Jump to content
Science Forums

How could we have stopped evolving?


charles brough

Recommended Posts

One paradoxical source of evolution and de-evolution is medicine. On the one hand, medical care can make the body better. But on the other hand, it can lower the ability of the body's own natural defenses. Nobody even heard about being allergic to peanut butter a few decades ago, since it wasn't common. Now it seems to have gotten far more common. This can't be evolutionary since humans are omnivores.

 

The affect could be analogous to a bionic prosthesis affect. One could strap bionics onto the legs to make us run faster. But because the bionics is doing all the work, the leg muscles don't develop naturally. The next generation ends up with skinny legs requiring the bionics even more.

 

Another affect, due to medical care, is more in line with religious ethics, but not in line with evolutionary theory. If there were no medical assistance, the weak would be expire, while the strong would pass their genes onto the future. Just like Darwin says. By helping the sick and weak, humans make it possible for sick genes to remain in the gene pool. Again from the religious ethics point of view this is good, since all life if precious. But from a purely selective advantage and survival of the fittest philosophy of evolution, it doesn't follow the rules. Science can't seem to agree on this.

 

One only has to take this situation out of the human element and use animals, so we don't take things too personally. Say we had a herd of deer. In nature, the predators get the weak, sickly and old. The ones that are left are healthier. Among these is competition for breeding. The results are the best genes moving the herd to the future. Instead of the natural path, we will do it differently. We will make it so all the sick, weak and old are sheltered from the predators. We will even give them extra food and medical care. We will also assure that not just the most fit reproduce, but will allow even the second and third string to reproduce. What would happen to this herd of deer, and would its evolution to the future slow?

 

One way to address this medical preference for religious ethics over the Darwinian approach, even if there is a Darwinism de-evolution, is that human evolution is not connected to the body, but to the brain and mind. Even a sick person can have a good brain and mind. This is what is being preserved, since this is the center of what is evolving. Humans have sort of broke out of Darwin evolution and are evolving quicker. Darwinism is only good for animals and vegetables, but doesn't apply to humans. If it did, then medical care is an enemy of Darwinism, since it perpetuates genes that are not in line with the fastest path toward Darwin style evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paradoxical source of evolution and de-evolution is medicine. On the one hand, medical care can make the body better. But on the other hand, it can lower the ability of the body's own natural defenses. Nobody even heard about being allergic to peanut butter a few decades ago, since it wasn't common. Now it seems to have gotten far more common. This can't be evolutionary since humans are omnivores.

 

The affect could be analogous to a bionic prosthesis affect. One could strap bionics onto the legs to make us run faster. But because the bionics is doing all the work, the leg muscles don't develop naturally. The next generation ends up with skinny legs requiring the bionics even more.

 

Another affect, due to medical care, is more in line with religious ethics, but not in line with evolutionary theory. If there were no medical assistance, the weak would be expire, while the strong would pass their genes onto the future. Just like Darwin says. By helping the sick and weak, humans make it possible for sick genes to remain in the gene pool. Again from the religious ethics point of view this is good, since all life if precious. But from a purely selective advantage and survival of the fittest philosophy of evolution, it doesn't follow the rules. Science can't seem to agree on this.

 

One only has to take this situation out of the human element and use animals, so we don't take things too personally. Say we had a herd of deer. In nature, the predators get the weak, sickly and old. The ones that are left are healthier. Among these is competition for breeding. The results are the best genes moving the herd to the future. Instead of the natural path, we will do it differently. We will make it so all the sick, weak and old are sheltered from the predators. We will even give them extra food and medical care. We will also assure that not just the most fit reproduce, but will allow even the second and third string to reproduce. What would happen to this herd of deer, and would its evolution to the future slow?

 

One way to address this medical preference for religious ethics over the Darwinian approach...

 

Yep. I was good up until this point.

 

...even if there is a Darwinism de-evolution, is that human evolution is not connected to the body, but to the brain and mind. Even a sick person can have a good brain and mind. This is what is being preserved, since this is the center of what is evolving.

 

Do you have a source for this?

I don't think that people on the left side of the bell curve of intelligence stop reproducing, or even slow down.

 

Humans have sort of broke out of Darwin evolution and are evolving quicker. Darwinism is only good for animals and vegetables, but doesn't apply to humans.

