E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA scan of all the mutations in the human gene map shows something surprising – people of European descent are evolving fast, and not for the better.
The study finds that in the past 5,000 years, European-Americans have developed a huge batch of potentially harmful genetic mutations – many more than African-Americans.
The study, published in the journal Nature, may help explain why so many people develop diseases even though they don’t have common genetic mutations. It can also help explain why different people have so many different reactions to the same drug, said Joshua Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle who led the study.
It likely has to do with population explosion, Akey said. European populations expanded after the Ice Age ended and prosperous agricultural societies emerged. “The number of mutations that exist is directly attributable to the population growth that happened in the last 5,000 years,” Akey told NBC News.
“The things that allowed us to go from millions to billions of has also been the same process that has been pumping in all these new mutations.”
Akey and colleagues at genetics institutions across the country examined the gene sequences of more than 6,500 people – more than 4,200 European-Americans and 2,200 African-Americans. They were looking for small changes in the genetic code called single nucleotide variants – one-letter differences in the genetic code of A,C, T and G.
They found “an enormous excess of rare variants” in the European-Americans. And 73 percent of these mutations only appeared in the human genome in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. Most were mutations that are known to weaken proteins, Akey said, and most of these harmful mutations were also in the people of European descent.
Now researchers are working to see which of these mutations might be associated with diseases. But many are in known disease-causing genes, such as the LAMC1 gene associated with premature ovarian failure, LRP1, which is linked with both Alzheimer’s disease and obesity and the CPE gene linked to hardening of the arteries.
Most are rare mutations – meaning they only affect a few people. “Some genes might be more disease-causing than other genes,” Akey said.
It may explain why it’s been so hard to find clear genetic links to many diseases. “We have been looking for disease risk where it isn’t,’ he said. “The last five to 10 years have been dominated by looking for common genetic variations that dominate common diseases. There is a lot of disease risk that is unexplained. Maybe there are classes of mutations that haven’t been looked at.”
The findings could explain why some people can smoke for a lifetime and never get lung cancer or heart disease, while someone else might suffer a heart attack despite having healthy blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
It definitely shows evolution in action, Akey said. “It’s just the process of evolution playing out in real time,” he said. “The dramatic population expansions that occurred over the past couple thousand years had a profound consequence on our genetic variability.”
Genetic mutations usually occur by accident – they are just mistakes that get made when DNA gets copied. They become important to evolution when they affect a person’s ability to survive and have children. The expansion of civilization, and the ability of societies to care for people who are less fit, was probably a factor in allowing these mutations to spring up, Akey said. “I think that is undoubtedly true,” he said.
Some of the genes identified in the scan also affect peoples’ response to drugs. That could explain why some people are helped, for example, by a cholesterol-lowering drug while others may not be. There wouldn’t have been much “selective pressure” on these genes before the modern drug era, but that doesn’t mean the genes were not influenced by something else. “It turns out that genes involved in adverse drug responses also have different biological roles,” Akey said – for instance, detoxifying certain foods.
There may even be more evolution in the future, Akey predicted. One example – phenylketonuria or PKU. It’s caused by a mutation in a gene that breaks down an amino acid called phenylalanine. People with PKU mutations must eat a strict, low-protein diet or they can develop seizures and mental retardation.
Now newborns are routinely tested for PKU so they can start the diet immediately and avoid any brain damage. Akey said because these kids can now grow up and lead normal lives, they will likely start having children and the gene may become more common in the population.
Related stories:
- New project shows us living beyond our genes
- Fixing genes using cloning?
- Genetic test catches disease in newborns
Leave a Comment:
Well, there is no accounting for it. It looks like we Europeans are in trouble.Then again, according to other research, caucasians are becoming a disappearing race.Red heads will be gone in 50 years. With most of the world becoming dominated by other races.At the rate of mixing we should have disappeared in about 200 years or so.
Medical breakthroughs have prolonged life in western civilizations and therefore more "bad genes" continue to be passed on. Not nearly as much natural selection as there used to be. Makes sense.
The genetic trait of 'white' european that are dominate is skin color
The gene pool of Europe was decimated by two World Wars within forty years. The strongest, and fittest went to the front and died, and the weak were left to repopulate.
