http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091024/hl_time/08599193175700

Human Evolution: Are Humans Still Evolving?

Modern Homo sapiens is still evolving. Despite the long-held view that natural selection has ceased to affect humans because almost everybody now lives long enough to have children, a new study of a contemporary Massachusetts population offers evidence of evolution still in action.


A team of scientists led by Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns suggests that if the natural selection of fitter traits is no longer driven by survival, perhaps it owes to differences in women's fertility. "Variations in reproductive success still exist among humans, and therefore some traits related to fertility continue to be shaped by natural selection," Stearns says. That is, women who have more children are more likely to pass on certain traits to their progeny. (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2008.)


Stearns' team examined the vital statistics of 2,238 postmenopausal women participating in the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked the medical histories of some 14,000 residents of Framingham, Mass., since 1948. Investigators searched for correlations between women's physical characteristics - including height, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels - and the number of offspring they produced. According to their findings, it was stout, slightly plump (but not obese) women who tended to have more children - "Women with very low body fat don't ovulate," Stearns explains - as did women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Using a sophisticated statistical analysis that controlled for any social or cultural factors that could impact childbearing, researchers determined that these characteristics were passed on genetically from mothers to daughters and granddaughters.


If these trends were to continue with no cultural changes in the town for the next 10 generations, by 2409 the average Framingham woman would be 2 cm (0.8 in) shorter, 1 kg (2.2 lb.) heavier, have a healthier heart, have her first child five months earlier and enter menopause 10 months later than a woman today, the study found. "That rate of evolution is slow but pretty similar to what we see in other plants and animals. Humans don't seem to be any exception," Stearns says. (See TIME's photo-essay "Happy 200th Darwin Day.")


Douglas Ewbank, a demographer at the University of Pennsylvania who undertook the statistical analysis for the study, which was published Oct. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), says that because cultural factors tend to have a much more prominent impact than natural selection in the shaping of future generations, people tend to write off the effect of evolution. "Those changes we predict for 2409 could be wiped out by something as simple as a new school-lunch program. But whatever happens, it's likely that in 2409, Framingham women will be 2 cm shorter and 1 kg heavier than they would have been without natural selection. Evolution is a very slow process. We don't see it if we look at our grandparents, but it's there."


Other recent genetic research has backed up that notion. One study, published in PNAS in 2007 and led by John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, found that some 1,800 human gene variations had become widespread in recent generations because of their modern-day evolutionary benefits. Among those genetic changes, discovered by examining more than 3 million DNA variants in 269 individuals: mutations that allow people to digest milk or resist malaria and others that govern brain development. (Watch TIME's video "Darwin and Lincoln: Birthdays and Evolution.")


But not all evolutionary changes make inherent sense. Since the Industrial Revolution, modern humans have grown taller and stronger, so it's easy to assume that evolution is making humans fitter. But according to anthropologist Peter McAllister, author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, the contemporary male has evolved, at least physically, into "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet." Thanks to genetic differences, an average Neanderthal woman, McAllister notes, could have whupped Arnold Schwarzenegger at his muscular peak in an arm-wrestling match. And prehistoric Australian Aborigines, who typically built up great strength in their joints and muscles through childhood and adolescence, could have easily beat Usain Bolt in a 100-m dash.
Steve Jones, an evolutionary biologist at University College London who has previously held that human evolution was nearing its end, says the Framingham study is indeed an important example of how natural selection still operates through inherited differences in reproductive ability. But Jones argues that variation in female fertility - as measured in the Framingham study - is a much less important factor in human evolution than differences in male fertility. Sperm hold a much higher chance of carrying an error or mutation than an egg, especially among older men. "While it used to be that men had many children in older age to many different women, now men tend to have only a few children at a younger age with one wife. The drop in the number of older fathers has had a major effect on the rate of mutation and has at least reduced the amount of new diversity - the raw material of evolution. Darwin's machine has not stopped, but it surely has slowed greatly," Jones says. (See TIME's special report on the environment.)


Despite evidence that human evolution still functions, biologists concede that it's anyone's guess where it will take us from here. Artificial selection in the form of genetic medicine could push natural selection into obsolescence, but a lethal pandemic or other cataclysm could suddenly make natural selection central to the future of the species. Whatever happens, Jones says, it is worth remembering that Darwin's beautiful theory has suffered a long history of abuse. The bastard science of eugenics, he says, will haunt humanity as long as people are tempted to confuse evolution with improvement. "Uniquely in the living world, what makes humans what we are is in our minds, in our society, and not in our evolution," he says.

