ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



How we're evolving

Posted: Monday, October 19, 2009 7:20 PM by Alan Boyle


UW-Madison
Anthropologist John Hawks makes a study of skulls.

Our skulls and our genes show that we're still evolving, but not always in the ways you might expect.

For example, the typical human head has actually been getting smaller over the past few thousand years, reversing the earlier evolutionary trend. Meanwhile, East Asians are becoming lighter-skinned - and appear to have more sensitive hearing than their ancestors did 10,000 years ago.

John Hawks, an anthropologist and blogger at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, points to such trends as evidence that "recent evolution is real."

Hawks delved into a few of his favorite scientific tales over the weekend in Austin, Texas, at the annual CASW New Horizons in Science meeting.

You've no doubt heard some of those tales already. There's the one about the genetic mutation about 7,500 years ago that enhanced Europeans' ability to digest milk in adulthood - which in turn encouraged the rise of dairy farming. And then there's the still-debated claim that early humans' skin became lighter as they migrated northward because the need for vitamin D absorption outweighed the risk of skin cancer.

Other researchers have found that several genetic strategies for fighting off malaria have arisen among populations in sub-Saharan Africa, including a mutation that can also lead to sickle-cell anemia.

Such findings have come about thanks to detailed studies of how genetic mutations are passed along - and how beneficial mutations tend to become more widespread, even if those benefits are accompanied by secondary risks. The fingerprint of such changes, Hawks said, is a phenomenon known as linkage disequilibrium, in which characteristic snippets of genetic code show up in combination among members of a population. The level of genetic linkage can indicate how much of a role natural selection is playing in particular genes.

Hawks said about 3,000 of the genes that distinguish humans from chimpanzees show signs of linkage disequilibrium - and that suggests that a quarter of the evolutionary divergences between the two genomes are continuing today.

It's not just genes that are revealing these changes. One of Hawks' specialties is measuring how the typical shape of human skulls has changed over the course of thousands of years. The current view, based on skull measurements as well as genetics, is that the modern head isn't as "long" as it was 10,000 years ago, with a resulting reduction in brain volume. "Brains are shrinking," Hawks said.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing: The brain is the human body's hungriest organ, consuming half of the glucose we take in. The modern brain may be packing more power into a smaller space and as a result cutting down on the biological energy requirements - with the help of external memory devices.

"What do we need these brains for? We've got iPods," Hawks joked.

But often we're too close to the situation to second-guess what natural selection is doing to us. "Efficiency demands that the brain should be smaller," Hawks said. "Maybe we got better with smaller brains, but I gotta tell you that maybe we're getting dumber. How can we know?"

That aura of uncertainty applies to other ongoing evolutionary changes as well. One of the genes under heavy selection in East Asian populations plays a role in the development of the inner ear's machinery. That suggests that more sensitive hearing may be conferring some sort of advantage on those populations, and Hawks speculates that it may have something to do with the tonal character of most Asian languages. That's only a guess, however.

The guesswork becomes even murkier when it comes to figuring out why genetic coding linked to redheadedness and lighter skin color is becoming more prevalent among Asians. "Our species is evolving like crazy in pigmentation in different ways in different populations, presumably because of the same underlying selection pressures," Hawks said.

Hawks doesn't think the vitamin D factor alone can explain why skin color is being affected by natural selection. Some theorists, including Charles Darwin himself, have suggested that sexual selection may be at work - that having lighter skin somehow improves an individual's reproductive prospects. But in this more evolved age, voicing that kind of view can make your typical researcher sound like a Neanderthal.

So what does Hawks think is behind the skin-color issue? "That's a box I don't want to open," he told me.

Further thoughts from John Hawks:

  • Some genetic mutations confer clear benefits on the folks who have them but may not spread widely among populations because they don't enhance reproductive fitness, Hawks. Classic examples would be mutations that tend to extend longevity, such as the one that gives Italian villagers in Limone sul Garda extra resistance to cardiovascular disease.

  • The recent analysis of a 4.4 million-year-old hominid fossil known as Ardi could lead to big changes in how we view our evolutionary family tree. "It's not a tree. It's not a bush. It's like a network where things reconnect," Hawks told me. The latest findings suggest that the common ancestor for chimps and humans was less chimplike than previously thought. In some areas - for example, the hands - humans may be considered more "primitive" than chimps, Hawks pointed out.

The New Horizons in Science seminar is presented annually by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. I've been on CASW's board for several years, and this year I'm serving as the organization's treasurer.

Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my book, "The Case for Pluto," which is coming out this month.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

How can humans still be evolving without natural selection taking place? Since our societies provide safety nets for the poor and less fortunate, the stronger no longer out produce the weaker. In fact, in some societies the opposite may be true.
Hahaha - so funny

Nothing in this country is stopping any idiot from surviving.  No surprise the average brain is shrinking.  Who needs a brain when the government is going to provide for your every need?

hahhahhahahhahah
Saying "But in this more evolved age, voicing that kind of view can make your typical researcher sound like a Neanderthal." shows the author is swayed by current social trends and is not a very scientific attitude. Attempting to label anyone a rascist or insinuating it just because they explore certain possibilities is very superficial and stymies scientific development.
we become  what we practice . we adapt to environment and continuos activities . it improves efficiency . drops the  unused .  like a couch  potato looses muscle , and a weight lifter gets them bigger . if it continues thru generations we pass it on or kick it out .
Loren, don't be dumb. The BRAIN isn't shrinking, it's the skull. White matter carries more data than gray matter, so perhaps we have more of that. And what with cave men not banging cave women over the head with clubs anymore, perhaps we don't need all that bone covering our brains. Think about it--no one wants to mate with anyone who has a freakishly big head, do they?
Ron,

In the absence on strong environmental selection pressure, a species still changes due to sexual selection or undirected drift. It may not be making us "better", but it is still evolution.
Ron, of course natural selection still continues.  What has changed are the conditions that favor reproduction and survival.
It is interesting that recent evolutionary changes have been occurring; as in the examples of hearing and lighter skin pigmentation in East Asian populations over the last 10,000 years.  Even though those examples are regional and geographical, that would still agree with evolutionary theory.  

Human populations have shown increasing density over the last 10,000 years with a radical upward shift in the recent 100 year. It might be that within the next 100 years a population crash could occur; therefore reducing the total population to under a Billion indivdiuals that are geographically disbursed.  If that were to occur, it might take several thousand years to rebuild the population numbers.  Yet, this would further allow regional areas to accumulate unique alleles and genes in regional areas of evolution.

I've been hearing this from several different sources that "We are still evolving". Mostly the citations are for increased genetic diversity, due to much greater human populations,(more genes);intermingling of various local peoples (cross genes); and time. There is no mention of the basic requirement of evolution,.....SELECTION!

Genetic variation does not equal evolution.

Without selection, natural or otherwise, species do not evolve!

There are plenty of examples of genetic variation that, so far, have not resulted in an evolved human.

Show me the genetic bottleneck that has "recently" occured that forced human genetics into an evolutionary sieve, and I might buy it. Otherwise I am beginning to wonder what they teach about human evolution in universities today.
There is nothting in here about us getting smarter,which we are supposed to have gotten a brain for to evolve!?
People, you are forgetting, natural selection is only partly about dying or not dying. It is also very much about producing offspring. And, of course, if we evolve to produce many offspring, then it will be more about not dying. Cleverness evolves most during hard times, pretty obvious I think. However, in no way should we encourage Darwinistic practices, after all, morality is about altruism, not about winning.  It does not really matter if you or I procreate successfully, natural selection works on whoever is around, and pushes them in the same direction. So we have no control over what our descendants are like, that is our of our control.
jim,
What you just described is known as Lamarck's theory of need. It's not very popular anymore and Darwin's work (which is the type of evolution the author is referring to) contradicts it.
It may not be politically correct to say so but I would hazard a guess that it is sexual partner selection and racial based wars, not natural selection (mutation of genes) that has been the driving force behind the changes seen over the relative short term of 100,000 years.
Compassion for others who are less fortunate and helping them is not a weakness, it is what an enlightened soceity does.  Those who constantly defend the position to end welfare and that healthcare should be only for those who can pay for it are the true neanderthals in America today.
I find it funny that you cannot prove any of this, but you believe that we evolved from primates. Evolution is nothing but a theory, but when you have the Bible right in front of you and it has been proven that God created this world, yet so many people just choose to ignore and find it more fasinating to think that everything just formed on its own. I feel very sorry for all of you who choose to ignore Gods exsistance and will be going to Hell for that. I pray that God will work in your heart and open your eyes.
Ron, go back and read the definition of natural selection. Being considered attractive is an aspect of natural selection.

Mark Spivey, we don't know what the researcher was going to say. Maybe it was going to be something that makes whites look heartless and analytical. In any case, it wouldn't have been a fact. After all, he was asked his opinion.
Those who bind together in groups can outperform "stronger" individuals. The "strong" individuals get used and discarded by what's actually the more potent group dynamic.