I do find it a little funny that this article studied "European-Americans" of the last 5,000 years. How did they do that!
Yeah, I feel better now knowing the answer as to why I have a toe growing out of my ear. ;-)
Too funny Creek Dog....lol.
Just a thought, if one race or another is to fade from the world, let nature take its course. As long as it is nature and not Nazis I don't see an issue with one or another race fading from the world stage....many of nature's creations have come and gone in the history of the world. Why would we think humans are any different? What will the world look like in 10,000 years, 100,000 years? I hardly doubt that any of the races today will be completely intact over that span of time.
I suspect that the writer doesn't know .... about genetics or was looking for a hook to get people to read the article. By their nature, mutations can be beneficial or negative. So for all of the negative mutations there are also quite a few positive mutations. In fact, greater variability in genetics is probably an over all positive because it potentially offers some protection from a virulent bacterial and/or viral illness killing everybody. So, "not for the better" is a little hard to swallow as a qualitative evaluation - more genetic disesases = bad, but what if some of those mutations have provided benefit - greater stamina or better resistance to our crappy modern diets or...
The article doesn't mean to say that Europeans are accumulating harmful mutations. The article means to say that Europeans are accumulating mutations, period. The article did suggest that these mutations weaken proteins however. As a biochemist I have no idea how they could possibly draw such a sweeping conclusion for thousands of gene variants without actually doing the structural biochemistry, which would take a decade to complete (if tens of millions of dollars were spent). I suspect that this study is connected to a large study that was just done to identify gene variants across large populations. In this study they focused on mutations that would occur within known functional/structural domains of proteins, since these presumably would have the highest chance of altering some specific parameter of the protein's function, and then comparing those variants between people with disease and without. From this study some readers of NV might remember a recent article about a new gene linked to Alzheimer's, TREM2. However, just knowing that a mutation is in a functional domain of a protein does not mean that it necessarily "weakens" the protein as the article suggests. I suspect this comment was creative writing on the part of the author who is not directly knowledgeable about the science.
More mutations in a population means the population is experiencing diversification. This happens in rapidly growing populations, or populations which experience decreasing levels of selection. However, very few if any of these mutations are becoming entrenched in Europeans. All of them are extremely rare. There is no selective pressure to select for or against many of these genes - at least there haven't been enough generations to allow this to play out yet. It would be very sketchy to say that Europeans as a whole population are "evolving" unless we actually detect substantial increases in certain mutations across large portions of the population. If 1 in 5 Europeans suddenly (in the next 100 generations) had red hair then we could say something about the population evolving a new trait that is common to the group and identifiable. But a mutation that only persists in 1 in 1,000,000 is hardly evolution. Evolution requires not just mutation, but selection as well. Selection takes much longer and without it a gene cannot become common and evolution cannot be said to have occurred.
Populations where every individual carries the same alleles (mutant version of a gene) is a population at risk. A population like this might be wiped out by a single event such as a disease. Homogenous populations usually are those that have just gone through some bottleneck where most of the rest of the population have died or a population that lives under extraordinary selective pressures. The fact that Europeans have so many mutations is a sign of a healthy population not a deteriorating one.
DBA Moron,
I too was wondering how a population can "evolve" and not for the better...lol.
evolve - to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development
Best I can dig up on the fly but if what this study indicates is true I'm not sure "evolve" would be the right word eh?
Biological evolution does not produce more complex or advanced structures as a rule. Your definition is for the general use of the word. biological structures become more complex only in response to selective pressures. For instance the arms race between predators and prey will continually develop faster, stronger, larger, smaller, smarter animals in order to capture prey or avoid being captured. Often this results in more advanced animals, but not always. Some animals evolve to be smaller to avoid detection. Instances where simpler structures are more beneficial include when nutrients may be lacking in a particular environment. If the raw materials for more complexity are expensive to obtain, then simpler more efficient structures would be selected for. In an environment where there is a glut of resources we would expect to see wide variations in solutions to the same biological problems, often these solutions would have varying rates of efficient use of resources as well. Think about automotive design as it relates to gasoline availability and cost as a perfect example. Simpler cars result from scarce resources and wide varieties with different efficiencies result from times of plenty.