 

Natural selection still occurs, it's just much more complicated now.

 

If it did, then medical care is an enemy of Darwinism, since it perpetuates genes that are not in line with the fastest path toward Darwin style evolution.

 

"Fastest path"? How are you determining that? What if all the people ill-adapted for life in our modern Earth environment ended up having genes that resisted a viral outbreak that killed most people off. Natural selection would then favor those same people that you are calling "ill" (medically treated).

 

Medicine is a boon for human evolution. More people (and more accessible) means more combinations of genes, more allelic drift, more natural selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paradoxical source of evolution and de-evolution is medicine. On the one hand, medical care can make the body better. But on the other hand, it can lower the ability of the body's own natural defenses. Nobody even heard about being allergic to peanut butter a few decades ago, since it wasn't common. Now it seems to have gotten far more common. This can't be evolutionary since humans are omnivores.

This may be the case but there are other explanations

1. The battering our immune systems are getting from over 60,000 new chemicals floating in the environment

2. The history of medicine has been marked by a steady "unravelling" of big global medical terms to more specific ones. Madness becomes schizophrenia,autism, personality disassociation, brain tumour, Alzheimer's etc

"The Cold" becomes bacterial, viral ,strain number 1, 2 ,etc Sinusitis, allergies Asthma etc.

More global disease names become specific (Often named after the guy who discovered it Lou Gherigh Alzheimer etc)

 

 

 

By helping the sick and weak, humans make it possible for sick genes to remain in the gene pool. Again from the religious ethics point of view this is good, since all life if precious. But from a purely selective advantage and survival of the fittest philosophy of evolution, it doesn't follow the rules. Science can't seem to agree on this.

It is a double edged sword. If you kill off people who are not adapted to the current society or times, what happens in 100-1,000 years time when those genes may be important?

Who can predict that with changing environments was was once seen as madness may be genius?

 

It is interesting we have been doing this, (culling the heard). for along time now; yet we still have a lot (the same #?) of genetic "abnormalities".

You wonder if the transcription process is not just likely to have .01% (pick a number) of genetic disorders no matter what.

We seem to have done a bit better with selective animal breeding (?)

In nature, the predators get the weak, sickly and old. pen to this herd of deer, and would its evolution to the future slow?

I have read a number of articles which ask the question Why do humans live so long? What is the genetic advantage to the race/species?

Some say it allows parents time to 'hunt and gather' while children are being cared for by the Old. Perhaps even being taught skills by them. In China for example your kids are your Social Security System. One of the reasons the 'one child' policy is a problem there. You thought the Yank social security system was bad -China has none.

If you read "Are Older People Capable of Rational Thought" thread you would think all oldies should be composted in the West.

One way to address this medical preference for religious ethics over the Darwinian approach, even if there is a Darwinism de-evolution, is that human evolution is not connected to the body, but to the brain and mind. Even a sick person can have a good brain and mind. This is what is being preserved, since this is the center of what is evolving. Humans have sort of broke out of Darwin evolution and are evolving quicker. Darwinism is only good for animals and vegetables, but doesn't apply to humans. If it did, then medical care is an enemy of Darwinism, since it perpetuates genes that are not in line with the fastest path toward Darwin style evolution.

Your logic seems a bit wonky, confused and contradictory here.

If the brain is being preserved isn't this "selection" never mind who does the selection -us or nature. Many would argue that humans are "nature" too ( I don't).

In my view humans have broken out of the Natural selection rat race because they can directly manipulate genes at the source-DNA. they can also medically manipulate reproduction.

Also I feel there are more processes at work than "Natural Selection" in evolution although I can 't prove that. (My attempts to suggest other things are at work in evolution are at the "Darwin re-visited" thread).

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at human evolution over the past ten thousand years, most of it have involved the brain and mind. With the mind and brain comes culture and the environmental changes needed to help improve the body. Nature does not make farms for good food. That took the human mind and brain. It is not the body mutating genes that is causing medical discoveries. It is the environmental potentials set by the human mind that is doing this.

 

For example, if you go to a fourth world culture there is less human mind based involvement in manipulating the environment. From this lower degree of forward mind potential there is less push to evolve, degenerating to Darwinism. If you go to a first world culture, there is more environmental push due to culture and the human brain. If first world cultures went to social Darwinism, they would regress.

