Are Humans Still Evolving? Absolutely.

[bradybaker]

Ker Than LiveScience Staff Writer A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution. Genes are the instructions organisms use to make proteins. They are encoded in genetic material, usually DNA, and some come in different versions, called “alleles." Positive natural selection occurs when one allele is favored over another due to changes in the environment. Researchers from the University of Chicago analyzed the genomes of 209 unrelated individuals from three distinct human populations: East Asians, Europeans and Yorubans from Nigeria. Each population contained roughly 250 positively selected genes; however, most of the affected genes differed depending on the group. “This study addresses the question 'Are humans still evolving?', and the answer is 'Absolutely,'" study team member Benjamin Voight told LiveScience. Other studies have also reached the same conclusion. Links to history The new study links genetic changes to major events in the history of our species. “There have been a lot of recent changes—the advent of agriculture, shifts in diet, new habitats, climatic changes—over the past 10,000 years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a human geneticist at the University of Chicago who led the study. Many genes were found to be evolving in all three of the human populations studied. The specific functions of many of the genes are not known, but the researchers were able to separate them into broad categories. These categories include: - Olfaction: the researchers found many genes important for taste and smell - Reproduction: involved in things like sperm mobility and egg fertilization - Increasing brain size - Bone development and skeletal changes - Carbohydrate metabolism: positive selection was observed for genes involved in breaking down mannose in Yorubans, sucrose in East Asians, and lactose for Europeans. (Mannose is a sweet secretion found in some trees and shrubs, sucrose is common table sugar, and lactose is a sugar found in milk.) - Disease resistance and pathogen protection - Metabolism of foreign compounds, such as exotic plant proteins or animal toxins A tradeoff The researchers also found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin in Europeans that were not known before. Scientists think humans evolved lighter skin in Europe as an adaptation to less sunlight. And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can't metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit. The study, which used data collected by the International HapMap Project, is detailed in the March 7 issue of the journal Public Library of Science-Biology. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060308/sc_...esstillevolving

[Howie]

Simply put, what and why would evolution stop? It is an ongoing natural process.

[InTheMoment]

I'm still waiting to sprout turn signals. Maybe my offspring will be the lucky ones. P.S. - for those that don't know what the hell I'm talking about, check out this thread... http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....0716&highlight=

[Burns]

I wonder what humans will look like 500 years from now, which isn't a long time at all in the scope of evolution, but if you look at old art, you can tell that people DID look different then... something about their faces, or their noses were longer and narrower.

[dudesuperior]

Originally posted by burns91 I wonder what humans will look like 500 years from now, which isn't a long time at all in the scope of evolution, but if you look at old art, you can tell that people DID look different then... something about their faces, or their noses were longer and narrower. Apparently, blonde-haired people are expected to 'die out' over the next 200 years or so, due to the fact that the allele for blonde hair is submissive. Hmm- were people smaller is those days? All the cottages and old houses around my area are really small, you have to duck to get in the doorway sometimes. Does that mean we are getting bigger?

[Peregrinus]

Originally posted by dudesuperior Hmm- were people smaller is those days? All the cottages and old houses around my area are really small, you have to duck to get in the doorway sometimes. Does that mean we are getting bigger? Yes, we are, but most of that is due to improvements in diets and not genetic in origin. There might be a genetic component, but I'm not sure what changes in modern human life would lead to an evolutionary advantage for height. Perhaps there is one.

[Gwendolyn]

This thread reminds me of a Greg Bear novel, "Darwin's Radio". I think we're still evolving. Eventually, the most dominant genes that have to do with appearance will be what you usually see in humans. Also, our environments have so much to do with this.,...What if something happens and we had to live in an environment that was heavily polluted or oxygen depleted. We'd have adapt to our surroundings, gaining features that allow us to survive. We do just thst now....With all of the new technoloy, we have to adapt to so many different environments and such.

[bradybaker]

[quote]Simply put, what and why would evolution stop? It is an ongoing natural process. I agree. But it's been suggested by many on this forum that evolution either doesn't exist or doesn't apply to humans anymore.

[dudesuperior]

Originally posted by bradybaker I agree. But it's been suggested by many on this forum that evolution either doesn't exist or doesn't apply to humans anymore. It's amazing that people can still shun evolution given the soundness of the topics’ research and status in the scientific community. IMO it would be impossible to stop evolution, even cloning has random gene mutations.