It appears that in Europe there is an increase in variety which is coinciding with a time of plenty and reduced selective pressures. This is a normal healthy response and not a sign of detriment. People are confusing the increased number of mutations with an increasing mutational rate. An increase in variety (mutation) is as I said normal in Europe's situation. An increased rate of mutation is something else entirely and not at all what is occurring in Europe. The mutation rate for Europeans is similar to mutation rates in all human populations.
much better definition radagast. Clearly a topic of study for you. Thanks for the education....
....always assumed "evolve" ment something akin to advancing...the whole evolve and not for the better statement got me alittle confused.
I had the same reaction to the article -- the headline was geared for wider readership. There would have to be at least some bad, good and indifferent mutations in the past 5,000 years for all races. A more meaningful study would include more of the world's races and cultures where historic evidence is available.
Knowingly passing on defective genes to the next generation is irresponsible, regardless of how much one might desire a little mini-me.
Well, we all have mutations! This article was not referring to specific diseases such as PKU so much as to point out that mutations are exploding. Not all of them are deadly.
Unfortunately, everybody has different definitions of defective genes. And nobody wants to consider their own genes defective. All of my genes are very effective :).
To quote the article: "Genetic mutations usually occur by accident – they are just mistakes that get made when DNA gets copied."
Genetic mutations, as described above, are NOT "mistakes"; they are merely changes. Some such changes are beneficial, some are detrimental, and it often takes a long l-o-n-g time to determine which is which.
So please, let's be a bit more objective and not automatically assume that "genetic mutations" are "mistakes".
All genetic mutations are mistakes. Very few are lucky enough to be beneficial to the host.
Defective genes aren't that hard to define. Those that cause serious diseases or deformities are obvious candidates. Lesser ones that cause bad eyesight or high cholesterol are easier to live with, but I have to wonder how long it will be before everyone needs glasses or is on statins.
How much longer will it be before no one born is able to live without some sort of medical assistance?
AG99... Your first comment suggests that you support Sir Francis Galton's science of eugenics. Many countries practiced forced sterilization of citizens who displayed "undesirable" traits. This practice pretty much came to an end during WWII when it was discovered that Hitler and his Nazi scientists tried to create a "master race" through the use of eugenics. Are you suggesting that we revisit that science?
willy: No, I'm simply stating the problems not controlling our genetic defects is giving us. What to do about them is an entirely different issue. I don't have a solution to offer, although if we do manage to pollute our gene pool to the point most of us can't live without medical help, I wouldn't be surprised to see eugenics become a hot topic. I'll be dead by then though.
AG99... In regards to your second comment. You are absolutely right. An increase in genetic mutations may result in an increased need of health care. But this creates a paradox. The increase of modern health care will allow genetic mutations to survive and be passed on to future generations. In other words, modern health care may prevent natural selection from occurring. So here is my question. Should we stop looking for treatments for every genetic illness? Do we reach a point when we simply say that it's time to stop manipulating nature?
Don't be fooled that eugenics isn't being done today. 90% of babies in utero are terminated when they have markers (not always accurate markers) for a possible birth defect that isn't inherited or likely to be inherited. With the new healthcare laws, this testing is required in the first trimester and "preventative care" is required. What is preventative care? In most cases, that can be interpreted as abortion. As a mom with "perfect" genes who has a perfect child who has Down syndrome, this really opens my eyes.
willy: I think medicine may reach the point where we can fix bad genes before fertilization, in which case we'll solve our own problem. Until then, people need to really assess whether their desire to reproduce trumps passing on a serious genetic defect to the next generation.
In poor populations such as sub-Saharan Africa, natural selection probably still plays an important role in survival as those people can't afford the treatments available in more developed countries. This probably explains why Europe, with the best health care in the world, has the most defects. Just guessing.
Should we stop trying to fix genetic medical problems and just let people die? There's an argument to be made for that, especially with a world population of 7B, but it's unlikely to garner much support. Besides, there's big money to be made treating those ailments and we all know money talks.
(I'm off to bed now so goodnight.)
