• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Humans Still Evolving, Large-Scale Study of Genetic Data Shows"

Skwim

Veteran Member
"In a study analyzing the genomes of 210,000 people in the United States and Britain, researchers at Columbia University find that the genetic variants linked to Alzheimer's disease and heavy smoking are less frequent in people with longer lifespans, suggesting that natural selection is weeding out these unfavorable variants in both populations.

Researchers further find that sets of genetic mutations that predispose people to heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, and asthma, also appear less often in people who lived longer and whose genes are therefore more likely to be passed down and spread through the population. The results are published in the Sept. 5 issue of PLOS Biology.

"It's a subtle signal, but we find genetic evidence that natural selection is happening in modern human populations," said study coauthor Joseph Pickrell, an evolutionary geneticist at Columbia and New York Genome Center.

New favorable traits evolve when genetic mutations arise that offer a survival edge. As the survivors of each generation pass on those beneficial mutations, the mutations and their adaptive traits become more common in the general population. Though it may take millions of years for complex traits to evolve, say allowing humans to walk on two legs, evolution itself happens with each generation as adaptive mutations become more frequent in the population.

The genomic revolution has allowed biologists to see the natural selection process in action by making the genetic blueprint of hundreds of thousands of people available for comparison. By tracking the relative rise and fall of specific mutations across generations of people, researchers can infer which traits are spreading or dwindling."
source

.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I don't know. Evolution depends on survival pressure. Humans have the least survival pressure on Earth.

If anything, we're evolving to be more over weight and more idiotic.

Just an opinion...
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
New study proves that people who are healthy live longer!

Take that Creationists!
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know. Evolution depends on survival pressure. Humans have the least survival pressure on Earth.

If anything, we're evolving to be more over weight and more idiotic.

Just an opinion...
Just remember that sexual selection is as big if not a bigger evolutionary pressure than survival. And what counts towards sexual selection is not always physical strength or even survivability aids (re: peacocks). In fact the biggest and strongest getting the mate is a rather rare outlier evolutionarily speaking.
We are more like the bower birds of primates. Doesn't really matter what you look like so long as you got the flashy house.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
As long as we don't evolve too fast things will be fine (as told in the radio Hitchhiker's Guide). And,after all, the original natives on the Earth were "out evolved by a telephone sanitizer":

The Haggunennons of Azizatus Three have the most impatient chromosomes of any life-forms in the galaxy. Where as most races are content to evolve slowly and carefully over thousands of generations - discarding a prehensile toe here, nervously hazarding another nostril there, the Haggunennons would do for Charles Darwin what a squadron of Arcturan Stunt-Apples would have done for Sir Isaac Newton. Their genetic structure, based on the quadruple-striated octo-helix, is so chronically unstable, that far from passing their basic shape onto their children, they will quite frequently evolve several times over lunch. But they do this with such reckless abandon that if, sitting at table, they are unable to reach a coffee spoon, they are liable without a moments consideration to mutate into something with far longer arms - but which is probably quite incapable of drinking the coffee. This, not unnaturally, produces a terrible sense of personal insecurity and a jealous resentment of all stable life-forms, or “filthy rotten stinking samelings” as they call them. They justify this by claiming that as they have personally experienced what it is like to be virtually everybody else they can think of, they are in a very good position to appreciate all their worst points. This appreciation is usually military in nature and is carried out with unmitigated savagery from the gunrooms of their horribly beweaponed, chameleoid death flotilla. Experience has shown that the most effective way of dealing with any Haggunennon you may meet is to run away… terribly fast.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Just remember that sexual selection is as big if not a bigger evolutionary pressure than survival. And what counts towards sexual selection is not always physical strength or even survivability aids (re: peacocks). In fact the biggest and strongest getting the mate is a rather rare outlier evolutionarily speaking.
We are more like the bower birds of primates. Doesn't really matter what you look like so long as you got the flashy house.
Donald Trump being a perfect example.


donald%2Btrump.jpe
1450216930404.jpg
donald-trump.jpg


.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So people who live longest tend to be healthier? What's that have to do with evolution?

It's reproduction more than longevity that drives natural selection; raising children to breeding age. Once someone's raised his/her kids, living longer or healthier won't contribute anything to the gene pool.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
"In a study analyzing the genomes of 210,000 people in the United States and Britain, researchers at Columbia University find that the genetic variants linked to Alzheimer's disease and heavy smoking are less frequent in people with longer lifespans, suggesting that natural selection is weeding out these unfavorable variants in both populations.