I think it's funny that he thinks Neanderthal would kick our ass today. The fact is they were bigger and stronger, had larger brains and jaws and teeth that
could chew tire iron and we still kicked their ass 40,000 years ago into extinction. In fairness, we didn't physically kick their ass but we had a genetic trait that enabled us to survive that they didn't have. We were marathoners and they were sprinters. Which is also funny since he mentions aborigines being able to out sprint us. I do agree that evolution wise we are likely to become lazy slobs though. Our poor health is due to bad diets and lack of exercise and it only takes a trip to Walmart to see the evidence. Overweight people are more likely to have health problems that they pass along as well.

Depends on your definition of evolving.

If you meanthat 10000 years from now you couldnt reckognize humans from today, I doubt it.

Interesting topic.

One thing that has struck me as one the of weirder trends in fertility recently is the impact of fertility drugs. Those women who in previous times would be unable to produce offspring are now producing octuplets and sextuplets by the dozen. Seems to me this will have some pretty profound consequences in the long run.

About Neanderthal being better than us because they were bigger: they were just adapted to a different environment. We don't need to be as physically strong now because of technology. And bigger brain does not mean smarter brain -- elephants have some of the biggest brains, but are not the smartest. The brain has clearly evolved for greater intelligence since Neanderthal.

But the most significant changes in humanity are now due to cultural evolution. The plasticity of our brains is really evolution's crown jewel since it allows for "software"-like changes without very much change in the hardware. There has been some debate in primatology over the last five years on whether other apes show any culture at all. While there do seem to be some isolated examples that qualify, the ability to pile learning upon learning and progress over time is ultimately a phenomenon unique to humans.

Proof that we're evolving in the right direction...

Gingers extinct in 100 years, say scientists....

I agree it's an interesting topic. I think most people think that human have stopped evolving, at least in the basest sense of adapting to living in the wild. Obviously there will be many genetic changes to come base on mating and our ecology. I also think most people view evolution in the balloon sense of about 6000 years and kind of freak if you bring up something like homo-sapien vs neanderthal. ( I do think that would make a great thread if only for the humor value). I think people are uncomfortable thinking of an ancester roaming wild in packs like animals. Looking at local clubs on Saturday night does bring it all back though, eh?

Homo-sapiens were lucky enough to be able to run. They could run long distances unlike very few other animals. We (they) couldn't out sprint an antelope but they had persistence and ran down animals. Cheetahs, antelope, deer etc., were all very fast short distance but would tire out and lay down which made them great prey for homo sapiens who could go long distances. Keep in mind there were no weapons or tools for the millions of years and it was a huge advantage to be able to have access to such a great protien source. Neanderthal were cold weather and when the climate changed warmer they were screwed. They couldn't run down anything and starved.

most of the people i come into contact with seem to be evolving in the wrong direction.

Evolution only means change or adaptation, so it's pretty obvious that we are.
Agriculture had a big impact on it, when humans started farming. Took us generations to get used to foods like eating wheat and corn in abundance. Eventually we got bigger, mostly in the last millenium. Just look at how small medieval armour was.
Cool to think I could storm Camelot by myself.

Does "backwards" count evolutionary-wise?

That's my hometown, bitches! Front lines of scientific discovery, motherfuckers! Balls!



I'm surprised they'd make that statement without mentioning that our size change since the Industrial Revolution has nothing to do with evolution, per say.



You know luck had nothing to do with it.



Not really. Those can be parts of evolution...learning to farm is not "evolving", per say.

Per say!

I didn't mean learning to farm was evolving really, i just meant it affected our evolution.

But the question was not "have we recently evolved" it was about the present -> future.

Compared with the time at which agriculture came on the scene, at this point there is very little selection pressure on humans: virtually anyone who wants to reproduce can do so.

GINGERS ARE GOING TO BE EXTINCT! DOn't you guys know what this means?!? No more Vosses, for one

Per se.

fuck you.

i said "virtually" anyone.

It was only an example, you could name any number of things that have affected the species over its history.
I have a question, it kind of ties in with the ginger thing, I want to see what people think.
What about mixed-race children? I would say that it's only in the past couple hundred years or so that races have been intermingling in such large numbers. Now there are people with several heritage lines - white, black, asian, hispanic, native american, middle-eastern, and say, maybe east european, all within the last few generations, and the numbers are growing steadily.
How, if at all, will this affect the species?

That is awesome.

Raymond Kurzweil, singularity, drastic changes in life expectancy, human/computer hybrids, etc.





As many calculations as "all human brains!" Good lord! Also, if science fiction has taught me anything, they will probably feed on human brains as well.


Basically though, our computers today are dumber than a fly. In half a century they'll be as smart as everybody ever. Maybe.


For whatever reason, this other graph/timeline of his kind of spooks me out.

















All human brains! He could have made that sound less ominous, I think.

When will computers equal all human brains PLUS all hippopotamus brains?

And when will computers learn to love, Tim? When will they learn to love? <---say that in a Jerry Seinfeld type voice

Thank you.