You can call it a "safety net for the poor and less fortunate," but from an evolutionary perspective they're going to be stronger, and they're using and discarding those with foolish individual egos. :)
Is adaptation physically and culturally to an environment rightly called evolution? Also, doesn't diet as well as climate potentially play a role in longevity and other so called evolutionary advances? Im just asking, Thanks
This country now thinks John Wayne is the most evolved species. John Wayne could hack his way through any jungle. John Wayne can stand on his own two feet. And of course that prototypical John Wayne has to be a Republican. Because Democrats are inferior left-wingers and wusses. Right? Right? Do you really believe that if the music ever stopped only you would be out there pitching a tent and surviving while the rest of us rejects would die out because we're an inferior species? You really ought to sit down with a psychiatrist for several years.
Are we getting dumber because our brains are getting smaller, or are our brains getting smaller because we're getting dumber?

Spend a couple million on THAT question.
I want to mate with someone that has a freakishly big head.
No one even knows what Random Genetic Shift is. Creationism --making stupid people feel smart since 1979.
Yes, it is important to remember that just staying alive isn't natural selection; an individual has to do more than that to pass on their genetic code. For an individual to do this successfully they not only have to reproduce, but their offspring has to be able to reproduce as well. So when we evaluate the possible conditions of evolution we need to not only incorporate individual survival, but the survival of generations to come.

Mark - I had the same thought. It seems odd to propagate the notion that sexual selection is taboo. It's an underlying fundamental of psychological evolution and deserves study. And to expand on sexual selection: how much of it is driven by our cultures? Are some of the selected traits in a mate defined not necessarily only by our individual psychology but out social psychology as well?
Matt, in a society that advocates and subsidizes the survival and reproduction for ALL through the forced redistribution of wealth, natural selection is fast becoming obsolete.
The smaller skull size could be do to sexual selection.  Most Men prefer a more slender Female, and the skull is shrinking to accommodate a Womans' smaller hip structure.
Natural selection is always taking place however, the fact is that we don't need the big brain anymore to survive.  Plus, by changing the protection measures we have in place for people, we are removing the most effective part of natural selection.  I.E. if we didn't have seat belt laws, eventually everyone would be wearing seat belts because those who didn't would be much more likely to die and evolution would kick in.  Because we have our decision made for us we aren't exposed to the danger anymore and therefore any gene that mutates to make it more likely that someone would wear a seatbelt is not selected for (those who don't have it can still procreate and don't die).  The more we protect ourselves in these ways the more we will continue to lose our survival instincts as a species.  That's just the way it goes.  We are becoming "dumber" in some ways we don't need the big brain to house a high degree of sensory apparatus because we are too well protected in our environment.  We don't need to be able to smell and hear and see to survive.  The mutation for nearsightedness wouldn't have lasted very long in the past when we had to see our environment.  Now it's not a big deal because we use tools to overcome the issues, and nearsighted people procreate instead of being eaten by a lion.  
"Survival of the fittest" means just that. Survive long enough to reproduce. Never has the theory been stated "Comfortable, stable life of the most beneficial and intelligent". Therefore, for persons living in hostile enviroments it would be key to reproduce rapidly to ensure survival of the group. "Natural selection" is another factor. A sports car and large breasts will help one in that area. As a fan of both, I can assure you that neither is a sign of superiority or inferiority but a cultural trend that can exhibit a genetic spike in the area of effect. Keep in mind that implants are not genetic and will produce a statistical anomaly.
Intraspecies variation is very real.  It's how you get from a wolf to a weiner dog.  It happens in all species, including humans.  That's the nature of DNA. It's only when one tries to use the fact of intraspecies variation to justify the unsubstantiated idea of macroevolution (new organs, new successful body structures, etc. formed through DNA mutation)--something that has never actually been observed in nature--that the theory starts to fall apart.
When we hear "survival of the fittest", we tend to think of physical survival. Seems to me that in this day and age, 'sexual selection' (as mentioned above) would come into play more than physical survival. So a person living to a ripe old age but never successfully mating could be considered an evolutionary 'loser' while someone dying young but mating often in their short years would not.

But this raises a question: what about homosexuality? If there is a genetic component then by the above criterion, it should be deselected from the gene pool.
Ron, even if there were no pressures from Natural Selection currently influencing humans (which is not the case), there are still three other fundamental forces of evolution, mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Evolution is much more than Natural Selection!
How can any of this be true since the Earth was created only about 6 thousand years ago, and we are all decedents of Adam and Eve!
That the asians tend to get whiter might just be a cultural thing. I've noticed that (for one reason or another) asian women tend to whiten their skins using makeup and other things. Also they seem to prefer european men.
My wife (asian, I'm european), says it's like this because white people are higher up on the desirability-ranking than other-coloured people and that, usually, white(r) people get better jobs and wages than others in her old country.