Here is a major issue with using scientific research as a basis for belief AG99 which you do here. By assuming you or I might even know what defective genes we carry. There are 140 odd proteins that are used and produced in the body and "modern" science might know what about 20 of them do and you would use people like that to determine mating and repoduction baselines based on what? There is no way to determine what genetic traits are picked up at the point of inception, NO WAY. the way humans reproduce makes it impssible to tell what comes out of the mix PERIOD, sorry dude your jumping to a generic x group of people shouldn't reproduce based on y findings is utter junk science
BMette has a point. Some mutations are beneficial. Mutations such as bipedalism, speech and brain size! Some do not even affect the protein configurations, so they do nothing at all (silent).
Mistakes during replication are only one way a mutation can occur. Other ways include insertion of foreign DNA by viruses, damage to DNA from oxidation, radiation, chemical modification, etc. Some are directly affecting an active gene, others affect only regulatory DNA. So strictly speaking, mutations can be mistakes, but not always. And sometimes they affect single genes, but other times it may affect expression of a gene or even expression of whole groups of genes. Speech, brain size, bipedalism - these are certainly due to the latter kind of mutation.
James: Read better. I didn't say anything about what to do with defective genes or who should be calling the shots. My point is that you shouldn't knowingly pass them on to the next generation. That was my very first comment.
If you have hemophilia, Type 1 diabetes, mental retardation, scoliosis, etc., you know before your child bearing years that you have a serious defect. However, some defects don't show up until later on and we don't test for those (or a test hasn't been developed yet) so there's little we can do to prevent them.
Eventually the entire human genome and the ability to test for defects quickly and efficiently will be within our grasp. Until then, people should make the best judgment they can based on the information available to them.
AG99 - I understand your point, but I also have to point out that we should be very, VERY careful about reducing the variability in our gene pool. Variability is essential to species survivability when stressed by environmental factors.
Even known genetic mutations may provide net benefits - e.g.: Sickle Cell anemia vs. malaria resistance. It is now well documented that a single copy of the sickle cell mutation never present anemic complications, BUT DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT RESISTANCE TO MALARIA - thus the prevalence of the mutation in racial populations evolving in malaria prone areas. So saying the mutation is "bad" is a subjective vs. an objective statement. Mutations may or may not be bad - in fact they may be both bad and good depending on environmental factors.
But given that natural selection is rapidly going by the wayside for us humans, we have to do something to control gene pollution. I don't want to have to deal with a serious disability on the off chance it prevents a disease I might never be exposed to. I think there will always be plenty of aberrant genes roaming around for the purposes you're thinking of, while still allowing us to weed out the bad ones.
(Got to walk the dog now. Be back later.)
There is supposed to be more DNA in the human genome that doesn't seem to code for proteins--does that mean that that DNA isn't "genes"? Such DNA used to be thought of as junk DNA but is now thought to be related to control of the actual genes? Turning off or on,timing in development? There seems to be pitifully few genes in the human genome!! Do string beans or crocus have more than us? How about a snapping turtle?
What do mutations in that (the DNA that doesn't seem to code for proteins) DNA do? Cause the other DNA to make too much or too little of its product protein?
David,
GOOGLE introns and exons. Introns are what they used to call junk DNA and yes they have functions such as you mentioned. I took a class over a year ago at UCONN so I can't remember the specifics.
And you missed my point AG99 and that was science doesn't have any kind of handle on the nature of our DNA, repoduction and transmission of genes. What science does offer is a 'tendency for certain genes to become passed down not written in stone, just because you have diabetes doesn't mean your children will at all, heck not even close. Quit taking science as gospel, because it isn't even close.
That tremendous sound you hear is thousands of cattle and poultry applauding.
Socioeconomic reasons for present day selection of breeding partners are placing us even more in danger. We seriously need to stop going after the money when choosing a man (for example) or skinniness when choosing a woman, and start choosing based on genetic features. Nature isn't stupid. We are. And obviously nature is telling us here that hey, I wash my hands over you now, don't blame me if you end up with a gene pool not worth the splice in a few hundred years time... And, racists beware, cause the strongest populations gene-wise are those of mixed descend, because that way nature has more freedom to pick and keep the most prevalent traits, so be prepared to either die out or accept inter-phylletic genetic mixture.
thats rediculous. first off, we are part of nature. so if this report is true, its just a matter of natural selection based upon over crowded civilization. theoreticly, the same thing will take place with all the peoples of the world in time. if world populations continue to explode.