I read last night that male hippopotamus power struggles are often settled through ritualized pooping contests punctuated by foul smelling belches used to disorient the belch-ee. And that herrings can communicate with farts.

In The Ghost and the Darkness (a pretty terrible movie) Val Kilmer says that hippos fart through their mouths.

But you don't mess with hippos.

1st date with my wife.

Probably right around when the singularity happens. Calling them "computers" though is probably a bit of a misnomer, since they will be about as similar to today's computers as an abacus is similar to a Mac. Of course nobody really knows what they will look or act like, but it's safe to say that they will make today's top-of-the-line models look about as silly as this:



The shit does look easy to use though. Just check your valves, monitor your levels, crank the wheel and you're ready to go!







Brace yourselves gentlemen. According to the gas chromatograph, the secret ingredient is....Love!? Who's been screwing with this thing? [Said in Professor Frink/LLY voice]

One evolutionary thing that has happened since the production of mass foods is that our heads have shrunk. If you only went back to our forefathers
like Ben Franklin they all had bigger heads. This was due to chewing raw foods, like root vegetables that made better use of jaw muscles. Now we stuff our
faces on cheeseburgers and pizza. I assume eventually we'll all look like Pee Wee Herman.

That isn't an evolutionary change though, that's a lifestyle change. People's jaws are smaller because they don't use them as often as they used to. It's not a genetic change.

you could say it's still evolution, just with a different mechanism than selection of random genetic mutations.

this is the type of thing that may be epigenetic - that is even though there is no change in DNA sequence there may be environmentally driven change
in how genes work together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjAoBKagWQA

In any case people are being born now with smaller heads.

A friend and I get into the Neanderthal vs Homo arguement alot for fun. He doesn't get how homos could kick there ass. I explained they were
meat eaters and homos liked fruits and veggies and occasionaly a nice antelope steak. Homos could run all day and are the worlds greatest marathoners while Neanders were mostly meat eaters which made them huge and full of muscles but ultimately slow. They would trap their prey while homos would run them death.

So you can imagine a horde of Neanderthals closing in with clubs on a homo and him just running about 50 feet away and saying "nah nah, nah nah nah!" and doing it repeatedly until the Neanders got tired and gave up. When the ice age receded about 40,000 years ago it ultimately did them in since on the vast plains of dry area they couldn't trap prey and starved to death. It must of been a sad sight to see all those fat guys running and screaming "Fuck fuck fuck" through the desert in frustration trying to catch a some prey for a meal.

piss off

The real limiting factor on head size is the birth canal. That's why our cerebral cortex folded up to get more surface area instead of the head just growing indefinitely.

In other words, your mom must have a really large vagina.

She does.

I read an article in Scientific American recently that suggests that a large factor in the demise of the neanderthals and success of homo sapiens was due to the neanderthals being food specialists whereas the homo sapiens were food generalists. Neanderthals had adapted to hunting large game like the mammoth as practically their only food source. But homo sapiens ate pretty much whatever they could get their hands on: small game; tubers; veggies; as well as the large game the neanderthals were dependant upon.

Furthermore, other studies of the historical climate of the European continent (the last refuge of neanderthals) have indicated that the climate was not as constant as originally thought. That the climate was fluctuating relatively rapidly and the food specialists were less able to adapt to rapidly changing game availabilities which is what actually led to their disappearance.

hahaha, no you didn't.

admittedly, I was dropping a deuce at the time.

That's pretty much what I was saying. It seems to have really hit them about 40000 years ago when the ice age receded and left alot of dry plains. Since they ate alot of Mammoth (protiens and fats) they were
considerably larger than homo sapien. They were more adept at trapping animals and using weapons and strength in numbers to overcome prey as evidenced by the vast amount of pits and valleys littered with
weapon remains and bone fragments. The bone fragments included alot of Neander bones as well since jumping on wild animals could be a little dangerous. You know, kinda like Sal jumping a fat chick and bucked around.

HS was alot less hairy and had adapted to running long distances better. Alot of animals were faster short distances but HS was the king of the marathon run. We evolved naturally to it having a great arch under our feet,
achilles that acted as a spring, a good but to control motion and weight distribution (didn't need a tail for long slow runs) and I think it's called a nucal ligament at the base of the brain to help with head control. We also sweat.

We share 95% of our DNA with monkeys but the major thing we have that they don't isn't a thumb, it's the achilles.

Dogs and horses also have this ability to go longer distances having similar breathing and sweating systems, but we can still kick their ass in the long run. A Cheetah is way faster in
the short run but after an initial burst they have to stop to breath as with other animals. A group of HS would isolate an animal from a pack, like an antelope and start the chase. We became adept trackers
following foot prints, waste, terrain and even developed anticipation all in an effort to run them down. The antelope would run, rest, run, try to get mixed back in the pack and eventually tire and need to rest
making them very easy prey.