 

One of the problems I have with the current version of evolution is it does not fully coordinate with reality. For example, if you look at any natural ecosystem, it is a highly integrated system. It is not a bunch of random events subject to the laws of chaos. Everything has a rational connection. If it was random based we could add random with little impact. In reality is we add chaos, and alter the ecosystem in some random way, we mess it up. This original integration is based on something like 3-D logic. Yet modern evolution theory prefers to think of evolution with chaos and statistics, which has little use in an integrated environment.

 

Even if we mess up the 3-D logic of any ecosystem with chaos, it will eventually reform another 3-D logic system that is integrated. Evolution may adapt to change caused by chaos, but it always tries to head into a rational schema of 3-D integration. What that means is the genetics is also trying to be part of that 3-D logic. It has to be or the system won't integrate.

 

If you took two similar ecosystems, one we will give an environmental perturbation, and the other we will keep the environment the same and allow genetic chaos to rule. Which of the two will evolve faster? The current theory places all the merit on the genetics leading, but the environment leads faster. Once the environment stabilizes, the genetics move in the direction of a new integration.

 

Maybe what the problem is, is that the 3-D logic of an ecosystem is too difficult to do with rational math. So we approximate it with irrational math. This is very useful and helpful to the progress of science. But this useful approximation has mistakenly led to the conclusion it is random. The conclusion I have drawn is this is only an approximation. Nature is actually based 3-D logic as evident in ecosystems; so is evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to expand on this. Say we we have an integrated ecosystem. The entire thing is in a symbiotic balance; it is not random but predictable. Say we add a random mutation that is progressive in one of the animals, it can create a level of chaos in the environment. The rest of the ecosystem will see the perturbation. If we had to wait for each of the dozens of species to have their own progressive mutations to coordinate with the original, it would take forever for the system to reintegrate. Instead the DNA of the dozens of other species will see the push and move in the direction that lowers the potential of the entire system; reintegration. If it didn't, there would not be both evolution and integrated ecosystems.

 

In nature, there is a constant variability, i.e., over time, in the environment due to weather and geological variability. Ecosystems constantly see stress that requires some degree of re-adaptation to regain integration. Even if there were few genetic mutations to lead the change, the affect of the environment would provide a constant push to evolve. Mutations are sort of like a transition states, in chemical reactions, that offer the possibility of reforming a condition for reintegration.

 

The question is how is this possible? If you look at a cell or a multicellular life form it too is an integrate ecosystem. The cell is not a bunch of random processes but is a highly integrated system. Changes in the external environment have an impact on the cell system integration. It creates a wild card variable and the cell has to readapt in an attempt to regain an more integrated state. The DNA is part of that integration. The DNA is not independent of this integration, but is also put into the flux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the DNA of the male mixes with that of the female, the genes don't just stick end to end. There is a shuffling of the genes. I look at the shuffling as being analogous to adding two batches of DNA chemicals to a beaker, with the ovum the beaker setting the reaction conditions. The combined DNA shuffles in an attempt to define a distribution close to equilibrium.

 

In other words, before the ovum extrudes half of its DNA, the protein grid of the ovum reflects a differentiated state of the entire female DNA. Once half of the female DNA is extruded, we end up with a non equilibrium between the remaining half DNA and all proteins that have formed from full DNA. The male DNA takes the place of this deficit, but because it is not exactly what was extruded, the entire DNA needs to shuffle to approach equilibrium with the potential that is being defined by the rest of the ovum. But even that is not equilibrium, but sets a potential to begin dividing.

 

The fertilized ovum will only divide for so many cycles, or until the potential between the combined DNA and the final cell grids have minimized. To get further cell division, an environmental potential is added, which is connected to the mother's blood supply. This analysis works under the assumption that life is a bunch of organized chemicals following chemical laws. Reactions will only occur if there is a chemical potential added to the mix. In this case, the mother's blood supply is adding reactants that have energy value. The cells see this potential, try to maintain their integration, distribute the potential throughout, resulting in the cells needing to divide. It is more complicated than just that, but it amounts to chemicals following energy laws.

