Re: Are We Still Evolving?
pete (VINCENT@REG.TRIUMF.CA)
30 Oct 1995 22:01:47 GMT
Deaser (noway@nothere) sez:
`preno@Phoenix.kent.edu (Philip Reno) wrote:
`->Alex Duncan (aduncan@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
`->: In article <46mf3a$p6r@larry.infi.net> Kaushik Banerjee,
`->: banerkx@news.infi.net writes:
`->: >Are we still evolving?
`->: Yes.
`->Yes, but I'll submit to you that in currently 99.9% of human
`evolution
`->is cultural while only small amounts of changes that effect human
`->survivorship si due to natural selection and its effects on the
`human
`->genome.
` Of course, with such controlled environments as our homes, workplaces,
`even our places of entertainment (ok, except the ski slopes), true
`genome adaptation is not likely to occur.
As far as genetic change goes these days, probably the most significant
development is the result of our medical intervention, which allows
all sorts of previously fatal genetic deficiencies to be preserved
and passed on to future generations, as almost 100% of humans now
surviving to adulthood will breed. If we were suddenly deprived
of modern medicine, the mortality would today be small but significant.
In a few tens of generations, if medicine does not progress to
direct genetic intervention, the propagation of deficiencies through
the population would mean that a sudden loss of medical technology
(as a result of some natural disaster, or widespread conflict),
would result in an immediate mortality of perhaps as much as
1/3 of the population.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf.ca <== faster % Pete Vincent
vincent@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca % Disclaimer: all I know I
% learned from reading Usenet.
|