besides, where are these historic large concentrations of europeans for the last 10thou years? certainly the black plague wiped out a huge percentage europeans. as well as other deseases, and how many males of a serviceable age have been killed off in wars?
now compare this to china and even the philipines where maynila is the most densely populate place on earth. these people should all be walking genetic time bombs , no? but the article doesnt mention asians now does it?
and what the heck does race have to do with someones desire to marry rich? thats been a common trait since the beginning of time.
oh, and skinny? how many fat women were there in 5,000 bc or so? it didnt happen. so selecting "skinny" women for mates is an ingrained primal urge to propagate the species. not a social-economic thing at all.
Poor peole of poor nations have to fightto survivye,, so thier genes evolve in survival mode. White people have everything so their DNA get lazy and that is where bugs get in.
We need to select soem good specimen of white people and isolate them on reservation to protect the specis. I mean if there is no gold, brass, silver, cobalt...all black is boring. From reservation we can milk sperms and eggs and implant into darker people and hopefully that will create white people with healthy fighiting genes during gestation.
IDGC... After reading your stupid comments and deciphering your poor grammar, I have come to the conclusion that you are the exact type of person that should be removed from our gene pool! So do the future of humankind a favor and get yourself fixed! Please and thank you!
And the scientism blinders continue folks. Nature is neither stupid nor smart, these are human traits assigned to nature by our culture, much like haing a dog that smiles??? And you continue to give nature 'godlike' poweres of picking and choosing traits it wishes to carry forward all for our goodwill of course and that choice will always cater to 'mixed' progeny. You people realize there is more genetic diversity in a single troup of chimps in the wild, that's 50 examples of the species folks, what 'traits' is mother nature 'choosing' for that group? And what people accept has nothing at all to do 'traits' that mother nature is selecting on our behalf.
A high degree of genetic variability within a population is not a sign of deterioration, it is a sign of a healthy population. Europeans, for many reasons are living under reduced selective pressure. This allows the population to grow and diversify. This is normal. This is healthy. Homogenous populations are at risk and are a result of extreme selective pressures and/or low population size.
None of these cataloged mutations are endemic. All of them are extremely rare. Many mutations that may be associated with one disease also protect against others. Very few mutations are entirely good or entirely bad. Often other genes can make up for the detrimental effects of a bad mutation. The number of selective pressures for and against a certain mutation can be extremely numerous and the balance of these forces over many, many generations determines whether or not that mutation spreads throughout or disappears from the population. Unless a particular mutation changes its abundance among the population in a significant way we cannot conclude that evolution in any particular direction has occurred. The process however is continual, it is a tug of war of many forces acting on the prevalence of each mutation within the population.
Accomodation of genetic disease would be an ironic downfall of humanity. The Spartans on the other hand were vicious, and healthy...
And where are they now?
Blue eyes are a gene mutation that arose in Europe about 6,000 years ago. By the time of Jesus, it had spread to the Middle East. I have no idea if it was beneficial or not and I think that many gene mutations are that way. Neither beneficial or harmful. Blond hair appeared about 11,000 years ago in Europe and in Papua and Australia much sooner but they are not the same gene mutation. We may find that certain gene mutations may be the cause of the rise in asthma and even Austism.
Blue eyes were obviously very beneficial from a survival/reproduction standpoint. What causes the blue eyed genes to promotes survival and reproduction is unclear. It could be nothing more than guys/gals prefer blue eyes to brown. In any case, genetic diversity and natural selection are the basic drivers of evolution.
Allz I know is my wife loves my greyish blue eyes. One of her first attractions to me if she isnt lying of course....lol.
Anthropologists have for years been saying there is a direct link between the agriculture industry and health problems. The people who suffered the worse (ie: Europeans and other northern tribes) evolved eating high-fat, high-protein diets with VERY little in the way of carbohydrates. The bulk of carbohydrates were seasonal such as fruit during the summer and small amounts of wild grains. Winter diets consisted of mainly meat and fat with a little dried fruit. Once the agriculture industry took off in the north their bodies started becoming ravaged with all manner of diseases.
