115
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Edit: I meant specifically humans.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Tolstoshev@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago

During the bubonic plague there was a gene mutation that made people less likely to die from the plague, but unfortunately it causes more autoimmune problems:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-10-20/black-death-shaped-immune-system-evolution-autoimmune-disorders/101544092

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Killing a third of the population is a pretty good way to speed up the process, I guess.

[-] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 1 year ago
[-] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 29 points 1 year ago

Do you mean in humans or animals?

If you mean plants I'd say it would be pretty hard to tell what wasn't the result of some form of selective breeding at this point.

[-] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago

I'll edit the post, I meant humans

[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

That’s an important distinction to make, since microbes evolve so fast that we have a hard time keeping up with their antibiotic resistances. Plants and animals change all the time, but it is a lot slower due to slower reproduction cycle. Humans, elephants and whales change too, but it just takes a while for us to notice it.

[-] DrQuint@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not necessarily. We have found some preserved remains of smaller animals, and we also have some current animals to compare to. For the simplest example, we can compare dog breeds to wolf breeds to find out that dogs have had an increased amount of pancreatic Amylase genes since domestication (which is also one of the factors behind them getting more cases of diabetes).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329415/

The problem for humans tho, is that there's no longer any intermediate species around to compare to, and our best preserved individuals are from the last 5000 years or so. For the record, a few years back a cryopreserved domesticated dog was found in siberia and it's 4 times older.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Watermelons used to be only 50mm in diameter and tasted very bitter. You had to hit them with a hammer to crack em open. Circa 3000 BC

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That's not really natural selection though, is it?

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

It is, if you count humans as part of nature, which they are in respect to natural selection.

Flowers and blossoms are selected by their attractiveness to bees and other insects. Apples were selected by their attractiveness to bears (yes, bears where the first to domesticate apples). And watermelons were selected by their attractiveness to humans.

Only GMOs don't fall into the category of natural selection.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

No, but it is evolutionary

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It’s artificial selection, still a process that drives evolution. Just drives it a lot faster.

[-] Karlos_Cantana@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

A human watermelon?

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

Evolution can happen very quickly for species that go through their lifecycle quickly. Diseases and microorganisms evolve very quickly for example.

Looking at agriculture specifically, domesticated animals and crops would have evolved in a particular way that's good for food production.

If humans specifically, there are dietary changes (ex. for digestion).

Were you looking for a specific type of animal?

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Yes there has been enough time for changes to occur, but because we humans are so widespread and mix at a ridiculous rate, you are unlikely to see many obvious changes for a long time. People from a population with a certain amount of traits will mix up with people with different traits, and because the environmental pressures are not homogeneous or stressful enough, there isn't a dominant trend in evolution you could see today.

Unless- and I'm not sure about these because I never checked if myth or fact- it is true that humans were shorter a few centuries ago? And what about the much debated IQ increase each generation?

[-] Bonehead@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

One thing that evolved...wisdom teeth. Or at least the shrinking of our jaw that creates the conditions of not having enough room for wisdom teeth. Some people like myself were born without wisdom teeth. Since we aren't grinding up random roots and undercooked meats along the occasional rocks anymore, we don't need big strong jaws as much. So we started evolving smaller jaws since the advent of agriculture.

[-] Devi@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Depending on your age, you might just be a late bloomer. My friend just got hers at 36.

[-] Bonehead@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

No, I asked my dentist that one day. I was 32 and wanted to know when my wisdom teeth were going to come in because I was terrified about getting more major dental work done. He showed me on the xrays that I literally don't have any.

[-] Resistentialism@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

Honestly. Count yourself lucky. Contrary to their name. They are fucking dumb.

[-] PinkPanther@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I have three wisdom teeth. Luckily for me, my mouth has space for them, and they're not in any danger whatsoever.

