Ongoing human evolution ?

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:52 pm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... ce+News%29

The reference above implies that even today evolution is changing the genes of the human population, with harmful genes related to Alzheimer's and to heavy smoking being weeded out. Human evolution continues ?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby TJrandom » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:49 pm

Living longer doesn`t mean that genes are more likely to have been passed on – unless the geriatric men are coupling with pre-menopausal women.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:58 pm

Lance: Does the link SAY that, or is the inference your own? Because to me, I see no reason why either should occur. One reproduces or not way before those diseases of old age are relevant. I can't tell if that is what TJ means or not.

Am I experiencing Alzheimers with this failure to understand? I can only confirm I have reproduced or not already.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:08 pm

Sickle cell anemia protects against malaria. Sickle cell also kills the person, but only after they've had time to pass along their genes.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby gorgeous » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:49 pm

aliens have said they altered our dna...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:51 pm

gorgeous wrote:aliens have said they altered our dna...

They made you a tree frog.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:53 pm

georgie wrote:aliens have said they altered our dna...


That's only true for you, bunny.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Phoenix76 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:50 pm

The article certainly infers that there is genetic change. But what puzzles me is just how does an older person pass on this genetic changes. At what average age do humans stop reproducing? Certainly women go through change of life sometime after 40, some earlier, but whilst men seem to be able the Father children for many years after that, they normally don't.

How can an 80yo woman pass on the genetic change that reduces the risk of Alzheimer's? If these changes were happening in breeding age humans, then, yes one could infer more accurately that this genetic change was happening.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby gorgeous » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:12 am

happens for a reason, doesn't for a reason...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:58 am

One idea is that it is the grandparent effect. If healthy grandparents are available to assist with their grandchildren, it increases the survival of those grandchildren. Since the grandchildren share genes with their grandparents that drives evolution.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29114
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Gord » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:27 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
gorgeous wrote:aliens have said they altered our dna...

They made you a free trog.

FIFY
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby TJrandom » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:One idea is that it is the grandparent effect. If healthy grandparents are available to assist with their grandchildren, it increases the survival of those grandchildren. Since the grandchildren share genes with their grandparents that drives evolution.


Where infant mortality is high and the average age of death is low - (as it is in the US?), I can see that as being somewhat reasonable. But for countries with low infant mortality and longer lifespans it falls short - since everybody has grandparents at least thru their parents` child bearing years.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:32 am

.........and with hoomans..........survival is more based on social constructs with grandparents as near to irrelevant as one can imagine. Can an issue be relevant if its not statistically measurable?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby TJrandom » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:.........and with hoomans..........survival is more based on social constructs with grandparents as near to irrelevant as one can imagine. Can an issue be relevant if its not statistically measurable?


I wouldn`t go that far - since grandparents often live in the same household...

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:04 am

TJ: and that makes a statistically relevant increase in genetic survival?.............How many adult children DIE trying to save their parents from various infirmities??? It is a two way street.....so what predominates..... and by how much???

Its just fuzzy pop thinking.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby TJrandom » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:50 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: and that makes a statistically relevant increase in genetic survival?.............How many adult children DIE trying to save their parents from various infirmities??? It is a two way street.....so what predominates..... and by how much???

Its just fuzzy pop thinking.


It`s not about the adult children, assuming they have already had children themselves - but rather the benefit to the survival of the grandchildren. But I do admit, this all seems wonky to me.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:06 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905145553.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

The reference above implies that even today evolution is changing the genes of the human population, with harmful genes related to Alzheimer's and to heavy smoking being weeded out. Human evolution continues ?


BREAKING NEWS: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE GENES PREDISPOSING THEM TO EARLY DEATH TEND TO LIVE LONGER.


The study suggests nothing whatsoever beyond the above headline!

FFS, even pop science mags have click bait. :frown:
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:24 pm

Oleg

You are normally a smart dude. But that comment was not smart. The researchers discovered a lot more than that.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:51 pm

My jeans tried to get me killed when I was seventeen.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Oleg

You are normally a smart dude. But that comment was not smart. The researchers discovered a lot more than that.

I read it. Did you?

Older people having fewer debilitating genes is what one would expect. It isn't evidence of evolution in action. Carts and horses; how do they work?