Studies have also been conducted on the remains of North American tribes. These people ate a diet that was made up of 80% saturated fat. They were some of the healthiest people on the planet. Descendants of these tribes now have all manner of illnesses and there is a doctor who has successfully treated members of one tribe by putting them on a diet identical in structure to what their ancestors ate. And guess what. These people have been cured of everything from diabetes to tuberculosis.
Simply put, grain is evil. Modern-day GMO grains are even worse. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, processed grain, sprouted grain, etc., it's just plain bad for people.
on the other hand, svedes have the highest rate of prostate cancer. too many centuries of eating fat.
So there is hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ opiionated smurf why does USDA myplate a government website tell you to get most of your calories from grain sources? there must be a reason....
There is very little consensus on what the prehistoric people of any region ate primarily. Many people think that wild grains, nuts, and tubers were the primary foods, with the occasional treats of fruits and berries and meats. I prefer the meat diet myself, but really there is no consensus at all on it. So pick your poison - there are "experts" and anthropologists that support both sides of the question.
GODs retribution for all the murder and mahem they've done over the centuries? Pollution over profits? A combonation of all?
.
Really kem?
Hmmm, I have blonde hair AND blue eyes. I'm just a mutated mess !
Man, White people arein trouble. Even they are majority we have black President. And then Jews, Latinos, other Blacks, Indians are lining up to be President. It is doubtful white can win White House in near future or for that matter ever.
However they are pretty. Where ever you need pretty Whites can have monopoly. Like Waiters, prostitutes, models, actors/ Thye have good brains but some mutations prevents them from acting to gather like blacks do. Blacks vote 97 $ for one candidate and Latinos 73 %
I think White people have to think this over. What if this spread to Europe. Arabs do not have to fight anything. Just White people will impotent and Arabs can take over. After all Lady Diane Spencer has some sense to hitch with Egyptian
Actually sir, all races are showing signs of devolving intellectually, including Arabs, blowing each other up is a case in point. And in terms of genetics, outcrossing in better than line breeding occasionally to strengthen the bloodline whether we are talking about plants, horses, dogs or humans. Therefore, in humans whites crossing with blacks or asians would be a better way to lead to the genetic diversity. Such human outcrossing has been occurring for as long as humans have been explorers and traders.
I beg to differ, I have yet to meet a whiter president than Obama, I am more black than he is. Hope and pray is absolutly right.
Im going with Jody...every human population on earth seems to be getting less intelligent, and in turn, more destructive.
IDGC -- Interesting theory. If someone were to post a comment that Blacks were genetically predisposed to sit at the back of the bus, would you agree? Nope, and neither would most people. I'll just write you off as drunk, stoned, bored, or any combination of those.
I know the article discussed the changes over the last 5-10 thousand years but I find it odd that no mention is made of mans war against nature. We poison our air, water, soil, food, our bodies with chemicals from drugs, vaccines, products we apply to our hair and skin and unnatural foods we eat and drink. Geez, anyone think that these things might cause genetic mutations? We do everything we can to stop the process of natural selection and flaunt natural laws. Our narcissistic intellectualism drives us further and further away from the truth and blinds us to the fact that ignoring and breaking natural laws will only lead to more suffering and our demise.
If the natural selection was allowed to run as it was 10000 years ago, you (and 95% of current population) probably wouldn't exist. And even if you survived, there wouldn't be any Internet and computers around, to moan about ignoring natural laws.
If we survive the changes that we make to our environment it will be because we evolved to adapt to it. I really don't think our entire population will die out from pollution. For that matter I really don't think pollution is the cause of all mutations. They happen perfectly fine without pollution. Pollution is just another of the millions of selective pressures we face. In the long run life will survive, evolution will see to it.
Increases in genetic diversity is a sign of a healthy population. Reduced selective pressures and increased growth rates will inevitably result in more diversity. There is nothing detrimental going on here. Diversity = long term survival for a species.
We gots us a bad case of terminal civilization here. Between gene damaging chemicals and an amazing medical system that allows genetically damaged people to reproduce, we've got an ugly future ahead of us. As the better life filters into all the rest of earth's poplulation (don't get that IDGC smugness going on - schadendfreude is in your competitor's future and you're the target) it will become a pandemic problem.
