3 ms·

I would be very interested to read an academic paper that made this point. 200 years is a blink of an eye in almost any vertebrate's evolutionary time. Also, t

by evolve2017 9y ago

I would be very interested to read an academic paper that made this point. 200 years is a blink of an eye in almost any vertebrate's evolutionary time. Also, to support your claim, one would need evidence that the child mortality of the past reflected genetic unfitness (as opposed to poverty or the unavailability of antibiotics).

sillysaurus3 9y ago
200 years is a decent chunk of time from an evolutionary standpoint. We feel it's short because of how long our history has been. But within 200 years you can manufacture N new breeds of dogs, for example. We just underestimate how much change takes place in the world.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Dogs are fertile at 1 or 2 years of age. You can do an awful lot more in 100-150 generations than you can in 10-15 generations (probably more like 6-8. Checking my family tree, many of my great-great grandparents were born ~1850, so for me personally, 5 or 6 generations). In any case, we have to go back to the question that the GP asked, that dogs are malleable doesn't help us. Does reduced child mortality really cause more mutations to accumulate?
- evolve2017 9y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding my point, but maybe I shouldn't have taken vertebrates as an example; we can of course imagine some island where massive selection pressures lead to speciation. I would be interested if you have such an example. However, dog breeds are not species and, given their non-random mating, don't really tell us much about whether 200 years is long in vertebrate evolutionary time. As far as humans go, I will grant that allele frequencies may have changed if you pick an isolated subpopulation of humans (say, everyone in Greenland) but even that seems extremely unlikely. As an aside, there are researchers who are using the caste system in India as a way to explore genetic architectures within a civilization. As these castes have existed for considerably longer than the period we're discussing, meaningful allele frequency changes may arise.
roceasta 9y ago
I'm not making a formal claim just sharing my thoughts. Though I do believe at least one evolutionary biologist has written about this: Hamilton W.D. (1999). The hospitals are coming. Narrow roads of gene land (Oxford University Press). Btw the phenomenon of 'mutational meltdown' is a closely related topic and may re-pay googling.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  It seems to be a philosophical position more than anything: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof97.htm http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof97.htm I would guess it is wrong; we are on a track where genetic manipulation to treat blatant defects will (relatively shortly) be cheaper than the traditional medical treatments.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    this worry is not a fringe concern: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Your link proposes that we will be able to manage mutations using genetic engineering. Parents could choose to have children created from their healthiest genes, rather than leaving children to be shotgunned with a random and increasing fraction of damaged genes. Genetic repair would replace the ancient cruelty of natural selection, which only fights entropy by tormenting organisms because of their genes. The concern espoused above is that we won't be able to fix the problem.
      - visarga 9y ago
        > natural selection, which only fights entropy by tormenting organisms because of their genes Now that's a limited view of the process that created life. Natural evolution also pays back by upgrading the gene pool.
telotortium 9y ago
This isn't an academic paper but at least one academic, John Tooby, has gone on the record as strongly believing that mutations are accumulating in the human population due precisely to this: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

200 years is a decent chunk of time from an evolutionary standpoint. We feel it's short because of how long our history has been. But within 200 years you can manufacture N new breeds of dogs, for example. We just underestimate how much change takes place in the world.

maxerickson 9y ago
Dogs are fertile at 1 or 2 years of age. You can do an awful lot more in 100-150 generations than you can in 10-15 generations (probably more like 6-8. Checking my family tree, many of my great-great grandparents were born ~1850, so for me personally, 5 or 6 generations). In any case, we have to go back to the question that the GP asked, that dogs are malleable doesn't help us. Does reduced child mortality really cause more mutations to accumulate?
evolve2017 9y ago
I think you're misunderstanding my point, but maybe I shouldn't have taken vertebrates as an example; we can of course imagine some island where massive selection pressures lead to speciation. I would be interested if you have such an example. However, dog breeds are not species and, given their non-random mating, don't really tell us much about whether 200 years is long in vertebrate evolutionary time. As far as humans go, I will grant that allele frequencies may have changed if you pick an isolated subpopulation of humans (say, everyone in Greenland) but even that seems extremely unlikely. As an aside, there are researchers who are using the caste system in India as a way to explore genetic architectures within a civilization. As these castes have existed for considerably longer than the period we're discussing, meaningful allele frequency changes may arise.

roceasta 9y ago

I'm not making a formal claim just sharing my thoughts. Though I do believe at least one evolutionary biologist has written about this: Hamilton W.D. (1999). The hospitals are coming. Narrow roads of gene land (Oxford University Press). Btw the phenomenon of 'mutational meltdown' is a closely related topic and may re-pay googling.

maxerickson 9y ago
It seems to be a philosophical position more than anything: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof97.htm http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof97.htm I would guess it is wrong; we are on a track where genetic manipulation to treat blatant defects will (relatively shortly) be cheaper than the traditional medical treatments.
- nyolfen 9y ago
  this worry is not a fringe concern: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Your link proposes that we will be able to manage mutations using genetic engineering. Parents could choose to have children created from their healthiest genes, rather than leaving children to be shotgunned with a random and increasing fraction of damaged genes. Genetic repair would replace the ancient cruelty of natural selection, which only fights entropy by tormenting organisms because of their genes. The concern espoused above is that we won't be able to fix the problem.
    - visarga 9y ago
      > natural selection, which only fights entropy by tormenting organisms because of their genes Now that's a limited view of the process that created life. Natural evolution also pays back by upgrading the gene pool.

telotortium 9y ago

This isn't an academic paper but at least one academic, John Tooby, has gone on the record as strongly believing that mutations are accumulating in the human population due precisely to this: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714.