Does Darwin's theory say that we'll evolve even further than we already have?

The October Scientific American describes a recent evolutionary change. Within little more than 3,000 years, Tibetans have developed a genetic change that improves oxygen storage and transport in the blood, assisting with living at high altitude.

However, it is predictable that near future genetic change in humans will be due to deliberate genetic modification. I predict that, within 100 years, humans will be deliberately modifying the human genome to remove harmful genes. Within 200, we will be altering the genome of our prospective offspring to make them smarter, better looking, healthier, more athletic, longer lived etc.
 
Source: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0603.../060306-8.html

Particularly relevant is the final paragraph with my emphasis added. It’s quite common to find internet discussions that suggest we have reached some sort of evolutionary end point due to our medicine and technology, but I’ve come across very few evolutionary biologists who subscribe to that idea.

Researchers at the University of Chicago, Illinois, have identified the regions of our genetic sequence that show the strongest marks of natural selection. Their work highlights the genes that have been most important in adapting to new lifestyles, and could help to identify the genetic factors involved in complex medical conditions such as high blood pressure and alcoholism.

Genes that show the most evidence of recent selection include those involved in milk digestion. Although most mammals drink milk only in infancy, humans seem to have adapted genetically to digest it throughout life.

Genes for skin pigmentation also bear the hallmarks of rapid evolution - highlighting the fact that many populations have become more fair-skinned as they have colonized more extreme latitudes with less sunshine.

It's a snip

The team used data from the International HapMap Project, which collates and maps out 'single-nucleotide polymorphisms' (SNPs). These are sites in the genome at which DNA varies between people by just a single letter of genetic code. The team sampled data from more than 200 unrelated individuals in three different racial groups: East Asians, Europeans and the Yoruba of Nigeria.

Genetic mutations that confer an advantage on a given population spread much faster than they would through natural, random mixing of genes. These portions of DNA should carry certain SNPs along with them as they are selected for over time. So if researchers find a string of SNPs that are mostly the same letters within a given population, they can say that the accompanying genes have come under strong selection pressure.

The method reveals changes that have occurred since various populations split to colonize different areas of the globe, says Jonathan Pritchard, who led the research published in the journal PLoS Biology.

Food and sex

Many of the genes that showed evidence of selection involve food metabolism, notes Pritchard. This shows that adapting to different diets has been a key trend in recent human evolution.

Around 20% of the genes identified showed evidence of selection in more than one of the populations. Chief among these were genes involved in reproductive processes such as sperm manufacture, showing that these were equally important in different settings.

All three racial groups showed equal amounts of recent evolution. This is interesting, says Pritchard, given that African populations have remained in the birthplace of our species, while others have moved away. Travelling populations might be expected to encounter challenges favouring more selection pressure than those that stay still.

But, notes Pritchard, the environment can change as much with time as it does with distance. "It is perhaps naive to think of Africans as staying 'in the same place'," he says.

Pritchard is not convinced by the predictions of some experts that advances in medicine will negate evolutionary pressures from now on. "Even today there is plenty of scope for natural selection, such as in genes that impact fertility or fetal survival."

References
Voight B. F., Kudaravalli S, Wen X. & Pritchard J. K.
PLoS Biol, 4 . e72 (2006).
 
as long as we have the technology we will manipulate our own genes and evolve into whatever we choose, we no longer need Darwin.
 
Yes we could take our evolution out of Darwinism and into pseudo-lamarckian mechanics: Millions of times faster far less suffering based then the natural Darwinian world.
 

Yes,
we will have green hair and beard,the longer the better,
and we will feed directly from solar energy through the process of photosynthesis.
Thus we solve the overpopulation of the earth.

How does that solve overpoulation? :confused:
 
sure - selection is still going on, but instead of natural selection it is more skewed towards sexual selection.

So look forward to a race of huge breasted Uber Babes!

(this isnt as flippant as it may first appear)

I'm sure any who's into breasts including me is a huge fan of your logic whatever it may be. :) :D:cool:
 
.

Evolution/adaptation happens as the result of environmental changes. Wait til global warming hits! :eek:

adaptation! here, you said just the right word, that's the same for me, i beelive that evolution, is adaptation, and not random changes :p :p
and wait till the global warming hits? you can even see today, how people who live in hot areas, can take teh heat better than the people wo live in cold areas, and the econtrary :p
 
Interesting thread. IMO We are already the most adaptable species to date. You can find us form the arctic to the equator, and doing very nicely thank-you! We have filled our niche very successfully, perhaps too much so.

With no pressure for further adaptation, it is unlikely our evolution is going to occur an anything but a snails-pace. I think the next major evolutionary step is the further evolution of our brians, our intelligence and memory as these are commonly the most successful in society and will therefore successfully raise more successful offspring.

I could be wrong, and something else could occur, but I don't really see why it should..

Regards,

Ultra.
 
adaptation! here, you said just the right word, that's the same for me, i beelive that evolution, is adaptation, and not random changes :p :p
......

But, you are misunderstanding if you think evolution is not random. It is. Random mutation that allows SOME mutations to better survive (adapt) in the environment.
 
Sure, especially some of the extremophile bacteria - they have been around since the beginning, and it's likely we owe our existence to them. I should have said the most successful mammals i guess.

Spontaneous mutations don't usually survive. They either die or are rejected by thier parents, but that is not to say it isn't possible. I could use a couple of extra arms sometimes!
 
That doesn't get in the way of evolution.

Widening and deepening the gene pool, in any way whatsoever, provides more material basis for future evolutionary change in the event of a selection. Human beings are currently deficient or narrow, compared with other animals of similar size and distribution, in genetic variety.

Well if we were in Thailand and you had a choice between offering expensive medications and treatments to a family of 7 whose throats clog every time they see a picture of a peanut, or instead providing that food and resources to people more strongly adapted to life in Thailand, and you didn't have enough food and resources for everyone, then clearly evolution goes faster when you let the peanut allergies die off, assuming all other abilities and disabilities are roughly equal.
 
The main problem of overpopulation is not food?

oh ya ok now I see what you're saying. hmmm I think that would evolve some mutating because I don't think we can satisfy ourselves using photosynthesis in our current bodies.
 
The most common adaptations are resistance to disease. Humans are very vulnerable to disease, since we live in close proximity, and we travel all around the world quickly. This kind of evolution is a certain part of our future.
 
.

But, you are misunderstanding if you think evolution is not random. It is. Random mutation that allows SOME mutations to better survive (adapt) in the environment.

well, i don't think it's very random, i mean, like you said, since it make changes and mutations to make a better survive, and not a worst survive
 
.

oh ya ok now I see what you're saying. hmmm I think that would evolve some mutating because I don't think we can satisfy ourselves using photosynthesis in our current bodies.

earth can feed us all, but, we are greedy, and selfish, we want everything for our selves, many countries are controlled because of their lones, and stay on that way, because the developed countries have the keep the others week, so it can controll the world economy. many countries, have alot and high % of fat people, over weight, tons of weeds and others, are thrown in the sea, if it's left and not selled, and not donated, think about it, with the right orgenizing, and with the fair and ecaul earth society, earth can feed us all, power us all, and live sunstainebly on it, with no worry about energy or food, or even water in most cases, but, that earth society, the ecaul, and the un-selfish, will never exist, so, millions will die from hunder everyday
 
well, i don't think it's very random, i mean, like you said, since it make changes and mutations to make a better survive, and not a worst survive

You are wrong in your understanding.

There is no 'intent' in the mutations, they are totally random.

Some randomly allow better survival. Others cause death.

The ones that survive propagate into the future.
 
Back
Top