 

Where male and female come in, is connected to the higher level of potential life is able to achieve at the get go. In other words, single cells can only divide into two, when reducing their non equilibrium potential. While the male-female route creates a much stronger non equilibrium, that results in a more complicated multicellular state. The combined DNA is placed in a non equilibrium state right from the get go. Because the DNA is stable changes in the DNA are sort of minimized. But there are some changes, where the genetics can produce by-products called mutations. An analogy is reacting chemicals too fast, due to too high of a potential. One will get some by-products that may not appear if the potential is lowered. But sometimes these by-products are useful and help define a better equilibrium.

 

Life never forms an equilibrium. The reason is, it goes in two mutually exclusive paths at the same time, relative to chemical potentials. It is subject to oxidation like al chemicals on earth, while also producing reduced compounds which are gaining energy. It has machinery for doing both at the same time. The result is rather than move toward lowest potential energy in terms of chemistry, it tries to increase the chemical potential at the same time it is trying to lower the potential.

 

If you look at a cell cycle, the rate of metabolism increases. The cell is shifting its internal gradient potential toward the oxidation side. After it divides, it will shift the internal potential gradient back toward the reduction side to build up energy. This see-saw battle is connected to two primary players; O and H. The oxygen is trying to lower energy, while the H via hydrogen bonding is moving into states of increased energy. In terms of the cell cycles the pendulum swings as each potential take turns leading. In terms of multicellular, the building of energy value in all the cells so the entire system increases its energy content over time reflects a state where the H begins to play a even more dominate role in the equilibrium.

 

This is subtle so I will give an analogy to make it easier to see. Picture two young brothers, big brother O and little brother H. They have one toy to share called electrons. For this composite system, equilibrium will result in the big brother getting the toy most of the time, assuming mother is not forcing them to share, equally. Although this situation defines system equilibrium, it does not imply that little brother is satisfied. He would prefer play with the toy more than is defined by his big brother's system. Through the hydrogen bonding that defines the properties of bio-materials, the hydrogen is able to increasingly get the toy away from big brother O. Evolution is the story of how H gets more and more creative, getting the system equilibrium to slowly shift in the direction of the H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using H as the potential that opposes the oxidation potential makes the cell an easier system to analyze. What it brings to the table are two opposing potentials that form a dynamic equilibrium. Without the H as an opposing potential, we use genetic statistics to make up for the needed potential. Genetic shift, drift and mutations becomes the wild card variable to set a potential so change becomes possible.

 

But if we compare life to inanimate matter, in the presence of oxygen, or oxidation, inanimate matter goes to lowest energy. It may store some residual energy as defects or as traces of higher potential chemicals. Life is different in that life is not easy to oxidize, since it is always actively reducing and gaining energy as fast as oxygen can oxidize it.

 

One way to look at the hydrogen, as a countering potential to oxygen, is connected to the lowest energy state of hydrogen. I am not talking about the hydrogen and oxygen system, but the lowest energy state of just hydrogen. That state is H2. This state of hydrogen is so balanced it has the lowest melting point of all compounds. In other words, if it had residual potential it would melt at a higher temperature due to the residual potential trying to hang on much longer. But being so balanced, H2 solid has little holding it together, causing it to melt a handful of degrees above absolute zero.

 

If we do an atom count of a cell, H makes up about 60-70% of all the atoms in the cell. If we assume water is 90%, that alone means 60% hydrogen. Although system potential is centered on O, the H would achieve its lowest individual potential if it could form H2. As H2O it has potential to form H-bonds, imply it retains residual potential. To lower potential even more than hydrogen bonding, it becomes reduced.

 

If you go back to the analogy of big brother O and little brother H, the O would like all the H to become H2O, but this isn't the lowest individual energy state of H. It is the lowest system energy state defined by O. The H, as an individual would find its own sweet spot, closer to H2, which would give it the toy all the time. But the system is still dominated by O, such that the final compromise involves reduction into C-H. Life is unique in that it makes use of these two conflicting potentials. If we use both, then even mutations have a logical explanation.