[-] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Prominence of lactose tolerance maybe? Most animals are lactose intolerant and countries that produced a lot of dairy, the people became tolerant of it.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This makes a lot of sense. Animals turn grass into milk. Think what an advantage it is to be able to drink it. Suddenly you can live on grass. I’m sure in lean times this could easily make a life or death difference.

[-] clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago
[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 points 1 year ago

It's been long enough, but we've kept it from happening as much as it would in nature. By keeping people who have genetic traits deemed "undesirable" alive and breeding, we're effectively keeping those traits which would otherwise die out with the carriers of those genes.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer having a society that doesn't just let people die from diabetes or refuse to have offspring with dyslexic people or any such eugenics cruelty! 😂

[-] sixfold 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is a common misconception. These traits are not likely due to modern medicine (which is very, very new compared to the scale of human evolution). The environment plays a big role, but there is always a distribution of traits in a normal population, some good, some bad. Not to mention that what we might be self-selecting for must change very rapidly as civilizations rise and fall, preferences shift like the winds, and ethics rapidly evolve. I think this misconception can be dangerous, because of what you mentioned. Eugenics.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

Again, I specifically said that I prefer to have a compassionate society over a (maybe) genetically superior one that practices eugenics. The tradeoff is unquestionably worth it and you'd have to be very callous to disagree.

Also, I never said that medicine was the sole reason. On the contrary, I said that it's social society (which medicine is one of many results of) as a whole and a general disposition towards keeping your loved ones alive even if they can't hunt. That's much older than medicine. It's literally a cornerstone of what a society is.

[-] sixfold 10 points 1 year ago

I hear you, but genetic change at the level of these diseases and traits can take on the order of hundreds of thousands of years or more to accumulate into meaningful trends. Social society is a part of that process, in the way it might be for other social animals. If social dynamics tend to result in communities harboring vulnerable individuals, then there is probably some selective advantage to that behavior, not the other way around.

[-] rynzcycle@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Booze.

Origins of Human Alcohol Consumption Revealed

One model for the evolution of alcohol consumption suggests that ethanol only entered the human diet after people began to store extra food, potentially after the advent of agriculture, and that humans subsequently developed ways to intentionally direct the fermentation of food about 9,000 years ago.

[-] alias@artemis.camp 3 points 1 year ago

OTOH, I've watched videos of monkeys supposedly drunk on naturally fermented fruit from the first floor. It's not the same level of alcohol or anywhere near as regular, but alcohol is a thing in nature.

I'm probably just being pedantic and you meant calorifically significantamounts of alcohol on a regular basis.

[-] rynzcycle@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, exactly. From the article, it's theorised that we got some tolerance early on, like ape ancestors, and then selected for higher tolerance along the way post agri. Interestingly, and somewhat intuitively, there are some papers examining the opposite now, that people in the last 200 years are evolving to lack the gene that allows us to processes acetaldehyde (drinking byproduct) specifically because too much drinking is harmful (and can harm reproduction).

[-] Leisureguy@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

"Evolution" is a broad term, and human evolution definitely includes cultural evolution — the evolution of Richard Dawkins called "memes." A meme (in that sense) is anything that is taught to others or learned from others: how to make a musical instrument from a read, how to play some particular tune, how to dance a particular dance, and so on. Obviously, there are MANY things one can learn/teach in a community, so natural selection enters the picture, with some ideas/skills becoming prevalent while others wither away. Evolution of cultural knowledge is so rapid that it can be observed: evolution in clothing style, music, language, ways of organizing, and so on.

But I think you are talking about the evolution of our physical bodies. Lactose tolerance seems to be a recent evolutionary change, still not well distributed among humans.

[-] zepheriths@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Do you mean a change because of agriculture, or just since Agriculture? This would mean within the past 10000 years was there any significant genetic differences. I don't think we have a good way to know if any new Genes existed after the invention of agriculture, because we haven't got full genomes yet from humans that long ago

[-] Blyfh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is a very interesting thread! Thanks for asking the question, OP.

this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
115 points (96.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35870 readers
732 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS