but it is fun to think what it may do in the long term. One can go on for a long time doing such though experiments.
People also often think evolution has some "forward" direction but if being short, ugly and smelly suddenly confers a reproductive advantage, natural selection will favor short, smelly, ugly people. It's all about niches and fitness in terms of "fitting".