[wombing]

i see no reason that the human race will not one day look back on humanity as it is now the same way we view neandertals, or our primate cousins. as comical, strangely familiar inferiors. and it is interesting to note that the main differentiation between us and the lower forms of evolution is supposedly our intelligence/technology. it would not suprise me in the slightest if the next big jump in evolution is a blend of human ingenuity and applied technology. a form of transhumanism, where an internet of sorts is part of one's mind from birth. i suspect in the future humanity creates a self-programmed 'matrix' of sorts, within which they spend the majority of their lives as mental entities far removed from physical imput. perhaps with fringe groups continuing to live in 'the old world'... pondering the future of humanity's bio-cultural revolution is one of the most fascinating concepts i can think of. especially seeing as both the biological and cultural aspects are at important phases in their growth in our very lifetime (the human genome project, and the internet/globalization). and the coolest part is, we can actually leave explicit records which the pre-humans didn't. imagine a super-human dicephering a bible, economic essay, outdated science textbook,etc... life's a mindjob

[wasup]

Originally posted by burns91 I wonder what humans will look like 500 years from now, which isn't a long time at all in the scope of evolution, but if you look at old art, you can tell that people DID look different then... something about their faces, or their noses were longer and narrower. Not to discount your theory there... but that could also have to do with the art style Anyways... I wonder why do humans keep evolving positively? Evolution requires natural selection... and nowadays many negative things do not hinder people from living a normal life and reproducing with all the technology we have. Even things like... brain size for example. Sure, stupid people can accidently kill themselves in stupid ways (darwin awards ), but just as likely a genius can kill themselves when handling dangerous chemicals when doing an experiment. That confuses me.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by bradybaker Ker Than LiveScience Staff Writer And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can't metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060308/sc_...esstillevolving It would have been better had that article not been written by some retard. What does it mean to say "The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit." If there is a 'suggestion' then why is it not explicitly told to us? We are left wondering what advantage there could be with people who cannot process calories out of alcohol but are poisoned by it instead. Perhaps some Puritan Bluenose might see some "unknown additional benefit" there, but for anybody who has witnessed the worst cases of alcohol poisoning in those racial and tribal groups with the least genetic acquaintance with dietary alcohol, one can hardly guess any benefit given no real clue. As I have said often enough before, the modern scientific mind is stupid, or at least afraid to express itself. Francis and Roger Bacon would be shocked at the intellectual pigmies that now fill their shoes.

[Roller]

Originally posted by Leo Volont What does it mean to say "The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit." No speaka Engliss, Leo? It means what it says, although you are correct on one point; there does seem to be a lot of retards around these days.

[Neruo]

Evolving? no. Changing? Yes. Evolution is really a wrong word. Not like organisms or plants think: HEY IT'S A BIT COLD, LETS GROW SUM HAIR. The animals or eerr... plants with the most hair just survived. You get the point. Now, without natural selection, we do not evolve anymore, we change. Evolution goes hand in hand with natural selection. Still, we do change becouse people mix, and radiation from the sun causes slight mutations. And the useual stuff.

[OpheliaBlue]

Originally posted by Neruo Evolving? no. Changing? Yes. Evolution is really a wrong word. Not like organisms or plants think: HEY IT'S A BIT COLD, LETS GROW SUM HAIR. The animals or eerr... plants with the most hair just survived. You get the point. Now, without natural selection, we do not evolve anymore, we change. Evolution goes hand in hand with natural selection. Still, we do change becouse people mix, and radiation from the sun causes slight mutations. And the useual stuff. I think you're confusing evolution with adaptation either that or you were pointing out the difference, lol sometimes I don't know what you're saying

[Howie]

Organisms & plants think JK Change and evolve are one in the same. Change can be applied if you are not talking of advancing forward. Our natural selection can't override an evolutionary aspect of all things. However slight they may be, we evolve. We may alter the way we evolve, but nature will still take its coarse.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Leo Volont If there is a 'suggestion' then why is it not explicitly told to us? We are left wondering what advantage there could be with people who cannot process calories out of alcohol but are poisoned by it instead. I would assume that it means more research is necessary to pinpoint the the advantage of the mutation. Unlike religion, science doesn't have all the answers immediately available to it. Secondly, don't confuse a reporters account of a scientific study with an actual study. You want more detail? Check out the scientific journal that it's published in.

[InTheMoment]

I bet ol' Boris is beside himself right now, wanting to post.

[Peregrinus]

