ByPaul Wallis
PublishedDecember 22, 2022
Conservationists fear that edited genes might be passed on to non-target species like pollinators — © POOL/AFP/File Ludovic MARIN
New research shows that humans are always evolving, and don’t stop. No less than 155 new genes are making that statement very unequivocally. These are definitely new genes.
This isn’t necessarily good news. Genes related to defects are also in the mix. According to the study published in Cell Magazine, there may be more undetected microproteins and therefore “novel” genes.
… This leads to an inevitable question: What is evolving into what?
It should be remembered that humans are a relatively young species in evolutionary terms. Just about everything else on Earth is much more evolved. Many mammals in particular are far from their genetic origins.
The usual statement that humans are 99% identical to chimpanzees (the range is anything from 96% to 99%, depending on the source) is a case in point. If a 1% of difference in genes makes so much difference, what happens in the next million years or so? What if a 5% different form of human evolves in the near future?
The changes would be fundamental. A Stanford study in 2020 indicates the human body is now about 1 degree cooler than it was 150 years ago. That’s a truly critical issue. Heat demand in organisms, particularly from the brain, is extremely important. This finding indicates more thermal efficiency in crucial systems and functions.
Applied to an entire statistical population, and in such a short time frame, it could actually mean evolution is accelerating. It also implies that other correlative changes have occurred. There’s just no getting around organic thermodynamics. In humans, when a difference of X degrees means alive or dead, being able to reduce demand for heat is a very good move.
The problem is that looking for and studying evolution, even with far more advanced tech, means doing a lot of science. You’re searching for an unknown number of needles in an unquantifiable number of haystacks. …When you have to guess whether it’s a needle or a haystack every time.
DNA. — By P99am — Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
Natural selection vs getting lucky or both?
The much-overworked science fiction cliché of something evolving just in time for a movie is pretty ridiculous, really. However, it’s not all wrong. It is possible a few stray genes can deliver positives. There’s something much more likely, though. There’s a process called speciation in which diverse groups of the same animal are separated and go their own way in evolutionary terms. They adapt to their different environs, diets, etc. Sound familiar? It should.
Does this very well-known process involve gene adaption? Of course, it does. These adaptions are much faster than the usual plodding pace of the traditional view of evolution. Speciation can happen in a few generations, through necessity.
…So Homo Sapiens, that ever-so-endearing global tourist from Africa, might pick up a few traits and genetic options in the last couple of millions of years. More likely good old Homo Sap has needed to evolve in order to adapt.
OK, now take this doggedly trudging bit of logic a nanometre further – How much more different from the original environment of humanity could the modern world be?
This leads to a few questions:
Natural selection vs getting lucky or both?
The much-overworked science fiction cliché of something evolving just in time for a movie is pretty ridiculous, really. However, it’s not all wrong. It is possible a few stray genes can deliver positives. There’s something much more likely, though. There’s a process called speciation in which diverse groups of the same animal are separated and go their own way in evolutionary terms. They adapt to their different environs, diets, etc. Sound familiar? It should.
Does this very well-known process involve gene adaption? Of course, it does. These adaptions are much faster than the usual plodding pace of the traditional view of evolution. Speciation can happen in a few generations, through necessity.
…So Homo Sapiens, that ever-so-endearing global tourist from Africa, might pick up a few traits and genetic options in the last couple of millions of years. More likely good old Homo Sap has needed to evolve in order to adapt.
OK, now take this doggedly trudging bit of logic a nanometre further – How much more different from the original environment of humanity could the modern world be?
This leads to a few questions:
Will success spoil Homo Sapiens?
Ain’t we supposed to have brains?
You call this mess a success?
What if you screw things up faster than you can adapt to them, golly gosh gee?
For a global freeloader species, H. Sapiens has been fairly lucky in evolutionary terms. The question is now whether adaption and evolution can keep track of the mess that H. Sap has made for itself. How do you adapt to polluted air and water?
The really interesting thing (yes, humans can be interesting; you just have to look a bit harder) is the brain. You may have read a lot of commentary on brain size, for example. Small brains mean dumb.
…Or maybe highly evolved organisms which have been around for much longer than H. Sapiens have evolved much higher efficiencies in brains. Redundant structures aren’t much of an asset in evolutionary or even basic functional terms. Evolution would discard the useless bits.
To get to the degree of evolution of most other species, humans would need millions of years. The only advantage humans have is that they’re despecialized omnivores that can live anywhere. The fact that humans are also making a lot of the world uninhabitable for themselves, of course, might be a factor in evolution.
What if a new human species evolves which can live in toxic waste dumps? You can thank the food sector for that if it does. The human brain can apparently evolve to exist in an environment of pure drivel, non-information, and idiotic levels of totally unnecessary stress.
This is the challenge to science – Can humanity adapt to itself? This might be the first time we have to assess evolution as a truly unnatural process.
Ain’t we supposed to have brains?
You call this mess a success?
What if you screw things up faster than you can adapt to them, golly gosh gee?
For a global freeloader species, H. Sapiens has been fairly lucky in evolutionary terms. The question is now whether adaption and evolution can keep track of the mess that H. Sap has made for itself. How do you adapt to polluted air and water?
The really interesting thing (yes, humans can be interesting; you just have to look a bit harder) is the brain. You may have read a lot of commentary on brain size, for example. Small brains mean dumb.
…Or maybe highly evolved organisms which have been around for much longer than H. Sapiens have evolved much higher efficiencies in brains. Redundant structures aren’t much of an asset in evolutionary or even basic functional terms. Evolution would discard the useless bits.
To get to the degree of evolution of most other species, humans would need millions of years. The only advantage humans have is that they’re despecialized omnivores that can live anywhere. The fact that humans are also making a lot of the world uninhabitable for themselves, of course, might be a factor in evolution.
What if a new human species evolves which can live in toxic waste dumps? You can thank the food sector for that if it does. The human brain can apparently evolve to exist in an environment of pure drivel, non-information, and idiotic levels of totally unnecessary stress.
This is the challenge to science – Can humanity adapt to itself? This might be the first time we have to assess evolution as a truly unnatural process.
No comments:
Post a Comment