I'm glad I got this freakishly good looks mutation. It's scary really. I don't know if this species could handle many more of me.
If the unfit can reproduce, it just means that their offspring will have to die in some future natural pressure. And its not the white race that is disappearing, the blacks are mixing with all other races and they will be gone in about 500 years.
Define unfit.
Unfit means unable to survive and reproduce. If these people are reproducing then they are fit enough. Whether it is our technology and civilization that provides them the ability to survive and reproduce is inconsequential. Our society after all, is part of our evolved behavior. It helps us survive by reducing selective pressures. We evolved the behavior of wearing clothes which enabled us "unfit" hairless apes the advantage of moving into colder climates. We are still here so something clearly makes us fit enough despite our lack of fur. Behavior is a powerful trait. Evolving to live in social groups is a powerful trait. Even the development of medical services was a powerful trait that we share. All of these behaviors make us able to survive. They all make us fit enough.
High mutation rates are not the same thing as a high prevalence of mutations. The first one means that individuals are facing increased rates of mutations in their offspring. There is no evidence of this. The second, high prevalence of mutations, means that across the entire population there is a high degree of diversity. This is a healthy phenomenon that occurs in healthy populations. It is a sign of our "fitness" as a species.
radagast: All is explained in one Bible verse " Romans 5:12
Not sure what sin has to do with evolution and diversity, but alright then.
Here's the $1,000,000 question in regards to this so called study. Where did the researchers find enough usable 5,000-10,000 years-old DNA that would allow them to perform a study of this magnitude? Sure, they had 6,500 modern samples to work with, but how many ancient samples did they have available to do their comparisons? Something tells me that this study may have been a huge waste of time and money.
What I got from this is that evolution is a farce.... Gene pools are getting worse with time not better.. It is more like regression than evolution..
No, the hypothesis of evolution is exactly what this is about. Mutations occur, some good but mostly bad. The good ones that help survival get passed on because the owner of the good new mutations lives longer or is a more desirable mate. The bad ones disappear because of early death or they are undesirable to mate with.
Humans are unique, though. We have culture. Perhaps that's why speech and a larger brain were so important to our survival. It is that culture allows us, as a species to survive and thrive. We are the only species ever known that could alter our environment in such dramatic fashion. With the advance of culture much of the natural selection aspect of evolution is negated thus removing the vital "survival of the fittest" aspect of it. Only a hundred years ago and abscessed tooth would have easily killed someone, an infection a death warrant, and genetic diseases could not be managed the way they are today. So, people with bad dental genes, poor immune system genes, and genetic diseases were less likely to reproduce and continue their gene pool. Today, human survival with abundant food supplies, medicine, and, for the most part, a species wide effort to aid the less fortunate not only dilutes our evolution but may even lead to de-evolution.
At least that is the theory. :)
nawtark, we should not speak about de-evolution as long as our species is not extinct ;)
Medicine and other niceties of civilization are, as you correctly noted, removing physical aspect of survival from the selection. Therefore, other criteria come forth: intellect, charisma or whatever else makes you successful in modern society. Where in the past survived smart AND strong, now it is (theoretically) enough to be smart. More people survive, and facilitate further civilization evolution.
I hope, that in a hundred years all these fears will be as funny to read, as nineteenth century prognoses about the greatest problem of big cities - heaps of dung from horses dragging carriages and wagons. Genetic sciences are developing amazingly fast, and in several decades there probably will be technology to alter specific genes not only in embrios, but in adult persons as well. After that it will be only question of cost, and yet another selective pressure will be lifted from homo sapiens.
The author of the article is wrong to conclude that these mutations weaken proteins. That is impossible to know without more study. The vast majority of mutations are neither good nor bad. Sometimes a mutation that causes a disease may actually benefit the animal in a different way. There are many such examples. In the end it is not a single gene that is selected for by evolution, but rather the entire collection of genes that makes the creature up. Genes work in tandem to produce the systems that make our bodies work. A beneficial gene in one person may be detrimental in another due to the influence of other genes. So the increase in mutations (not mutation rate!) provides us a powerful pool from which to continue to recombine our genes to produce ever more biochemical solutions. Diversity is a good thing!