Originally posted by Asher i suspect in the future humanity creates a self-programmed 'matrix' of sorts, within which they spend the majority of their lives as mental entities far removed from physical imput. perhaps with fringe groups continuing to live in 'the old world'... Have you read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash? If not, check it out. I bet you'd enjoy it. Originally posted by Neruo Evolving? no. Changing? Yes. Evolution is really a wrong word. Not like organisms or plants think: HEY IT'S A BIT COLD, LETS GROW SUM HAIR. The animals or eerr... plants with the most hair just survived. You get the point. Now, without natural selection, we do not evolve anymore, we change. Evolution goes hand in hand with natural selection. Still, we do change becouse people mix, and radiation from the sun causes slight mutations. And the useual stuff. Natural selection is still occurring and will continue as the driving force of evolution until life ceases to exist in a changing environment. Evolution does not refer to a change within an individual over the course of its lifetime - as Ophelia pointed out, that's adaptation. Evolution refers to a change in an entire species or population over a time-span of generations. It involves no "thinking" on the parts of the organisms involved. Individuals are simply born, some with mutations, and if those mutations offer a survival advantage, more of the mutated individuals will survive to reproduce than the non-mutated ones. The ratio of non-mutated individuals to mutated individuals in the population will shrink with each generation until eventually only mutated individuals are found in the species.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Peregrinus Natural selection is still occurring and will continue as the driving force of evolution until life ceases to exist in a changing environment. Evolution does not refer to a change within an individual over the course of its lifetime - as Ophelia pointed out, that's adaptation. Evolution refers to a change in an entire species or population over a time-span of generations. It involves no "thinking" on the parts of the organisms involved. Individuals are simply born, some with mutations, and if those mutations offer a survival advantage, more of the mutated individuals will survive to reproduce than the non-mutated ones. The ratio of non-mutated individuals to mutated individuals in the population will shrink with each generation until eventually only mutated individuals are found in the species. Evolution does not refer to a change within an individual over the course of its lifetime??[/b] It has to. There has to be change. There can not be this void. You can't just make a leap deleting a lifespan. Each lifespan contributes a small portion to the entire concept of evolution. SO I would consider it a vital part. During the lifespan of a human, although very minute, changes occur. This making it possible for bigger changes through mutation. But it is still part of the evolutionary process.

[Peregrinus]

[color=green]It has to. There has to be change. There can not be this void. You can't just make a leap deleting a lifespan. Each lifespan contributes a small portion to the entire concept of evolution. SO I would consider it a vital part. During the lifespan of a human, although very minute, changes occur. This making it possible for bigger changes through mutation. But it is still part of the evolutionary process. Evolutionary changes within a species as a whole can and do take place over the course of one generation, but those changes do not take place progressively within single individuals throughout their lifetimes. An individual is either born with a mutation or born without one - it does not develop a genetic mutation over the course of its lifetime, which was what Neruo seemed to be suggesting. Some individuals are born with a mutation, others are not. Now, if the environment changes drastically within the course of a single generation (for instance, a severe and prolonged cold spell), the individuals in that generation who are better adapted to those new conditions will survive to reproduce. If the better adapted have a mutation (to be larger, for instance), then their offspring will likely have that same mutation and the next generation will be, on average, larger than the generation before. However, during the cold snap, individuals did not simply grow in order to survive. Only those who possessed the mutation for increased size (since birth) would survive.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Peregrinus Evolutionary changes within a species as a whole can and do take place over the course of one generation, but those changes do not take place progressively within single individuals throughout their lifetimes. So in essence, survival of the fittest. I often wondered as each new generation (the ones that do) take a step forward to better themselves, if any mutations were genetically occurring. Because they are obviously mentally occurring. So there has to be a shift over to the genetic side of the development process. Otherwise who is choosing these changes. If not a higher being, then you, the individual. no?

[Ynot]

Evolution For every one creationist and one evolutionist that die Two future evolutionists and one future creationist is born Time, ladies and gentlemen, is all you need that, and lots of sex

[Neruo]

Originally posted by Peregrinus Natural selection is still occurring and will continue as the driving force of evolution until life ceases to exist in a changing environment. Evolution does not refer to a change within an individual over the course of its lifetime - as Ophelia pointed out, that's adaptation. Evolution refers to a change in an entire species or population over a time-span of generations. It involves no "thinking" on the parts of the organisms involved. Individuals are simply born, some with mutations, and if those mutations offer a survival advantage, more of the mutated individuals will survive to reproduce than the non-mutated ones. The ratio of non-mutated individuals to mutated individuals in the population will shrink with each generation until eventually only mutated individuals are found in the species. It appears I was unclear. The point with evolution is people (and some teaching methods) make it sound way to much like it's an active proces. It isn't really anything, it's just happening. And wtf, non-mutated animals? Everything and one is mutated. The lines around species are Way to unclear to tell there is one 'real' dog. But Since I suck at explaining stuff, and I even doubt people care, I will just stfu about this subject.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Neruo It appears I was unclear. The point with evolution is people (and some teaching methods) make it sound way to much like it's an active proces. It isn't really anything, it's just happening. And wtf, non-mutated animals? Everything and one is mutated. The lines around species are Way to unclear to tell there is one 'real' dog. But Since I suck at explaining stuff, and I even doubt people care, I will just stfu about this subject. I do not think you come across as unclear as you think Neruo. I would much rather read someones own opinion and thoughts on a subject than look at a copy & paste from a Google search! Besides, IMO. that is what makes good conversation. Some fine tuning and tweaking a little, as the discussion deepens.