Proof of human evolution?

[Adjuvant]

So as to not hijack yet another thread...

Aside from the debatably modified use of our appendixes...

Is CCR5 delta 32 conclusive proof of human evolution via natural selection during the period of recorded history? This genetic deletion mutation renders the beneficiary immune to a host of life-threatening illnesses, including AIDS. Can we point at it and say, "That is evolution"? Isn't it neat to see, since general understanding stipulates these changes happen over a period of tens or hundreds of thousands of years?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes we can.
I don't understand the last part of your post.
A small gene mutation certainly isn't stipulated to take thousands of years. Rather it is stipulated that it happens all the time constantly.

 

[Adjuvant]

Of all the possible mutations, very, very few are beneficial. This one for example, excluding the premise of viral interaction, isn't particularly helpful at all. In the grand scheme, however, it pans out to be particularly important, especially in "our era".

You're right, it "happens" alot. It was probably "one being" at some point born with the mutation and has propagated, so it didn't happen over thousands of years, but rather very quickly, and the "dispersal" took millennia.

 

[Synobun]

Evolution is not "changes that are objectively beneficial to the species". Evolution is change both in very small ways and very broad ways.

 

[Adjuvant]

Yeh, but mutations which are malignant generally don't allow for much procreation and dispersal, thus a moot point of evolution.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are a few beneficial mutations proof that all of evolution must be true? No, of course not. But the evidence is so vastly overwhelming that biologists and other scientists aren't even thinking about the possibility of a different theory which could explain what is found in fossils, much less the rest.

You might as well believe in imaginary beings than try to claim that evolution must be false, given that no empirical evidence exists to support either one.

 

[Berzerker]

So as to not hijack yet another thread...

Aside from the debatably modified use of our appendixes...

Is CCR5 delta 32 conclusive proof of human evolution via natural selection during the period of recorded history? This genetic deletion mutation renders the beneficiary immune to a host of life-threatening illnesses, including AIDS. Can we point at it and say, "That is evolution"? Isn't it neat to see, since general understanding stipulates these changes happen over a period of tens or hundreds of thousands of years?

Not sure if thats the same gene but studies on the Plague show people who survived it left descendents more immune to AIDS and similar viruses etc, so I suspect the mutation is very old, maybe even pre-"human" albeit more limited by smaller populations

 

[sophie]

Yeh, but mutations which are malignant generally don't allow for much procreation and dispersal, thus a moot point of evolution.

No, that is natural selection at work. Anything which actively hinders procreation and which is thus eliminated from the gene pool is an example of evolution through natural selection.

 

[Adjuvant]

Hence "evolutionary end". Evolution is such a bad word around "these parts", I'd never conceptualized it. Thanks.

 

[Kozmos]

I thought X-Men were proof of evolution?

 

[Archbob]

No, that is natural selection at work. Anything which actively hinders procreation and which is thus eliminated from the gene pool is an example of evolution through natural selection.

How about being exclusively homosexual? You can't pro-create by having sex with the same gender.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Republicans continue to demonstrate they are the anti-science party:

 

[Kozmos]

Homosexuals are there in support roles. That's why there is only 10% of them.

 

[Leifmk]

One might doubt whether something as complicated as human sexual behavior is entrely determined by genotype, in any case.

 

[Adjuvant]

"People with sexuality" are not an evolutionary end. We all have it. At some point or another, we all use and abuse it. It would be nice if we could all learn to use it appropriately and stop fixating on it, but unfortunately, we have this culture wherein encouraging more "healthy" behavior is somehow "wrong".

 

[Dachs]

How about being exclusively homosexual? You can't pro-create by having sex with the same gender.

You can't procreate by masturbation, either. Unless you're Hephaistos.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Given that even the Spartans chose to name Athens as "the city of Cecrops" and not the (in this myth later king) Ericthonios, it would seem that no one cared for Hephaistos yet again :/

He also had two other sons, the Kabeiroi, who were often depicted as hoplite-deities and linked to the cult of the Koryvantes and the assorted dance of the fully-armored hoplites

& Kerkyon, of course.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of all the possible mutations, very, very few are beneficial. This one for example, excluding the premise of viral interaction, isn't particularly helpful at all. In the grand scheme, however, it pans out to be particularly important, especially in "our era".

You're right, it "happens" alot. It was probably "one being" at some point born with the mutation and has propagated, so it didn't happen over thousands of years, but rather very quickly, and the "dispersal" took millennia.

"Benefit" from evolution only involves the capacity to survive. Evolutionary theory doesn't stipulate that organisms constantly improve their traits and get better and more complex, it says that the members of a species who possess the traits most required to survive in their environment are the ones who pass on their genes (and thus that trait) to future generations. What that trait is varies with time and place, though.

Each person possesses unique traits and passes on unique genes. Viewed at the individual level, "evolution" occurs at the creation of each new being. Your children are not the same as you. They very nearly are, but not quite. Same with you and your parents. These changes only become measurably significant for the species when viewed at the macro level: that is, over a longer time frame and with a massive sample.

That's why the search for "the missing link" is a blue milk run. It doesn't exist. Every human between modern us and our ancient mutual ancestor with great apes is the missing link. Every. Single. One. All we do when we find a new variant is fill in another tiny part of that timeline, and see what traits came before others: walking upright, making tools, communal behavior. There's no "magic make-everything-make-sense" skeleton we can ever find, because Darwinian evolution doesn't work like Pokemon.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's probably worth noting that problems which only manifest themselves after one's children have left the proverbial nest won't be fixed by evolution. So we're unlikely ever to see humanity develop a genetic immunity to dementia, because people who never develop it don't have more surviving grandchildren than people who do.

 

[Leifmk]

On the other hand, there's been quite a bit of theorizing about why people have the capacity to live so long beyond child-having and child-raising age in the first place. It can easily be construed that there's some advantage to the group (the natural human social unit is not a nuclear family but more like a small tribe or whatever) having some members around who are not themselves producing children but are still capable of helping out -- and also some who are old enough to have learned a lot of stuff and remember things that only happen rarely (as in "we had this kind of freak weather once when I was young and this is how we survived...") Of course you don't need everyone to live to age 70 or beyond with a clear mind for this, just a few.