 

For example, mutations on the DNA, do not form the best possible hydrogen bonds with the DNA template. The mutate gene is out of place. The result are the hydrogen bonds in the mutation are at a higher energy state than they would be if the template relationship was perfect, i.e., no mutation. One can see big brother O's potential handiwork, since it is shifting the lowest potential state away from H, slightly back toward O. During the next cell cycle, the H, via hydrogen bonded enzymes will use this gene as a template to make perfect hydrogen bonds. If we get back to the topic title, have humans stopped evolving; the answer is the H has gotten dominant enough to much better nip the O potential in the bud. The enzymes of the DNA, within humans, work affectively to minimize H potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The environment helps to set the potentials for change. When humans went hairless, there is now a greater potential to get warm again. Rather than grow hair again, human evolution involved the brain. The brain gave the early humans the idea to start wearing fur. It could have happened the opposite way with the brain using fur before the hair fully fell out. This would create an environmental stress, causing their fur to fall out.

 

If you look at neurons there are two important observations. First, these cells don't divide after a certain age. They lose the enhanced metabolism implicit of cell cycles. This implies the H side of the potential has gotten the upper hand on the O side.

 

The other observation is these cells have the highest membrane potentials of all the cells in the body, with the inside negative and the outside positive. The inside negative favors the needs of the H by providing max electron density inside the cell relative to other cells. The outside positive is also at at max, relative to other cells, and favors the O side of the polarity since its higher electronegativity is less affected. The outside is where the neural activity becomes associated with the environmental potential, implicit of O. The neuron is able to constantly recover, implicit of the H side of the potential firming up the memory. The genetic mutations of old have partially shifted into unstable neural memory mutations that H firms up into a sense of neural and intellectual stability.

 

If you look at a cell, it is driven with ATP energy. The ATP adds a phosphate group. This is full of oxygen and creates an electron withdrawing affect. The hydrogen in an enzymes lose electron density, temporarily. They get it back resetting the enzyme for another cycle. This is the basic battle between O and H, with the potential in the O restricted to energy levels at the level of hydrogen bonding energies. This keeps the H on top of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hihi::lol::doh::lol:;)

 

death, the rule of the juggle, only the stong will survive.

 

the question is; how in the crap did it help man to be hairless, cold and naked :doh: evolutionary blunder? :lol:

 

Here's my theory:

Hair is energy intensive. Since we found other ways to stay warm (other animals fur, fire, etc), we didn't need hair as much and could focus our energy on brainpower.

 

Of course, there are lots of theories for this:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Itchy answer to hairless humans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question is; how in the crap did it help man to be hairless, cold and naked :doh: evolutionary blunder? :cup:
I don’t think a discussion of this old, old question would be complete without mention of the aquatic ape hypothesis. Neither a strongly supported nor refuted anthropological hypothesis, it is nonetheless an interesting, and fairly famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view concerning the promotion of scientific ideas) one.

 

Another interesting datum about the presumed “hairlessness” of humans is that, in terms of a simple count of number of hairs, it’s not true. Surprisingly, as described in this webpage (odd to link to a Proctor & Gamble hair-care information website, but it’s a pretty good non-technical one with a pretty high google rank) human beings have more hairs per unit area of skin than other apes. Except for certain areas (eg: the scalp), however, most humans have much finer hair than other apes, which has much less (but not zero) ability to trap air and keep us warm.

 

Though I think the AAH is reasonable, my personal guess at the “how we got so naked-looking” question is that it was an adaptation to the development of clothing. As the more hirsute among us can attest, even in our relatively antiseptic modern living conditions, thick hair rubbed by clothing can cause problems ranging from annoying itchiness to serious skin infections, leading some to shave their bodies for practical reasons. As humans began increasingly to artificially insulate themselves with clothing, in their more septic ancient living conditions, I hypothesize, thinner-haired people had fewer of these problems, and gained an evolutionary advantage. What ancient human or hominid would want to reproduce with the guy/gal with all the oozy, matted, scabby, smelly stuff under their cloths, when a smooth-skinned, healthy alternative mate is available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about the parasite hypothesis I linked to above, Craig?
Like the AAH and my “nasty itchy ape hypothesis”, the “bug-bit ape hypothesis”, makes sense (and is compatible with the NIAH, and to a lesser extent the AAH), but like them, I find it hard to imaging how it can ever be tested in such a way that it, or any explanation, becomes widely accepted.

 

The BBC article you linked to begins

The generally accepted theory until now has been that hairlessness evolved to control body temperature in hot climates.

While I’d not be surprised if a poll of paleoanthropologists showed that this explanation tops the list of most likely explanations, I think there’s such uncertainty and lack of compelling data supporting any one of the many hypotheses that what’s actually “generally accepted” is that there’s more uncertainty than certainty on the subject.

