Choosing To Evolve
by MikeGeneRichard Hoppe draws our attention to a very interesting study about human evolution. Hoppe pinpoints the main findings: "Many genes under recent selection cluster into four main groupings: "host-pathogen interactions, reproduction, protein metabolism, and neuronal function". That last, of course, is real interesting!" He also links to John Hawks blog, where Hawk gives us a tantalizing portion of the study:
The numbers obtained, however, are similar to estimated numbers obtained for artificial selection (by humans) on the maize genome (45). Given that most of these selective events likely occurred in the last 10,000 Ã? 40,000 years, a time of major population expansion out of Africa followed by regional shifts from hunterÃ?gatherer to agrarian societies, it is tempting to speculate that gene Ã? culture interactions directly or indirectly shaped our genomic architecture.
I have not read the study, but if we go back to Hoppe's categories, they all nicely fit together. As our ancestors expanded out of Africa, they would likely encounter new pathogens. As they shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to an agrarian society, this would have influenced reproductive behavior and diet. And taken together, a better brain would have facilitated all of this.
What's most interesting from the telic perspective is the foundational role of choice. Since we're dealing with a mere 10-40,000 years ago, it is reasonable to assume our ancestors were making choices in their new environments and these choices themselves set up the selective pressures to cull the genetic variability. Thus, it is not surprising that "the numbers"¦are similar to estimated numbers obtained for artificial selection (by humans) on the maize genome." In essence, just as choices define the selective pressure in artificial selection of plants and animals, our choices defined the selective pressures of our own evolution. Of course, our ancestors did not set out to evolve themselves into us. Nevertheless, they were not passive players in an elaborate dance between genetic variability and selection. They played an active, even human, role in their own evolution.
Hawks is right when noting, "It would be hard for me to overstate how important this paper is." In due time, we'll see why.
December 26th, 2005 at 11:47 am
quote: "In essence, just as choices define the selective pressure in artificial selection of plants and animals, our choices defined the selective pressures of our own evolution. Of course, our ancestors did not set out to evolve themselves into us."
I have to admit that I am a little confused. Why is this on Telic Thoughts? How does this differ from a standard evolution process of Random Mutation and Natural Selection?
Comment by hrun — December 26, 2005 @ 11:47 am
December 26th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
hrun,
As I have explained many times before, I do not think the standard evolution process of Random Mutation and Natural Selection is wrong. I think it may be incomplete. Here is a very interesting example where random mutation and natural selection were subservient to choice. As time passes, it will become more clear why this is on Telic Thoughts.
Comment by MikeGene — December 26, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Interesting. Apparently, the Garbage Disposal has an undue bearing on what makes us human.
Comment by Art — December 26, 2005 @ 2:33 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Art:
Apparently, the Garbage Disposal has an undue bearing on what makes us human.
Interesting. Perhaps someday someone will discover what does make us human. And if that data destroys NDE I wonder if that someone will speak up…
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 2:39 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
I think that exploring aspects of evolution that extend beyond the (Neo-Darwinian Theory) NDT is something that needs to be done. Because, like the member here at TelicThoughts, I also think the NDT is incomplete at best. However, one of my biggest issues with the NDT is that it has yet to empirically demonstrate what most call macro-evolution, which is what it's supposed to explain. For instance, we haven't seen fruit-flies evolve into wasps, or so-called more primitive microbes (prokaryotes) (even begin to) evolve into more more modern-type microbes (eukaryotes) no nucleus beginnings, nor the beginnings of any other struture or functions that serperate the two. These are just a couple of broad examples out of tons that have been covered in the large literature critical of neo-Darwinism ranging from young-earth creationism to self-organization theories.
I don't say all this merely to bash the NDT. Rather, I mean to say that unless these other hypothetical aspects can themselves sufficiently provide empirical answers to the aforementioned problems with evolution, then I can only be just as skeptical of them as I am with neo-Darwinism. Of course, perhaps some of these new hypotheses just need a little research time, and then they will provide the answers. Nonetheless, the burden for them is no lighter than it is for the NDT.
Comment by Dane Parker — December 26, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
MG:
erm……they weren't necessarily subserviant to choice to evolve. Choice to take a course of action that results in evolution is not choice to evolve in the particular way that occurred. Even if there is some choice to evolve, and while its likely that people have for a long time had an idea about selective breeding, for instance, breeding can have unintended consequences. So while intelligent behavior (in my opinion) undoubtedly influenced our evolutionary history, stupid behavior, and blind accident brought about by behavior in all likelyhood did as well…..
