Slashdot Mirror


Human Genes Still Evolving

MediumFormat writes "The New York Times is running an article that discusses the continuing evolution of human genes. From the article: 'The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.' Darwin Awards aside, what made people think that evolution stopped with the modern era?"

5 of 810 comments (clear)

  1. Original paper by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Informative

    The PLOS biology article is available to everyone via Open Access.

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  2. Changes in DNA being made by both diet and habitat by manon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yesterday, I read this in the Guardian. It's a very interesting article about how, over the last 10.000 years, our DNA has been altered by what we eat and where we live.

    --
    42 + 1 = 42
  3. Re:Of course by mpe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course human genes are still evolving; you just have to examine what it is these days that limits people in reproductivity, and what encourages them. It's obvious that we, as a species, should ever so slightly more alcohol-resistant, because drunk driving kills a lot of young people before they can reproduce.

    Humans of European ancestory are already more resistant to alchol than most mammals. Because for a long time brewing was the normal method of purifying drinking water. Cars have only been around for just over a century, where as water living pathogens have been around a lot longer.

  4. Re:Cost of living by Bazzalisk · · Score: 5, Informative
    I think you miss the point.

    An evolutionary advantage is whatever passes your genes on to the next generation. Hence it is the poor not the rich that have it. Quality of life doesn't make a difference. Evolution is a simple dumb process, it holds no moral judgements whatsoever.

    --
    James P. Barrett
  5. Re:Weak and strong are cultural. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Informative

    >>Genetically, we have a concept called races.
    >No, we don't. Race is cultural, and is of little interest genetically.

    Really? Explain that to my black friend in 8th grade as he suffered during a sickle-cell anemia crisis.

    I'm sure he'd be happy to know that he can't have a disease that affects primarily African-Americans, because there are no genetic differences in races.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#G enetics

    Or to my Chinese roommate who lacks alcohol dehydrogenase enzymes in his liver and so has one drink and turns bright red. Embarassing for a guy who was in a frat that prized heavy drinking skills very highly. The enzyme deficiency has a huge penetration in Asia, something like up to 70% in some countries, a couple percent in Germany, 0% in Ireland. Go figure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase

    Or the Jewish student organization that sponsored a free screening day for Tay-Sachs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease

    The concept that race is solely a cultural construct is mere wishful thinking: "I wish there were no genetic differences in people, because then there'd be no racism, and we'd all live in a world filled with flowers and ponies." No, as we discover more about genetic diversity we learn which genes have greater tendencies in certain ethnic groups. This is NOT an excuse for racism -- the concept that one person can be somehow metaphysically superior than another due to skin pigmentation is absurd -- but denying uncontroversial science for political reasons is troubling as well.