Researchers further find that sets of genetic mutations that predispose people to heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, and asthma, also appear less often in people who lived longer and whose genes are therefore more likely to be passed down and spread through the population. The results are published in the Sept. 5 issue of PLOS Biology.

"It's a subtle signal, but we find genetic evidence that natural selection is happening in modern human populations," said study coauthor Joseph Pickrell, an evolutionary geneticist at Columbia and New York Genome Center.

New favorable traits evolve when genetic mutations arise that offer a survival edge. As the survivors of each generation pass on those beneficial mutations, the mutations and their adaptive traits become more common in the general population. Though it may take millions of years for complex traits to evolve, say allowing humans to walk on two legs, evolution itself happens with each generation as adaptive mutations become more frequent in the population.

The genomic revolution has allowed biologists to see the natural selection process in action by making the genetic blueprint of hundreds of thousands of people available for comparison. By tracking the relative rise and fall of specific mutations across generations of people, researchers can infer which traits are spreading or dwindling."
source

.

Not sure how a longer life correlates to passing on favorable genes. How many women over the age of 70 are going to be procreating?

15, 16 even younger you can pass on your DNA.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Just remember that sexual selection is as big if not a bigger evolutionary pressure than survival. And what counts towards sexual selection is not always physical strength or even survivability aids (re: peacocks). In fact the biggest and strongest getting the mate is a rather rare outlier evolutionarily speaking.
We are more like the bower birds of primates. Doesn't really matter what you look like so long as you got the flashy house.

Is there really a sexual selection with humans?

The idea is simple with animals. Select the right mate so that the next generation has a better chance to succeed. Is that true even with humans?

I don't think so. I agree with other animals but not with humans.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't know. Evolution depends on survival pressure. Humans have the least survival pressure on Earth.

If anything, we're evolving to be more over weight and more idiotic.

Just an opinion...
They will probably tell you people in the Bible live to be about 800- 900 years old.

*Grin*
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
If anything, we're evolving to be more over weight and more idiotic.

You probably hit much closer to the mark than you intended here. I think it's pretty much self-evident that humans are still evolving: Because they used to evolve in the past.

But what do you guys think would happen if ALL humans decided to never use their legs for the next million years? Or if we decided it's much more fun to live in the sky with a balloon strapped to your back for an equal amount of time.

I'm guessing changes would result.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know. Evolution depends on survival pressure. Humans have the least survival pressure on Earth.

If anything, we're evolving to be more over weight and more idiotic.

Just an opinion...

I've had the same thought more than once...
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member

That article has many hypothesis and theories that makes sense.

However, humans is the one species where procreation has been made more of a choice than a necessity. Attractive folks will be drawn to each other. Non-attractive folks will be drawn to each other. Also, it is not a requirement to be rich in order to reproduce. There is no pressure on humans to reproduce and bring their children to adulthood. Some children might have a bad childhood experience but in general they will all survive. They might not have fancy things or go to elite schools, but they will survive and procreate.

Being ugly, weak, or poor does not stop humans from reproducing.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Researchers further find that sets of genetic mutations that predispose people to heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, and asthma, also appear less often in people who lived longer and whose genes are therefore more likely to be passed down and spread through the population. The results are published in the Sept. 5 issue of PLOS Biology.

There is no link between a longer lifespan and the passing of genes. This is nonesensical. Most people have children between 20-40 years old. Even people for people who have "bad" genes. So those "bad" genes have the same chance to get passed along as the "good" ones. The only thing that would change that is of 60+ year old people with the "good" genes started having children. This is highly unliikely as most women enter menopause at 49-52. Menopause - Wikipedia

Whoever did this "research" is out of touch with reality.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That article has many hypothesis and theories that makes sense.

However, humans is the one species where procreation has been made more of a choice than a necessity. Attractive folks will be drawn to each other. Non-attractive folks will be drawn to each other. Also, it is not a requirement to be rich in order to reproduce. There is no pressure on humans to reproduce and bring their children to adulthood. Some children might have a bad childhood experience but in general they will all survive. They might not have fancy things or go to elite schools, but they will survive and procreate.

Being ugly, weak, or poor does not stop humans from reproducing.
Nor does being dim, asthmatic, nearsighted or crippled.
Think about it.
 
Top