
Researchers Say Data From an Island in Quebec Proves Humans Are Still Evolving - pmcpinto
http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the-rhythm-of-the-tide-rp
======
vessenes
I'm mystified at the conclusions drawn by the data; islanders changed at what
age they tended to have children.

There's absolutely no discussion of cultural impact whatsoever as a cause;
these islanders were not cut off from the rest of the world; they speak French
for goodness sake!

Despite this omission, there's much talk of cultural changes on the island now
that tourism is a big thing, so it's on the radar of the journalist.

I just don't understand how you can jump to 'groundbreaking change in genetic
theory' from 'birth dates changed'.

I'm not even that against the proposal -- if I look at what selective breeding
can do in say dogs, it makes sense to me that environment would encourage
rapid genetic changes at times. Fine; but this article neither proves that
genetic changes are the cause here, nor even attempts to provide an
environmental explanation that could cause such a shift.

~~~
davidw
There must be some science there, but between all the place and people
descriptions and other stuff, it felt pretty glossed over.

------
zzalpha
Random aside: am I the only one who finds Nautilus articles are often
needlessly padded?

I get the goal of writing a story-style magazine science article. I've read my
fair share, and executed well, they can make for an enjoyable read.

But this article feels like 50% uninspired travel diary...

~~~
thomas
>> But this article feels like 50% uninspired travel diary...

Exactly. Could have done with something half the length (and twice as
informative).

------
ChuckMcM
Personally, I would find it more astonishing if we proved humans were _not_
evolving.

~~~
mindcrime
Came here to say the same thing. I mean, what reason would we have to believe
that evolution has stopped??? I suppose you can argue that technology has
eliminated some evolutionary pressures, but from what I can see, that just
moves the goalposts around a bit, it doesn't eliminate them.

~~~
chipperyman573
Evolution requires survival of the fittest to still be a thing. If the weak
die off faster than the strong, the strong have a better chance of
reproducing. Then their superior genes are passed on, etc... However, this is
no longer as much the case. People who have weaker immune systems, for
example, can take medicine to prevent dying from a (previously fatal)
sickness.

~~~
mindcrime
_Then their superior genes are passed on, etc... However, this is no longer as
much the case._

It's still absolutely the case... it's just that the fitness function has
changed. Now evolution isn't testing to see who can outrun a wooly mammoth or
sabre-tooth tiger, or survive without food for 27 straight days, or to see who
has the strongest immune system. Now it's testing to see who can navigate
their way through high-school, get into a good college, choose a valuable
major, get a degree, and get a job making beau-coup money. Since it is still
the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive
opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc.

All of that said, let's not ignore that the physical stuff still matters as
well. Unless a lot has changed in the 20 some odd years since I was in high-
school, the jocks on the football team are still getting laid more than most
guys. And being bigger and stronger and more physically fit is still
correlated with success in the worlds of business and politics. I don't have
the reference handy, but I'm pretty sure I've seen studies showing that taller
men are more likely to be elected in political races. And having political
power, again, tends to lead to more reproductive success, etc.

~~~
pharrington
> Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more
> reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc.

That's nice. Financially secure people tend to have way less children then the
working class/poor. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough
to reproduce.

~~~
mindcrime
_Financially secure people tend to have way less children_

That's a fair point, but then we also have to ask "do they have fitter
children in turn"? Sexual selection would suggest that more fit individuals
seek out and mate with other more fit individuals, as each tries to maximize
the fitness of the vessel carrying their genes. If that's the case, I wonder
what the effect of that is, carried over multiple generations. I haven't spent
a lot of time thinking about this, and I really don't have an answer, but it's
worth pondering.

 _Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce._

Just living long enough isn't enough, you also have to be able to attract a
mate to reproduce with. I suspect it is the case that in modern times, sexual
selection is more of a factor in human evolution than survival selection.

Nonetheless, you guys do make a good point about the wealthy/educated having
less children. We humans have complicated things by creating things like birth
control and by evolving our thinking minds which (in theory) allow us to
override the imperative of our "selfish" genes. :-)

~~~
pharrington
I think it's really, _really_ easy to have sex. Like, be young or/and drunk,
and it will happen by accident. But the part that's not opinion is that once
sex is in play, birth control requires additional energy and resources that
positively affect those with less social power.

e: i think i meant to say birth control (evolutionarily) negatively affects
those with more social power

------
kbenson
> The idea that some of the best evolutionary data could come from church
> archives was both astonishing and exciting.

It really shouldn't be (astonishing, that is). As major social, political and
_educational_ structures that were, at least in some cases and locations,
largely exempt from the greater political upheavals and wars, they should be
considered a first choice to search for a lot of data that has to do with
human history.

------
perlgeek
> That human evolution has continued into modern times was, until recently, a
> mostly theoretical idea debated among experts because there simply was no
> data.

No? I thought that humans used to be all lactose intolerant, and that the
ability to digest lactose was a rather recent mutation that's for example more
spread in Europa than in East Asia.

To me that's a perfect example of modern humans still evolving genetically.

------
collyw
Why would you assume it stopped?

------
bakhy
first thought: why would this be interesting? of course we are. but then i
remembered all the radically religious nutjobs. :S

~~~
unit91
There are Christians who believe the neo-Darwinian synthesis is correct [1]
and atheists who don't [2][3].

[1] [https://biologos.org/](https://biologos.org/)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-
Darwinian-...](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-
Conception/dp/0199919755)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-
Fodor/dp/03126...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-
Fodor/dp/031268066X)

------
cfontes
Evolving yeah, but toward what?

We completely screwed natural selection, so I guess bad genes will be creeping
into the population for a long time, things like cancer, malformations and
genetic related diseases will be blooming like crazy in the next centuries.

Let's hope medicine keeps up with it.

~~~
jegutman
Evolution doesn't have a direction, it's an explanation of a thing that
happens. Diversity in the gene pool is almost certainly a plus for the long-
term survival of the species, but it's marginal, must like everything that
would determine the long-term survival of the species.

Almost all diseases that happen after a species' reproductive age is very
difficult to select out either in a positive or negative way unless it happens
to be strongly genetically linked (either through sharing genes or being very
close on a chromosome) to a different positive or negative trait. Even then in
the long run the survival of that trait will be dominated by its independent
characteristics.

The way to flip this around is that you could also look at the "survival" of
the disease, disorder, etc. Not that we WANT these to survive, but they either
will or won't. If a disease causes death 100% of the time at age 2 and
provides no other benefits in the carrier / recessive trait it tends not to
last in the gene pool for very long.

~~~
liamconnell
> Almost all diseases that happen after a species' reproductive age is very
> difficult to select out either in a positive or negative way unless it
> happens to be strongly genetically linked (either through sharing genes or
> being very close on a chromosome) to a different positive or negative trait.

Well that's not entirely true. I think humans evolved (and still evolve) on a
tribal level. So an individual's traits that strengthen the tribe are also
good for the survival of the tribe since one's entire gene pool would be wiped
if the neighboring tribe killed all of you, even if the individual is post-
reproductive age. I find that most people never talk about evolution on a
tribal level like this.