So anyway, this ability to chase down animals and basically run them death kept us alive and actually had alot to do with how we evolved as a species.

are you suggesting that our opposable thumb isn't major, that we don't have one, that monkey's do, or that it's not our greatest asset?

imo trying to assign importance of assets is silly. humans have disproportionally large male genetalia, how you gonna rate an opposable thumb or an achilles against that?

i like to think our capability of complex language was the greatest contributor to neanderthal's demise. he prolly stepped to us and the trut is yall don't wanna step to dis.

of course humans are still evolving, shit, we're evolving so fast we'll prolly be extinct in 75 years. fucking sweet!!!

Well, i'm not sure if the above was written in navy code but i'll try to answer. I think the achilles and the human traits that enabled us to run long distances were ultimately
more important than the thumb in comparison. Had we not been able to run we wouldn't be here. It enabled us access to huge protien source which not only helped us survive
been was extremely beneficial to brain developement.

By developing tracking and running together helped homo sapiens to develope not only language, but imagination and complex thinking like foresight and planning which is what
really differentiates humans from the rest of the animal population. For a couple million years we traveled as groups, men, women, children, grandparents (like nomads) following
food sources. The group would set out on a "hunt" or run but couldn't simply out run faster animals, they had to track them. To track the animals they had to "think" like them. They
would have to put themselves in the animal's place or "imagine" what their next move might be. They had to think outside the box, so to say. We also had to work in tandem and communicate
as such during these hunts. Many think that we evolved the ability to aniticipate, plan and communicate, etc., was a direct result of hunting food during these runs. (Tools and weapons are only
about 100,000 years old as far as we can tell.)

So if you think our superiority was due to complex language you might be right, but that was only a part of it and likely it was due to the fact we could run like the dickens which gave us that edge in the
first place.

As an example, let's go back to the monkey. Like I said we share 95% of the same dna. Why did we advance intellectually and they didn't? Why did our brains developed more advanced and their's didn't?
Most believe it was the access to protien by eating animals where monkeys didn't. Ever see a monkey run? Know way he's a chasing a deer down with those flat feet.

I might as well add at this point that this also likely wiped out the whole "hunter/gatherer" theory that is a prevelent theory.
Woman, kids and old people can run and likely did during these hunts and participated. It was unlikely they had a town
or village as a base and moved along with the food source.

It likely went something like the dominant men, like dear old dads starting the hunt. They were the more experience trackers.
As they tired they rotated and as the group got tired the young guns would take over and renew the chase. As the chase ended
the woman and older people would end it and go for the kill.

It was also likely that women carried the smaller children. Ever seen a marathon where some girl has the baby in a backpack?
Ever wonder why women suck in sprints compared to men but are almost equals in longer distances like ultra-marathons?

over 2 million years and 6 or 7 speciations off.

but your understanding of many things differs so far from mine i don't know what to say. but i'll try anyway.



if i'm not mistaken it was when our ancestors began to become primarily bi-pedal that our brains began to develop higher and more complicated levels of pattern recognition.



meat consumption is relatively new in our evolution. i've never heard from a single source (let alone "most believe") that it was protein that allowed or triggered our brains to evolve advanced pattern recognitions.

my understanding was that our ancestors first taste of meat was from the sea which, again, requires tools, and it would serve as an evolutionary trigger for more advanced ones.

Welcome to the religion forum.


You know what I was thinking about the other day? Geese. I read somewhere that when geese are migrating and one of them gets hurt and has to stop, another goose will also stop with him. I thought that was nice.

(I either read that or I came up with it in my head when I saw two geese on the side of the road hanging out. I can't remember. Maybe the AFLAC advertising is infiltrating my imagination.)

Anyway, I don't know what that has to do with this. Is it an evolution question? Or maybe a God gave us morality question?

Or many not even a question at all? More of a story?

A valid point.

Apparently geese are "permanently monogamous" (for a year; weird place to use permanent), so it's certainly possible that if one goose goes down, his or her goose spouse will stay with the fallen goose.

No Goose Left Behind

How do you not like Ghost in the Darkness?

Getting fixated on the running aspect of early homo sapiens as "the key" adaptation in human evolution is rather myopic and is one of the problems with evolutionary study. Scientific study, by it's very nature, seeks to explain phenomena through a one-source approach. However, evolution does not happen in a vacuum and it is most likely a confluence of adaptions with evolutionary pressures that led to homo sapiens expansive growth.


It's called encephalization and it is extremely important in the evolution of homo sapiens. Studying bipedalism and it's effects on the development of the brain in homo erectus and homo sapiens again falls short in its methodolgy of seeking "the silver bullet."

I agree and given that it's a poker forum and I was bored at work, not a paleantologist I wasn't fully specific. There were obviously many factors other than running that went into
our evolution but I was just pointing out what I thought might be a little less known aspect of it that was still important.