:cup:

Though I think there’s pretty high confidence that the reduction in size (not, as noted up-thread, in number) of human body hair from that of our distant ancestors had survival value, and thus was selected for, the details of what factors influenced this selection, and how precisely it occurred are likely to, I suspect, remain mysterious for some time, possibly forever. It may be that several are right, and that different human populations selected for thin body hair for different reasons.

 

My personal wild speculation concerning definitive conclusion about paleoanthropology and other inquires into even the fairly recent biological and social past, is that they may not occur until it’s possible to litterally look into the past (which I wildly speculate about in this post).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the AAH and my “nasty itchy ape hypothesis”, the “bug-bit ape hypothesis”, makes sense (and is compatible with the NIAH, and to a lesser extent the AAH), but like them, I find it hard to imaging how it can ever be tested in such a way that it, or any explanation, becomes widely accepted.

 

What if primates were dressed in clothes, furs, etc. and measured for dermal changes/itching activity? :cup:

 

But yes, as far as ascertaining the correct theory as it relates to primitive man, I'm afraid you are correct.

 

The BBC article you linked to begins

The generally accepted theory until now has been that hairlessness evolved to control body temperature in hot climates.

While I’d not be surprised if a poll of paleoanthropologists showed that this explanation tops the list of most likely explanations, I think there’s such uncertainty and lack of compelling data supporting any one of the many hypotheses that what’s actually “generally accepted” is that there’s more uncertainty than certainty on the subject.

:doh:

I agree.

 

Though I think there’s pretty high confidence that the reduction in size (not, as noted up-thread, in number) of human body hair from that of our distant ancestors had survival value, and thus was selected for, the details of what factors influenced this selection, and how precisely it occurred are likely to, I suspect, remain mysterious for some time, possibly forever.

 

Yes, that link was interesting. It would be more interesting to find a site with more scientific credentials though. Nonetheless, I don't find it hard to believe.

 

It may be that several are right, and that different human populations selected for thin body hair for different reasons.

I think this is more to the truth. On top of the different human populations idea, I could imagine natural selection selecting for a hotter environment/mate selection/'itchy-nasty'/etc, within a "single" population.

 

My personal wild speculation concerning definitive conclusion about paleoanthropology and other inquires into even the fairly recent biological and social past, is that they may not occur until it’s possible to litterally look into the past (which I wildly speculate about in this post).

 

Wow, how did I miss this post?

I've got some reading to do! :hyper:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In March 2007, Cochran/Hawks in World Science reported that the main genetic changes that have taken place in us in the last almost 200,000 years have merely been a slight shrinking of body and brain size and changes in metabolism!

 

So, what explains what has happened to us in all that time? What caused us to build up such a cultural heritage and expand in numbers to fill, indeed, even crowd the Earth?

 

Social theorists have no concensus on that. Some resort to "meme"s as an "explanation." Others just won't believe it and insist that is can all be explained by some sort of biological evolution going on somehow somewhere.

 

Why hit our heads against the wall? The explanation is available in

HOME PAGE Natural selection has been occuring between societies---not the races as the Social Darwinists and Sociobiologists claim. Not economic systems as the Marxists claim. It is between religion-bonded entities we call "societies," "cultures" or "civilizations but which are distinct entities that compete with each other for survival.

 

Of course, religious believers hate that idea because it gives religion a natural cause evolutionary purpose! Natural selection working on religions!

 

But, hey! lets get at a real explanation of what's going on and skip the spiritualism. If we bothered to figure out what is going on, we might be able to do better. . .

 

 

I don't think Cochran/Hawks in World Science report is correct about our evolution stopping.

 

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey FindsMar 8, 2006 ... Genome researchers have identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the spread of ...

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

 

Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution ...Oct 23, 2005 ... The most detailed analysis to date of how humans differ from one another at the DNA level shows strong evidence that natural selection has ...

Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution, Study Finds - 48k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Cochran/Hawks in World Science report is correct about our evolution stopping.

I agree

 

Although there may be atrait or two in the oldest continuous religious goup on earth- Judaism

It may be that there are some metabolism differences. I believe, for example, that coeliac disease is more prevalent among Jewish people as it is with Irish (Celtic ) peoples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...