Many, if not most, debilitating genes are pleiotropic, like the malaria/sickle cell example. That mutation slowly disappears when an affected population lives in a region without malaria, but rapidly reasserts itself when malaria becomes present. There was no malaria in Brazil during slavery days, and sickle cell declined. When malaria appeared - bingo.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby gorgeous » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:06 pm

seth----Thoughts and beliefs do indeed bring about physical alterations. They can even – and often do – change genetic messages.

There are diseases that people believe are inherited, carried from one generation to another by a faulty genetic communication. Obviously, many people with, for example, a genetic heritage of arthritis, do not come down with the disease themselves, while others indeed are so afflicted. The difference is one of belief.

The people who have accepted the suggestion uncritically that they will inherit such a malady do then seem to inherit it: they experience the symptoms. Actually the belief itself may have turned a healthy genetic message into an unhealthy one.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby gorgeous » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:12 pm

seth---------Some of you may find yourselves concentrating upon the physical aspects
of existence, which are themselves quite legitimate, but to the exclusion
of other important elements. In larger terms, such focusing in
particular areas can involve an entire life situation, reincarnationally
speaking, where you choose ahead of time, so to speak, to concentrate
your attention in certain areas rather than others; you may pick for yourself
a body that does not perform normally, or a mind that is not up to
par in usual terms.
Your given situation at birth, therefore, is one in which you cannot
manipulate adequately in whatever way you have chosen. If you have
decided upon a situation in which a critical organic lack or disability is
involved, and are born with a severe disease, for example, then that is
the context in which you will experience this particular focus in corporeal
reality. There will be a reason for it, and that reason will lie in
those abilities that you have left free and open for yourself to pursue.-------If
it involves a circumstance that cannot be altered in physical terms, then
you have settled upon it as a framework in order to enhance and use
other abilities in concentrated form. The main point is not to concentrate
upon the liabilities but to pursue those abilities that you have, for the
great energies of your personality will be directed in those avenues.-----------From the outside it seems impossible that
anyone would choose such a background, such a highly restricted or
even painful situation in which to live. From that viewpoint birth defects,
or lifetime diseases of any kind, make no sense.
No one begins a race with a handicap, you may say, but that is obviously
not the case. Individuals have often chosen such situations precisely
as incentives, and many great men have done so. This does not
mean that such disabilities are necessary. At any point that an individual
realizes his point of power in the present, he will not need a barrier to
test himself against, or to focus him in what he thinks of as the proper
direction.
You live many lives simultaneously.----------In your terms, birth defects of whatever kind are chosen before this
life. This is done for many different reasons (just as people choose to be ill in this life, regardless of the duration involved). That is, a certain
psychic framework is set up through which an individual decides "ahead
of time" to experience an entire life situation. Some information on this
has been given in my other writings.*
A person with several existences stressing intellectual achievement
might purposely then decide upon a life in which mental abilities are
beyond him, and the emotions allowed a full play that he had denied
them "earlier."
---(9:54.) Since all existences are simultaneous, this simply means his
stressing certain aspects in this life — at the expense of others, you
would say — and setting up a frame of reference that may seem to be
limiting. On the other hand the personality involved may see this as a
most rewarding and expansive experience, in which the emotions are
allowed freedoms ordinarily denied.------------In many cases it is the family, rather than the incapacitated member,
who questions and does not understand — as in cases of severely
mentally retarded children, for example. Yet in all instances not only do
children choose their parents ahead of time, but parents choose their
children, of course.
In such a situation, there are fulfillments to be gained from the parents'
standpoints. There are always opportunities of growth and unusual
creativity possible under those conditions for all involved. That is why
the framework was chosen. The same applies to seeming tragedies such
as accidents, or severe illnesses that come at any time.----------Often the
successful activity represents a challenge on the part of the personality
who set it in terms of psychological creativity, and the overall enrichment
of experience. Those involved, such as family, will have
acquiesced to the situation "earlier." Often, particularly in the case of
mental or physical birth defects, the incapacitated person will be accepting
that role not only because of personal reasons; he or she will also
be choosing that part for the family as a whole.
Highly intelligent parents, therefore, may find themselves with a retarded
child. If they place a great value upon intellect at the expense of
the emotions, then the child may be acting out for them the emotional
spontaneity of which they are so afraid themselves.-------------Some artists with
great ability may shut out intellectual maturity, utilizing native emotional
qualities to such an extent and with such intensity that the mental reasoning
faculties are largely shunted aside. (Pause.) Without rational illumination,
the emotional elements may be so unwieldy that the artist,
for all of his spontaneous expression, cannot relate in any kind of permanent
situation of an intimate nature. For reason and emotion are natural
counterparts.
--Someone else may choose to focus upon intellectual achievement to
such a degree that he shuts out all true closeness, and though he can
accept a permanent relationship, he will not experience the emotional
richness that others may derive from a much briefer encounter. Therefore
each of you choose — ahead of time, in your terms — the kind of
framework through which you will contend with this life situation.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:09 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... ce+News%29

