
Darwinian selection continues to influence human evolution - llambda
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430152037.htm
======
pathdependent
What I found most surprising was learning that controversy surrounds the
assertion that we are still evolving! The alternative hypothesis -- that
technological and social _innovation_ have arrested genetic evolution -- seems
fantastical to me. The sun does not revolve around the earth; evolution does
not bow to mankind.

~~~
philwelch
Think of all the people you know who couldn't function without glasses or
medication, and imagine a world where they all died. Evolution does not bow to
mankind, but we've thrown sand in the gears for sure.

~~~
pathdependent
It's like squeezing a balloon. We haven't alleviated the pressure of
evolution, we've only shifted it. While science and medicine have ameliorated
many of our biological weaknesses -- genetic or sporadic -- other cues have
taken there place. What is (temporally) being selected for is a more
interesting question.

~~~
philwelch
Evolution can be increased or decreased easily. Natural selection is a result
of death. More death means more natural selection, and less death means less
natural selection. We've reduced death tremendously, and hence reduced natural
selection.

 _Sexual_ selection is quite a different animal, but we can't take as a given
that sexual selection increases as natural selection decreases. It might; I
just don't know any reason that it would. And there are reasons that even
sexual selection would diminish--for various reasons, I don't think anyone
today could have nearly as many children as Genghis Khan did.

~~~
lrhot9
No, natural selection is a result of differences in reproductive success.
We've lowered death, but does that somehow ensue that everyone has exactly the
same number of surviving grandchildren? 30% of german women never reproduce.
Among female graduates, the figure is 40%. From an evolutionary standpoint,
they might as well never have lived.

~~~
wladimir
_From an evolutionary standpoint, they might as well never have lived_

There is the distinct possibility that they affected the chance for others to
reproduce or survive. So you are right about their individual evolution, but
they were likely part of group or species evolution.

In bees and other hive insects this effect is most pronounced, as there are
only only a few individuals in the hive that _can_ reproduce. But with only
them, the hive would die out, so the rest is useful from an evolutionary
standpoint.

------
gliese1337
Reprinted from a news release at
[http://www.shef.ac.uk/mediacentre/2012/darwin-evolution-
natu...](http://www.shef.ac.uk/mediacentre/2012/darwin-evolution-natural-
selection-lummaa-courtiol.html), but still no actual data.

It would be nice to know what current selection effects actually are;
otherwise, it seems like kind of a "well, duh" announcement. After all,
everyone knows that some people still have more grandkids than other people
do.

------
waxjar
I'm surprised this is considered news and that it made the front page. Of
course natural selection is still at work. Anyone who finds that surprising
doesn't really understand evolution theory.

------
ktizo
In other news, gravity continues to work, but geometry takes a tumble when a
regular polygon is discovered that has four and a half sides...

~~~
justncase80
You stole the snark right out of my comment :)

~~~
ktizo
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with
care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage
the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What i tell you three times
is true."

