Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,645
8,829
Tonight while trying to have an intelligent discussion with fellow industry event goers, I was told that natural selection isn't a real thing and scientists no longer think the speed of light is a constant....
frown.png


(Also that we "are evolving faster than ever before" and that reproductive advantage isn't the main impetus for evolution)
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Natural selection is a bit of an inverted way to think of it though, it seems to imply a positive where the process is negative. Selection pressure? Adaptive gradients? There may be a better encapsulation for the idea. It seems like the term natural selection was a philosophical bridge that may not be necessary any more.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,590
34,075
Easier to stomach for god-fearing-folk that way. They can imagine a large bearded sky-wizard is selecting.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
Tonight while trying to have an intelligent discussion with fellow industry event goers, I was told that natural selection isn't a real thing and scientists no longer think the speed of light is a constant....
frown.png


(Also that we "are evolving faster than ever before" and that reproductive advantage isn't the main impetus for evolution)
Where is your faith in sciencenow?
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,645
8,829
Natural selection is a bit of an inverted way to think of it though, it seems to imply a positive where the process is negative. Selection pressure? Adaptive gradients? There may be a better encapsulation for the idea. It seems like the term natural selection was a philosophical bridge that may not be necessary any more.
Trust me, if you had heard the conversation, you'd know there was a much larger lack of understanding than semantics. Her original comment was something about lack of wisdom teeth becoming more and more common. She didn't understand there was no longer a selective pressure against having wisdom teeth.

And when I asked the other guy to give me an example of a physicist thinking the speed of light wasn't a constant he said "because of black holes". "What about black holes" *changes topic*
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,478
73,560
I know this is tangential to your dumb ass event goers, but I for one am super excited about how quickly humans can evolve when genetic therapy comes into play.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,478
73,560
BTW: If you measure the speed of evolution by how quickly DNA changes, is it true that humans are evolving faster than we did 8000 years ago?
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
BTW: If you measure the speed of evolution by how quickly DNA changes, is it true that humans are evolving faster than we did 8000 years ago?
Yes, in about 7% of our total genomes, primarily alleles that are under strong selective pressure for preservation in a lineage due to their reproductive or other selection advantage, evolution has increased, starting about 40k years ago, and really picking up 10k years ago with the advent of agriculture. Mostly this is due to the massive population increases our species has seen during that time.

Human Evolution Is Speeding Up | Science | AAAS

Human Evolution Speeding Up, Study Says

This last link is a pretty good blog post from John Hawks (paleontologist) on the subject

Why human evolution accelerated john hawks weblog

Like most good stories in biology, this one begins with Darwin. Darwin was always very interested in animal breeding, which he considered the best analogy for the process of natural selection. Of course, if you're breeding livestock and want to select for some characteristics, it is important to select from as large a herd as possible, because large populations have more variation in them. Darwin recognized this as an important condition for natural selection, which relies on sufficient variation in natural populations.

[A]s variations manifestly useful or pleasing to man appear only occasionally, the chance of their appearance will be much increased by a large number of individuals being kept.... Hence, number is of the highest importance for success.
These words from the Origin, "number is of the highest importance for success" were influential.

This is a quick review of the research, based on a presentation I gave earlier this year. It is not complete, and glosses a number of very important details. A close reader looking for how to do genomics would be better served reading the actual research paper. Here, I'm trying to express the science for everyone else.

By 1930, R. A. Fisher picked up Darwin's idea about numbers, predicting that evolution in large populations could be faster than in small populations. However, this is not in all circumstances, but only where the number of new adaptive mutations is quite small -- in other words, where evolution is "mutation-limited":

The great contrast between abundant and rare species lies in the number of individuals available in each generation as possible mutants.... The importance of the contrast lies with the extremely rare mutations, in which the number of new mutations occurring must increase proportionately to the number of individuals available.
A long history of research in plant genetics (corn breeding), microbial chemostat experiments, and the examination of pesticide resistance in insects support Fisher's concept. For example, flies subjected to low doses of pesticide in the laboratory tend to acquire very complicated patterns of resistance -- involving slight changes in many different genes. These usually aren't transmitted perfectly and often have fitness costs; it's a very imperfect adaptation. But if pesticide is sprayed over a large area, flies sometimes appear very quickly with a single mutation that confers very complete resistance. Here, the very advantageous resistance mutation is incredibly rare -- it only occurs in maybe one in a billion flies. It would never occur in the small laboratory population.
The tl;dr is

You see, this is one of those very rare cases where the theory preceded the data! It is quite simple; the rate of mutations in a population is a linear product of the rate per genome and the population size.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss

Number 4 is fascinating because CPU's seem to mirror this and I got fucked on number 2.
Two of my wife's wisdom teeth barely even formed (the top ones) and the bottom ones were impacted and had to be removed (all four of mine did).

Number 4isfascinating, because brain size correlates with body mass, and the larger your brain mass is in comparison to your body mass, the more intelligent your species tends to be.

1350 cm^3 is almost (but not quite) as small as the maximum size of the brains of some of our earliest ancestors (800-1200 cm^3).

I would suspect this is caused by the fact that our body mass (when we're not obese at least) is actually less than it was in our ancestors due to the gracilization of our skeletal anatomy and the reduced density of our bone and muscles mass.