Frankly, the fact that the researcher doesn't want to open that box kind of worries me. Is being politically correct more important than being scientifically correct? Are scientists turning into politicians?
Jim, you are way off the mark.  We do not inherit acquired characterstics.  That is Lamarckism thinking, and has long been discredited.
I just want to remind people that the USA is not the only country that exists with evolving humans in it and people are dieing all over the globe through warfare and disease.  

Oh, and just because an organ is shrinking does not mean that it is worse off then its previous versions.  Example: The sperm whale currently has the biggest brain, yet we still think that we are the smartest mammal on this rock. (This doesn't fit the logic I am reading above.)

I have a freakishly large head and I mate on a constant basis thank you.
Ron, I may be beating a dead horse here, but being "fit" doesn't mean being taller, stronger, more attractive, living longer, or earning more money.  It simply means better able to reproduce in a given environment.  Only the stopping of time will stop evolution.
Ron, another thing: the creation of those safety nets could be said to be a new evolutionary trait in the behavioral dynamics of our population, making us better at outcompeting other species which lack those social structures.  Evolution in action.
Natural selection, adaptation, and speciation doesn't necessarily make the giant leaps of neo-Darwinism.  Natural selection and adaptive radiation just show variation within a certain kind.  Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with LESS information than is present in modern cells.  Your use of the word "evolution" could be rather misleading in that sense.
The theory of evolution is the only thing evolving.  Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  

He loves you all.
And evolution will be quickened as geographic movement becomes easier...
This supports a perspective that about 10,000 years ago man had reached his intellectual peak, resulting in the Egyptian and other early high civilizations.  They were smarter, not dumber than man today.
Efficiency or lack of use causes the brain to get smaller? At what point does it decide to stop? Better hearing than 10K years ago? Uh, you must be kidding. Too bad we won't be around 200 years from now to realize how ridiculous this science is. We are not changing. We've been the same species for as long as history has been written. Let's go by what we actually know. Using the word "tales" is the right description.
Trust me, we still have natural selection.  It's called "health care".  
Just spend a few weeks in Thailand and you will know what skin cream companies there already know. Light skin is desirable. Period. PC (for us) or not, in Thai society at least, light skin is in, dark skin is not. Pure and simple. Why is it such a painfull box to open? If I have light furred cats and dark furred cats, and I breed more of the former, I get more with light fur. If I keep the preference going, I end up with lighter cats on average than dark.
Once again we fail to see the difference between evolution and natural selection. We are changing as we adapt to different enviorments and living conditions. There is still no evidence that we are chnaging into another animal kind. We are still human. The power of the press to manipulate how we understand evolution is close to brianwashing as we can get. Everything is persent as "fact" and is therefore considered undisputable. When it is all based on interpretation of the facts, based on what  ever bias you start with. There is no such thing as an unbias open mind scientist. They all have presuppositions they start with. I am guessing, in the above article it is that God does not exist or if He does that Genesis is not to be believed as written. All bias, that control how they look at the evidence. I can imagine that MSNBC will never publish anything that remotely questions anything about evolution at least in a fair and rational way.
Mark Spivey, how else was the author supposed to setup an unanswered question?  Skin color is an integral part to evolutionary trends; Hawks didn't leave Boyle with much to write about.
The trend toward lighter skin may be a by-product of some other change.  For example, a scientist bred foxes to be tame around humans.  In the process, they developed spotted coats and floppy ears -- much as what happened when dogs evolved from wolves.  It could be that the trend towards lighter skin is a by-product of humans becoming more "domesticated" and less wild.
Problem solving abilities are required less in more structured culture, and I believe that abilities that derive from the combination of problem solving and memory knowledge are also diminishing. On average, we may not be as intelligent as the previous generation, and the next generation may be less intelligent still. During most of our evolution we have been expanding our brains in concert with developing mechanical technology with the advantage of a higher oxygen atmosphere that allows greater brain metabolism. The combination of less demand on our brains with less oxygen will lead to a different kind of human than what existed, even in the recent past.
Dont' be silly...I went to church the other night, they said there is no such thing as evolution.  Sheesh.
Schooly, The author clearly states the following:
"The current view, based on skull measurements as well as genetics, is that the modern head isn't as "long" as it was 10,000 years ago, with a resulting reduction in brain volume. "Brains are shrinking," Hawks said." AND "Efficiency demands that the brain should be smaller," Hawks said. "Maybe we got better with smaller brains, but I gotta tell you that maybe we're getting dumber. How can we know?"
You should understand what you're reading before you go into attack mode.
Just watch the first 10 minutes of 'Idiocracy' as they explain why humans lost their intelligence. It's hilarious and a little scary.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2102460

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google