The reference above implies that even today evolution is changing the genes of the human population, with harmful genes related to Alzheimer's and to heavy smoking being weeded out. Human evolution continues ?

OlegTheBatty wrote:BREAKING NEWS: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE GENES PREDISPOSING THEM TO EARLY DEATH TEND TO LIVE LONGER.

The study suggests nothing whatsoever beyond the above headline!

FFS, even pop science mags have click bait. :frown:

Lance Kennedy wrote:Oleg

You are normally a smart dude. But that comment was not smart. The researchers discovered a lot more than that.

OlegTheBatty wrote:I read it. Did you?

Older people having fewer debilitating genes is what one would expect. It isn't evidence of evolution in action. Carts and horses; how do they work?


The above bits of the discussion inspired me to go read the article in Science Daily, and then I went and looked at the journal paper they talk about.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002458

Here are my initial thoughts:

  1. PLOS is a pay-for-play journal. Authors must pay $2,900 USD to have their paper published in this journal. However, I haven't looked for any evidence regarding the journal's reputation in the scientific community, so I can't comment on that. What I can say is that there are other pay-for-play journals that have a reputation for publishing crap, but that does not mean PLOS is guilty by association (but it does raise a potential red flag).

  2. It seems to me, the authors of the paper did not do any comparison of how genes have changed over time. They merely looked at those who have recently had their genome sequenced and compared the genes of those who are currently older against those who are currently younger. How is that evidence that genes have changed over time?

  3. Science Daily says: "By tracking the relative rise and fall of specific mutations across generations of people, researchers can infer which traits are spreading or dwindling." But that is not what the journal paper says (if I am understanding it correctly). In the journal paper they merely compared the genes of different ages of currently living people and found that older people had fewer alleles that lead to early death. Furthermore, it seems the younger people in the study were born after the older people, so how can it be inferred that the older people evolved from the younger people?

Perhaps someone can explain this and quote from the journal paper how they know that the genome is evolving as they seem to be claiming?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:13 pm

Oleg

Change in gene frequency is what evolution is all about.

Xouper

Older people evolving from younger ? Well duh ?
You need a refresher course in the theory of evolution.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Oleg

Change in gene frequency is what evolution is all about.


Yes, but that means change in the allele frequency that gets passed on from one generation to the next. But that is not what the study studied.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Older people evolving from younger ? Well duh ?
You need a refresher course in the theory of evolution.


You totally missed the point.

The study is suggesting that the younger people in the study have passed their genes on to the older people in the study despite that the older people were born before the younger people.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:03 am

No, Xouper.

That is EXACTLY what the study did NOT suggest.

Genes are passed from older to younger generations. But those genes are conserved if the older generation is equipped to help the younger survive.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:No, Xouper.

That is EXACTLY what the study did NOT suggest.

Genes are passed from older to younger generations. But those genes are conserved if the older generation is equipped to help the younger survive.


Except that in the younger people they found a higher frequency of alleles that are detrimental to longevity than were found in the older population.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:14 am

To Xouper

On average, yes. But those who were descended from long life ancestors had a lower frequency of harmful alleles. Sorry, Xouper, but you misinterpreted what was written.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby TJrandom » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:47 am

So those who are destined - genetically predisposed - to die young, indeed, tend to die young. And those who aren`t, then carry their better genes into older age, until they too eventually die. Whoda` thunk it. :roll:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper

On average, yes. But those who were descended from long life ancestors had a lower frequency of harmful alleles. Sorry, Xouper, but you misinterpreted what was written.