We know for a fact that our ancestors had much heavier, denser, stronger bones and muscles than we do in modernity, in large part due to agriculture and population centralization which isolated us from the sorts of natural environmental interactions that promote denser bone and muscle development due to the the increased physical labor. As we shifted from Hunter-Gatherer to Agriculturalists, physical anthropologists have documented both in the New World and in the Old, there is a stong decline in overall health, stature, bone density, and nutrition, all interlinked with the shift from a diverse body of food stuffs to a set of staple crops and the subsequent stratification of human populations that resulted from these changes.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,645
8,829
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss

Number 4 is fascinating because CPU's seem to mirror this and I got fucked on number 2.
Could someone please explain how a lack of wisdom teeth could possibly spread throughout the entire population? It makes no sense. In the past, when they became redundant, those who still grew them would have to deal with the negative impact (literally) of wisdom teeth while no longer enjoying the benefits. But people don't die from impacted or infected wisdom teeth before they're able to reproduce anymore. There's no reason for a lack of wisdom teeth to spread any more frequently than randomly
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
Through successive generations, the survival rate of those who could effectively masticate hard/fibrous matter has evened out with those who could not, since those wisdom teeth aren't needed thanks to knives and food processors and shit. Basically, dentistry and our eating habits have enabled the propagation of a genetic structure that would have been hard to survive with compared to people with big jaws and wisdom teeth. It most likely is something simple like "this gene takes precedence" when it shows up in the genetic code, hence the slow reduction through successive generations.

You sort of answered your own question with your second sentence hah.
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,236
things that were only weakly selected for at one point are no longer selected for? not really an example of active evolution so much as a fizzle.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Can someone explain the process on how something like the slow disappearance of our wisdom teeth occurs? It's not like mates are being chosen for their lack of wisdom teeth or wisdom teeth owners have a lower survival rate.
Our ape ancestors had a diet high in fibrous and starch foods, mainly roots, leaves, tubers and the like. Their physiology accounted for this fact. They had extremely long intestines (ever notice how so many large primates have those large extended guts? Example:
rrr_img_132324.jpg
) which helped to break down that fiber and pull the nutrients from it. They also had massive jaws, thick, dense flat teeth, small brain sizes and often large bony protrusions from their skulls which anchored the large mastoid muscles required to chew these heavy, uncooked fibrous plants. Take a look at the gorilla skull in this image, and compare it to that of the homo habilis and the homo erectus, sapiens, and neanderthalensis, to get an idea of what I mean by all this
rrr_img_132331.jpg
Notice how their face is very large, their brain case very small, there's a ridge of bone on top of the cranium which is used as an anchor for the mastoid muscles, the massive mandible and maxilla, and the large, thick flat teeth. Meanwhile all the others are sort of reversed. The face is smaller, the brain case is large, the mandible and maxilla are gracile, the teeth are small, rounded, cusps more and sharper overall.

So we can actually see these changes through comparative anatomy and also in the fossil record.

Gradually, as Africa dried out and became more arid, we moved out of the trees and we began to eat more meat as a result (mostly what we did was scavange the remains of carcasses other animals had left behind). This is where anthropologists believe basic tool making began. If you could shape a stone into a sharp blade, you could cut pieces of meat off carcasses, carry it back to your shelter to eat in safety, etc. This is also when we began to become totally bipedal. Those hominin ancestors who could stand up straighter in the savanna could see further, and therefore could detect predators at a further distance, increasing their rate of survival fractionally over those who could not.

Anyway, this new and increased influx of fatty acids and amino acids, over long stretches of time, like a million years, gradually increased our brain size (our brains increased by as much as 3x over some of our ancestors during this time frame!). As our brain size increased, we learned how to better process our foods by learning how to capture, control and create fire and to cook our foods, which led to better nutrition. Those hominin ancestors with better nutrition obviously had a much stronger selective advantage than those who could not.

All things in physiology come with a trade off. As brain size increased, and access to cooked and highly nutritious foods increased, our physiology began to alter to compensate. Our teeth, jaws, intestinal tracts, and mastoid muscles began to shrink, as we they were no longer required to process these heavy starch and fiber based food stuffs which were the staple foods of our earliest ancestors, which helps offset the physiological changes in the cranium which resulted from larger brain size. So brain case size goes up, the bones of the face, mandible and maxilla, etc. shrank to compensate.

Then along came agriculture, where I talked above about how our skeletal structure began to become much more gracile (thinner, lighter, though still strong), this is reflected in the continued shrinkage of the mandible, hence why we slowly evolving such that our wisdom teeth are becoming vestigial and eventually will probably disappear completely or nearly so. You'd still have the occassional person with a vestigial set of wisdom teeth, just as people are occassionally born with tiny vestigial tails, but these would be considered anomalies at that point.


As for sexual selection in regards to this issue, we could hypothesize several explanations, such as people are unconsciously selecting for larger brain capacity or there is a sexual selection advantage in terms of attractiveness of facial features in individuals who lack wisdom teeth versus those that don't, etc.

But really, its just more about the fact that, as our nutrition increased, our craniums and other anatomically relevant system altered to compensate. That linear trajectory continues today, the alleles which guide development of cranial features are already present in the population, and already pretty well dominate in it, so they're just getting shuffled and reshuffled around and the progression continues. Mutations which go in the other direction are selected against in part because they are now anomalous and the extremely large population drowns out their impact and drives them further towards extinction, so forth.
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,236
its not evolution, but it is tangential evidence that evolution exists.

i.e. semantics and probably scarcely worth discussing since we all understand what's going on anyway.