3 ms·

That's not true - evolution is about the best genes for survivability and reproduction continuing to be passed along. The evolutionary perspective here wouldn't

That's not true - evolution is about the best genes for survivability and reproduction continuing to be passed along. The evolutionary perspective here wouldn't be that there are downsides to this, but rather that people with this mutation are better able to survive and reproduce, so we'd expect it to be passed onto more offspring over the generations.

amelius 5y ago
Yes, this happens in the long run. In the short term, when a single gene has massive benefit, there must be some negative effect too, otherwise the entire population would quickly get that gene and that's not what we see here.
- neutronicus 5y ago
  Obvious answer: The benefit is real, but minor
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    I wouldn't say "minor." In real terms, I think it's a huge advantage in our current society. But it's just not strongly selected for.
    - parineum 5y ago
      There's not been nearly enough time for these genes to spread in modern society. It's hard to imagine this gene was as beneficial as it might be today without cheap and effective night time lighting.
- harry8 5y ago
  You are going to live long enough and be able to reproduce with about the same probability all other things equal whether you need 3 hours or 10 sleep nightly. There's very little evolutionary pressure even if you would massively and hugely prefer one of those over the other. The kind of non-survival genetics that could be selected for in the modern world are those that make multiple women (nature can be pretty sexist) want to throw caution to the wind and have babies fathered by a man with some desirable attribute. I have no idea if this actually happens in reality with heritable genes. Eg do basketball players pass on a greater than average amount of their genetics (more children with more women) by virtue of being tall making them more sexually desirable to those who might become single mothers? Plausible, I guess, but could easily be utterly false. I don't know how you'd test it even in the absence of ethical concerns.
- parineum 5y ago
  What's the negative effect of not having the gene for Huntington disease?
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    I don't know, but the gene for sickle cell is good for malaria.

amelius 5y ago

Yes, this happens in the long run. In the short term, when a single gene has massive benefit, there must be some negative effect too, otherwise the entire population would quickly get that gene and that's not what we see here.

neutronicus 5y ago
Obvious answer: The benefit is real, but minor
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  I wouldn't say "minor." In real terms, I think it's a huge advantage in our current society. But it's just not strongly selected for.
  - parineum 5y ago
    There's not been nearly enough time for these genes to spread in modern society. It's hard to imagine this gene was as beneficial as it might be today without cheap and effective night time lighting.
harry8 5y ago
You are going to live long enough and be able to reproduce with about the same probability all other things equal whether you need 3 hours or 10 sleep nightly. There's very little evolutionary pressure even if you would massively and hugely prefer one of those over the other. The kind of non-survival genetics that could be selected for in the modern world are those that make multiple women (nature can be pretty sexist) want to throw caution to the wind and have babies fathered by a man with some desirable attribute. I have no idea if this actually happens in reality with heritable genes. Eg do basketball players pass on a greater than average amount of their genetics (more children with more women) by virtue of being tall making them more sexually desirable to those who might become single mothers? Plausible, I guess, but could easily be utterly false. I don't know how you'd test it even in the absence of ethical concerns.
parineum 5y ago
What's the negative effect of not having the gene for Huntington disease?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  I don't know, but the gene for sickle cell is good for malaria.