Perhaps I have misunderstood. Where in the PLOS paper does it say that?

In any case, how is that evidence of evolution?

Merely showing that people with long life also have fewer harmful alleles does not show that the percentage of people with fewer harmful alleles has been changing over time.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:02 am

To Xouper and TJ.

It is the change in frequency of those genes over time that makes evolution. It is not just that people who live a long time have better genes. It is that over the generations, the better genes have increased in frequency.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:49 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper and TJ.

It is the change in frequency of those genes over time that makes evolution.


I agree. That has been my understanding all along. Good to know we are on the same page.


Lance Kennedy wrote:It is not just that people who live a long time have better genes. It is that over the generations, the better genes have increased in frequency.


Where in the PLOS paper does it say they found that over the generations, the better genes have increased in frequency?

That is the part I seem to be missing.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:27 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
gorgeous wrote:aliens have said they altered our dna...

They made you a tree frog.
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:34 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:My jeans tried to get me killed when I was seventeen.
Mine repeatedly got my ass in trouble. :P
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:34 am

xouper wrote:
  1. PLOS is a pay-for-play journal. Authors must pay $2,900 USD to have their paper published in this journal. However, I haven't looked for any evidence regarding the journal's reputation in the scientific community, so I can't comment on that. What I can say is that there are other pay-for-play journals that have a reputation for publishing crap, but that does not mean PLOS is guilty by association (but it does raise a potential red flag).


I hesitated earlier to mention the following (for reasons of personal privacy) but perhaps I can say enough without revealing too much.

Full disclosure: I'm a co-author on a paper in neurobiology that was recently submitted to PLOS ONE. The lead author was a PhD student (now graduated and working full time as a researcher), and the second author is a professor of neurobiology at a prestigious midwestern university (where I am not affiliated in any way).

It was not my decision to submit it to PLOS. Nor will I be paying any of the publication fee, which I'm told will be paid by the university.

The paper was initially submitted to PNAS but was rejected on the basis that its focus was too narrow for their readership. The other authors kind of expected that, but gave it a shot anyway, just in case.

The paper was peer-reviewed by PLOS and returned for some suggested revisions, which if approved on resubmission, they say the paper will be accepted for publication. And I will be famous. Not.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:54 am

It seems obvious that evolution will continue as long as the environment continues to change, which it does.

Here's the part where I think they dropped the ball:
Researchers further find that sets of genetic mutations that predispose people to heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, and asthma, also appear less often in people who lived longer and whose genes are therefore more likely to be passed down and spread through the population.
This conclusion is unsupported. Longevity is not necessarily correlated with the propensity to reproduce.

Longevity runs on both sides of my family; my four grandparents all lived to at least 90, with the exception of my paternal grandmother, who died at 83. When I was born, I had three living great-grandmothers; they died when I was five, twelve, and fifteen years old, respectively. I have one child, and my brother has two. My daughter, who is 27 years old, doesn't want children. (My niece is five years old and my nephew is ten months old.)

Frankly, given my alphabet of medical diagnoses, I think I lost the genetic lottery, despite my family's longevity. I never win anything. :wink:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:13 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Here's the part where I think they dropped the ball:
Researchers further find that sets of genetic mutations that predispose people to heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, and asthma, also appear less often in people who lived longer and whose genes are therefore more likely to be passed down and spread through the population.
This conclusion is unsupported. Longevity is not necessarily correlated with the propensity to reproduce.

Almost all deaths from these causes occur after child-bearing years. Natural selection won't touch them. During child-bearing years, deaths from these causes are swamped by deaths from accidents, homicides, suicides and infectious diseases.

Nikki wrote: I think I lost the genetic lottery, despite my family's longevity. I never win anything. ;)


Yer still alive, ain't'cha?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:30 pm

Human evolution is dramatically accelerating due to genetic recombination of people who are far-distant from each other on the branches of the human line, due to global inter-cultural marriages.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:04 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Human evolution is dramatically accelerating due to genetic recombination of people who are far-distant from each other on the branches of the human line, due to global inter-cultural marriages.

My Russian bride doesn't understand. My Filipino brides don't care.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Ongoing human evolution ?

Postby TJrandom » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:24 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNLive [Bot] and 2 guests