The evolution of society and technology has enabled us to diversify our gene pool. This is not de-evolution, it is evolution as normal as it ever was. Behavioral adaptations to our environment such as society are as much a part of evolution as the evolution of teeth in a shark. Both enable these species to survive and thrive by changing how we interact with our environment. Teeth on a shark remove selective pressures by enabling it to feed on a wider variety of food. Society enables us to thrive by removing our need to struggle against the elements. By removing selective pressures we naturally see more diversity among our population. There is nothing detrimental about it. In actuality it is a benefit to the population and the species to have such diversity.
Eurotrash
I just love studies like this. I have Irish, German, English and Dutch heritage and I had a child with no help at 46 years old, and I'm still here, mother of 5 all pretty healthy even though our food is contaminated with pesticides, hormones and filthy growing conditions. I have great genes.Before we blame genetics for disease, let's look at the living conditions of Americans. Genetics have their place but it's clear to me that with a little more research and studies done on our food supplies we might improve the quality of life for all humans. I grew up eating clean farm food and part of that food came from fields in Missouri and California where we aren't growing food anymore. No we are getting our food from countries where they still use DDT and use human and animal waste to fertilize the food items. Crazy, Stupid people are controlling our food supply. I'll be surprised if any group survives the next 200 years the way we are going.
Here is what I have always suspected, the irony of advance civilization versus evolution. The European was able to advance their culture a great deal more than the African so with it comes the ability to allow "unfit" beings to survive, all the way from weaker and sicklier babies that would not have survived in the African tribe to the fact that civilized culture have laws that protect weaker human beings from being punching bags by stronger meaner folks. And I say this all from the evolutionary perspective where the DNA has managed to evolve by killing off its "weaker" mutation and it is a cruel yet necessary process. So there you go, here we are.
Yeah and how about those UK teeth ?Must be some kind of mandibular virus ..
There is one thing wrong with this study-
"more than 4,200 European-Americans and 2,200 African-Americans."
Of course more mutations willl be found in the larger sample.
It's not the number of mutations, it's the percentage.
You're welcome.
And kids... stay in school!
Of course it has to do with the population explosion. Humans like all species have to have time to evolve and build on that evolution to protect itself from mutation.
Common Sense when you think about it. Letting the population grow without checks and balances is against nature.
Evolution isn't about protecting a species from mutation. Without mutation there would be no evolution!
The development of behaviors such as communal living which eventually became our modern society are a perfect example of evolution. Our brains have evolved to build on society, to learn, to cooperate, to invent. Our society is as much a part of our evolution as are the teeth of a shark or the claws of a cat. These traits all reduce selective pressures in some way - sharks can eat almost anything, cats can climb trees and catch prey, humans can grow and distribute food and build shelters. The result of all of these adaptations is to allow other traits to diversify in an environment of reduced selective pressures. There is nothing against nature about it. We are successful and our population size demonstrates that. As a result we are experiencing diversity.
It's official! Us white people are simply crazy....lol.
So I'm confused...since we are "evolving" faster;
Will we be trolls or elves in 200 years?
Lesson learned whiteys....if we don't start inbreeding, this genetic diversity is going to kill us off...lol.
Based on Newsvine posts, I would guess trolls are in our future. :P
lmfao dude!....predictable but funny as hell.
This actually makes a good case to end war, because it kills off our strongest and brightest.
let see how the GMOs can work the dna here in the us and other places people consume gmos that is bit unknown but fairly predictable with this kind of tests coming out more and more
No idea what you are concerned about here. Do you hold the notion that eating GMOs results in the DNA from the plant somehow incorporating into your genome?? If that were the case then why doesn't this happen also with non-GMO plants? DNA is DNA after all.
Please get yourself a better understanding of biology and genetics.
Yes1fan,
"This actually makes a good case to end war, because it kills off our strongest and brightest."
I disagree....it helps kill off all the aggressive types...joking of course....sort of..
There are aggresive traits associated with certain genes that have succesfully been bred out of certain animals. How do you think we were blessed with mans best friend?
radagast could probably articulate something more intelligent since that one clearly has some knowledge on the subject but I do often wonder if war after war after war is killing off the more aggressive among us....one could only hope so for humanity's sake.