Recent studies show that, in contrast to the idea that humans are not evolving at all anymore, for the past 5,000 years we have been evolving 100 times faster than in the past!

They speculate that this is due to the massive growth in human population and the movement of humans into new territories.
Human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years, far from plodding along as some scientists had thought, researchers said on Monday.

In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin.

The genetic changes have related to numerous different human characteristics, the researchers said.

Many of the recent genetic changes reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations, the researchers said.

For example, Africans have new genes providing resistance to malaria. In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.

The changes have been driven by the colossal growth in the human population -- from a few million to 6.5 billion in the past 10,000 years -- with people moving into new environments to which they needed to adapt, added Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropologist.

"The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast -- faster than any of us thought," Harpending said in a telephone interview.

"Most of the acceleration is in the last 10,000 years, basically corresponding to population growth after agriculture is invented," Hawks said in a telephone interview.

The research appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Beneficial genetic changes have appeared at a rate roughly 100 times higher in the past 5,000 years than at any previous period of human evolution, the researchers determined. They added that about 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, relatively recent evolution.

Even with these changes, however, human DNA remains more than 99 percent identical, the researchers noted.

Harpending said the genetic evidence shows that people worldwide have been getting less similar rather than more similar due to the relatively recent genetic changes.

Genes have evolved relatively quickly in Africa, Asia and Europe but almost all of the changes have been unique to their corner of the world. This is the case, he said, because since humans dispersed from Africa to other parts of the world about 40,000 years ago, there has not been much flow of genes between the regions.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/071210/137/6oa5z.html

They speculate that this is due to the massive growth in human population and the movement of humans into new territories.

I recall that quite the contrary was true. Evolution was accelerated with increased sedenteriness (as e.g. agricultural developments made possible).

I recall reading speculation about that, but it was that the end of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle would spur evolution. New ecological niche, new selective pressures related to that new niche, new adaptations.

Interesting that there may be evidence of that now.

Still, I expect genetic engineering will likely be more important than evolution in the future of humanity. By the time evolution starts producing manifest differences, we should be churning out designer babies.

I recall reading speculation about that, but it was that the end of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle would spur evolution. New ecological niche, new selective pressures related to that new niche, new adaptations.
It makes sense.

Still, I expect genetic engineering will likely be more important than evolution in the future of humanity. By the time evolution starts producing manifest differences, we should be churning out designer babies.Agreed Imagine a future in which the rich have the advantage of superior genetics to add to their advantage in education and opportunities. I think Gattaca gave us a fairly accurate look at the future.

Is it still accelerating ? I have a hard time believing that.

Is it still accelerating ? I have a hard time believing that.


That's because evolution never *&$*^$*!! happened in the first place.

They're trying to make us feel good so we'll go out and spend more money... and prop up their degenerating global economy.

I'm not buying jack sh*t this Christmas I can tell you.

That's because evolution never *&$*^$*!! happened in the first place.

They're trying to make us feel good so we'll go out and spend more money... and prop up their degenerating global economy.

I'm not buying jack sh*t this Christmas I can tell you.

:confused:

But.. I.. it.. :bawl:

I recall that quite the contrary was true. Evolution was accelerated with increased sedenteriness (as e.g. agricultural developments made possible).That was a different era and a different engine. They pointed out that the diaspora out of Africa 70,000 years ago was an engine of change just as the agricultural revolution was. Both forced us to adapt to wrenching changes in environment, whether it was because of a new locale or a new lifestyle.Is it still accelerating ? I have a hard time believing that.They pointed out that the separation of the populations during prehistoric times was a factor. In the past five hundred years, and especially in the past fifty years, this has been reversed. If the modern economy that is bringing prosperity and mobility to India and China finally does the same thing to the rest of the Third World, our descendants will all be various shades of brown in a few generations and the rest of their DNA will be homogenized along with it.That's because evolution never *&$*^$*!! happened in the first place.This is a place of science and you're posting on one of the science subforums. Evolution is an established scientific principle, which in layman's language means it is "true beyond a reasonable doubt." If you harbor an unreasonable doubt about evolution there is a sticky for discussions of the Evolution Denial movement. Do not post it here or it qualifies as trolling. We try to ensure that people who stumble into SciForums from a Google hit encounter science, not pseudoscience. A critical discussion of evolution is appropriate and, for fairness, there is one. Replication of the same tiresome arguments in other threads is not permitted.

They pointed out that the separation of the populations during prehistoric times was a factor. In the past five hundred years, and especially in the past fifty years, this has been reversed. If the modern economy that is bringing prosperity and mobility to India and China finally does the same thing to the rest of the Third World, our descendants will all be various shades of brown in a few generations and the rest of their DNA will be homogenized along with it.
I agree, but I fail to see how this in itself is evolution.

In the past five hundred years, and especially in the past fifty years, this has been reversed. If the modern economy that is bringing prosperity and mobility to India and China finally does the same thing to the rest of the Third World, our descendants will all be various shades of brown in a few generations and the rest of their DNA will be homogenized along with it.By the time that happens, we'll have started building designer babies via genetic enginering and be well on the way to separating into Morlocks and Eloi.

Title: Why do we buy things we don't want, to impress people we don't like, with money we don't have? —some quote/observation about shopping trends

That's because evolution never *&$*^$*!! happened in the first place.

They're trying to make us feel good so we'll go out and spend more money... and prop up their degenerating global economy.

I'm not buying jack sh*t this Christmas I can tell you.

That's fine, as Christmas isn't supposed to be about all the materialism anyway.

But I thought the real to boycott the economy, and buy less, is to protest the stupid socialist income and property taxes, and the price-gouged gasoline. If we can't afford to go anywhere in our cars, what for should we feel like shopping?

You don't think that's the only reason for these stupid news articles, do you? No, they come up with all this stuff, for people to justify their jobs, or for this or that special interest group, to grab the limelight, and pretend like they are somehow more important than the next special interest group. So many liberal or special interest groups seem to like to hear themselves talk, otherwise they don't seem so significant or important.

Another reason to boycott the global economy, is to protest low wages always Wal-Mart for taking the lead into junkifying all the competitor store shelves, with shoddy cheap crappy products Made In China. I can't hardly find electronics not made in China. I can't update my ancient ailing microwave oven, because most every countertop model in the stores, is too big, too underpowered/small, or too cheap-looking. Where are the bells-and-whistles? I am a feature-shopper. I need lots of cool/useful bells-and-whistles to help justify my purchase. I want a product to say "Take me home with you, and I will do all sorts of cool stuff for you!" But no, they all say the same thing to me, "Yawn, give us your money for a cheap inferior boring product, indistinguishable from the next crappy product." Computers and iPods are pretty crappy too. Just think how few years it will take, for the hard drive to give out, for the rechargable battery to go lame and not hold a charge, or the device otherwise fail and lose all your data. And if it does last, it will go obsolete, and there won't be any software to convert data to the new trendy gadget to replace it.

Doesn't the Bible say something about people with itching ears, always eager to hear some new thing? That's really what a lot of these lame news stories are about. Just somebody trying to get their stupid sound bite heard, and give the stupid gullible crowd, some "new" thing to confuse their small little unimaginative carnal minds.

I've given up reading about any kind of science news from sites like Yahoo. Physorg.com at least goes into some detail about what was found out, but to get the real story you have to start with the actual press release from the scientists, then the report they released in whatever journal. Everything else is usually bloated with all kinds of sensationalism and general BS, to make it a "good news story".

Life, and therefore, the selection of genes, have changed quite a bit with the advent of civilzation.

Well it is curious to note, that the huge "boom" in human population, would seem to have some helpful effect on the (growing) gene pool.

Could all that procreation be having some rather positive biological effects, like passing on traits like being rather well sexually endowed, or the ability to birth babies rather easily?

But it's wrong to call it "evolution," but more like "natural selection," that is, if that effect is all that noticable in humans? God's role for people, may somehow downplay some of the genetics issues? And I wish to avoid the stupid Nazi-like eugenics issues, and the answer to that is, we don't decide who gets to breed and who doesn't, but rather "everybody breeds."