It is kinda hard to see how this affects evolutionary biology in (necessarily) a special way. Its just behavior: lots of animals display selective mating.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 12:56 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 2:23 am
It is very significant if you see the same kind of change in human inheritance patterns that you see in corn after its domestication (one wonders if you could compare cross reference the human example and the corn example cited at PT with patterns in other domesticated plants and animals to see what kinds of similarities or differences you get). Of course humans continued to practice mate selection the way other animals did after the rise of language and culture, but that selection process was no longer merely at the mercy of nature, but also bounded by how humans were consciously changing their environment by the choices they made. Furthermore the same abilities that made it possible for humans to change their environment were deployed in mate selection. It wasn't just pheremones and hormones anymore, but conscious choice played a role too. This study suggests that the human genome reflects that. If you can track the role choice plays in the history of a given genome that's significant.
Comment by roy w. — December 29, 2005 @ 2:23 am
December 29th, 2005 at 2:33 am
Nicely stated, roy w. Unfortunately, the title of my blog is somewhat misleading. It's not about choosing to evolve - it's how our choices made us who were are. It may be much more juicy than this, but I need to get my hands on the paper.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 2:33 am
December 29th, 2005 at 2:40 am
What exactly do you mean by "the same pattern" ? You are jumping way ahead of me. maybe I missed something.
Ummmmmm…yeah, choice. But choice of what? If this has significance for intelligent design then it isn't enough to demonstrate that pattern A observed in nature is compatible with the effects of human (or insert agent here) selection, you need to show that the pattern of change is a hallmark of the INTENT to change in a particular fashion. Otherwise it isn't intelligent design, its intelligent meddling that in no way explains the apperence of design, it just postulates that at there was apparent directional selection by non-natural means. The two things aren't really equivalent (though I agree that if you could identify an unambiguous signiture of such meddling it would be suggestive of possibilitries).
Comment by poikilotherm — December 29, 2005 @ 2:40 am
December 29th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Mike, I don't know if you want to show the cards you are holding on this one, but I'm wondering if you're wondering what I'm wondering; namely, did PT just give away an important part of the store? If you've got an example, as you say, where RM and NS were subservient to choice (the choosers in these cases being human) what if we find some other case where a genome looks like it's been tinkered with in the same way but there's no way the tinkerer could have been human? Wouldn't the natural inference be, to borrow Fred Hoyle's ironic phrasing, that some unknown intelligence "monkeyed around" with things somewhere back there. If the study you're referring to bears fruit it may be that a lot of people who never wanted to say B (ID is scientifically detectable) are starting to say A. Food for thought.
Comment by roy w. — December 29, 2005 @ 2:40 am
December 29th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Mike,
Didn't see your reply to my first post on this thread until I was posting the second, and I'm not sure how it bears on what I said there. What I didn't say clearly in the first post that I tried to say in the second is that I took this study to be suggesting that it may be possible to differentiate the marks an intelligent chooser(s) leaves on a genome (obviously there is no "design" at work here in an engineering sense). If that turns out to be the case and becomes a widely acceptable idea scientifically then it's obvious to me anyway that it bears on the scientific status of ID, and I was wondering if that was why this study interested you in the way that it did.
Comment by roy w. — December 29, 2005 @ 2:52 am
December 29th, 2005 at 3:22 am
poikilotherm,
What exactly do you mean by "the same pattern" ? You are jumping way ahead of me. maybe I missed something.
I should have said "similar pattern." The idea is that the corn genome and the human genome both changed in an empirically detectable manner after conscious human choice was introduced into the reproductive process of both organisms. I was wondering, and there may be a grant being written for it even yet, if anyone is pondering research to see if you could find similar patterns of genetic change in other domesticated plants and animals. One interesting application of this sort of thing, I suppose, might be in paleoanthropology. Mightn't there be extinct species of animals or (more likely) plants that were once domesticated by humans, but that never made it to the age of recorded history? If you somehow recovered genetic material from such an extinct organism that was contemporaneous w/ humans from the same 10-40 kya time frame, and it showed a similar pattern of change to humans and maize (corn) and say, domestic dogs then wouldn't you be safe in inferring that humans had tried to domesticate that organism? That brings me to your next point.
I'm not saying this explains the appearance of design, or that it even qualifites as design. You're right, as far as genes go, this is "intelligent meddling." But if intellligent meddling turns out to be detectable, and a scientifcally valid concept then it would seem a lot harder to slam the door in the face of ID a priori. That's all I was trying to say. Hopefully, brevity is not the measure of my wit.
Comment by roy w. — December 29, 2005 @ 3:22 am
December 29th, 2005 at 8:22 am
Hi Mike,
"It may be much more juicy than this, but I need to get my hands on the paper."
You know, it's freely available as PDF here.
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 8:22 am