How fast can genetic progress move?
Book Guy
I write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
I always wondered this about Darwinian evolution. How quickly can genetic change take place? I mean, I know that the factors involved include survival of the fittest, and the nature of productive and self-defensive genes to replicate themselves more effectively than the genes that aren't as useful in a given niche, and so on and so forth. But just how many generations DOES it take, before you can really say that a change "must have" happened because of evolution?
For instance, in one thread a few of us mentioned the possible genetic variation of different gene pools from different continental backgrounds. One group from a warm climate, another from a cold climate, and so on. Since humans have existed for roughly 30,000 years (give or take; am I right on that number?) but have populated Europe for only half that time, does the remaining 15,000 years leave enough time for significant genetic change to have taken place there, such that "skills" in the European region were selected for in a manner that did not take place in other areas? I simply don't know if it can happen that quickly: whether that amount of time is WAY plenty extra, or if it's just right, or if it's WAY too little. Humans (in that period at least) would have made a new generation every 14 to 17 years, probably -- so, you're talking a little under 1000 generations, maybe 900? Enough to get blond hair, but enough to get mental traits?
I saw a show about the man-dog connection on the Discovery Channel. They said that the first record of domesticated dogs dates them back to 15,000 years ago, as well. But breed obsession for something other than function -- making little Kewpie the Chihuahua look cute in your handbag -- didn't start in Europe until the Victorian era. Prior to that, selective breeding by man was done for effect -- herding, or bearing loads, etc. Yet the wide variation among dogs is remarkable -- they said no other species has as much phenotype difference as canis lupus familiaris does. How can so much change have happened over an identical period of time during which humans can hardly manage to create characteristics that differentiate among Koreans and Japanese?
And then there's the question of stripper "stupidity." Is this also genetic? Have we actually "bred" a group of females who are mentally incapable of "normal" problem-solving of the day-to-day sort, but who have a remarkable set of human-management skills that allow them to manipulate gullible customers. And do members of this sub-species of female humans (A.) have a certain physical set of characteristics that necessarily go along with their mental characteristics, and (B.) have a male counter-part of some sort? Is it genetic? Could it be?
What is exactly a genetic time-scale. How many generations does it take?
For instance, in one thread a few of us mentioned the possible genetic variation of different gene pools from different continental backgrounds. One group from a warm climate, another from a cold climate, and so on. Since humans have existed for roughly 30,000 years (give or take; am I right on that number?) but have populated Europe for only half that time, does the remaining 15,000 years leave enough time for significant genetic change to have taken place there, such that "skills" in the European region were selected for in a manner that did not take place in other areas? I simply don't know if it can happen that quickly: whether that amount of time is WAY plenty extra, or if it's just right, or if it's WAY too little. Humans (in that period at least) would have made a new generation every 14 to 17 years, probably -- so, you're talking a little under 1000 generations, maybe 900? Enough to get blond hair, but enough to get mental traits?
I saw a show about the man-dog connection on the Discovery Channel. They said that the first record of domesticated dogs dates them back to 15,000 years ago, as well. But breed obsession for something other than function -- making little Kewpie the Chihuahua look cute in your handbag -- didn't start in Europe until the Victorian era. Prior to that, selective breeding by man was done for effect -- herding, or bearing loads, etc. Yet the wide variation among dogs is remarkable -- they said no other species has as much phenotype difference as canis lupus familiaris does. How can so much change have happened over an identical period of time during which humans can hardly manage to create characteristics that differentiate among Koreans and Japanese?
And then there's the question of stripper "stupidity." Is this also genetic? Have we actually "bred" a group of females who are mentally incapable of "normal" problem-solving of the day-to-day sort, but who have a remarkable set of human-management skills that allow them to manipulate gullible customers. And do members of this sub-species of female humans (A.) have a certain physical set of characteristics that necessarily go along with their mental characteristics, and (B.) have a male counter-part of some sort? Is it genetic? Could it be?
What is exactly a genetic time-scale. How many generations does it take?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
16 comments
Sure, genetic change can happen in 15,000 years (about 750 generations). But differences among populations only emerge if there is sufficient isolation. This probably explains variation in humans we see today. But in the modern world the isolation has been greatly reduced, so the variations are probably being wiped out at a relatively rapid pace right now.
Dog have huge phenotypic variation (different physical traits), but that is not to be confused with genotypic variation. Dogs are essentially wolves, identical in all important respects.
There is no female subspecies lurking in dimly lit strip clubs. That's all just ASS (Anti Stripper Shit).
I have some noticeable differences from a number of humans living in my area. I'm not deaf, dumb, and blind like some of them seem to act. I also seem to move like a rabit while they are stuck moving at a snail's pace and seem to have a matching metabolism. I have thought, maybe it's not genetic, maybe they are just lazy, sit around and watch tv or do nothing all day. Or maybe it is true, I may have some Viking blood in me. Or maybe it's my Scottish and German ancestry and some latent desire to go out and conquer the whole world regardless of the peasants just slowly going about their daily work. I think part of the metabolism difference is because most people just sit around and do no exercise or vigorous physical work. For some females, I think the difference is they are suffering from a lack of iron and may not realize it, or something else that may regulate their metabolism. In spite of all these things, my metabolism in my genes still seems higher than most other people where I live at. Works good in a cold strip club though. Cold dancers often want to feel my body heat. :)
It does a good job of explaining how some evolutionary changes happened so fast. Basically a (typically male) trait is seen as sexually attractive and those who have it get to reproduce more. But then, since the children got genes from the female parent as well, the children will also inherent the property of finding the trait attractive. In his book _The_Mating_Mind_ Geoffrey Miller argues that this accounts for how homo sapiens became so smart so fast. In general, sexual selection leads to exponential growth in an attractive trait over time.
I can't recommend _The_Mating_Mind_ highly enough for people who like to think about evolution, or have found some aspects of what they learned in high school unsatisfactory. This book will fill in many of the gaps, and give some interesting insights into many interesting philosophical questions.
Read it. The book's a 9.5 out of 10.
Reminds me of the notion of "go into the light." When people have near-death experiences, they often see a white light and float into it, so it's reported. This was touted on one evo-psych program, as a sensible understanding of how we would have "evolved" to handle death. A blissful feeling, a sense of oneness with nature and our spiritual leader, so on, would have "evolved" as our species encountered death over and over, such that eventually those individuals who were "best" at handling it, or calmest, or most spiritual, would be more likely to continue. But of course, this idiotic analysis misunderstands that, if you do well at handling death, your genes won't have an opportunity to be passed on AFTER death. It's only those survival instincts which aid in LIFE and in PROPAGATION that figure in survival of the fittest, duh.
Yet more Lamarckian idiocy from the evo-psych speculators.
Anyway ... we haven't really answered the question have we?
There's also a scientific explanation to the "Marian phenomenon" in which people see an apparition which has two large almond-shaped eyes, a large domed and seemingly cloaked head, all in a glowing silhouette. People have variously identified it, through the ages, as the Virgin Mary, or an Area 51 style Alien. But if you lie down under the right kind of brain wave generator at this research lab in Kensington, they can just make you "see" the phenomenon in the middle of the day by projecting certain polarities blah blah ... humph ... takes all the mystery out of it.
And stripper "stupidity" isn't a genetic trait, it's a memetic trait.
Incidentally, modern humans are about 100,000 years old, by current consensus, though there could be a big +/- in that figure.
O.
I like the "band member" versus "stripper" parallel. Very nice ...
What's "memetic"? Is that a typo for "mimetic"? Or are you referring to a "meme" as in an "idea virus"?