/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

>>3454

>lactase persistence isn't a thing

The species will continue to change in the future, but it won't be through natural selection. It will be through genetic engineering.

>>3459

Nah, it's been shown that pre-neolithic European hunter-gatherers didn't have lactase persistence mutation.

Regarding diet, one thing I can see as a possible evolutionary outcome in the future is formation of populations adapted to herbivorism. Vegetarians become a persistent movement that functions as a separate caste due to their hate for omnivores, and eventually loses ability to normally digest meat.

>>3461

Would intentional changes count as evolution? The changes in domesticated animals through controlled breeding aren't considered evolution are there?

>>3467

How could anyone know about lactase persistence in prehistoric hunter gathers?

They didn't even have any domesticated animals to get milk from. Animal domestication is part of the Neolithic period.

And just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean you lose the ability to digest it and pass on those genes.

That would be lamarckian inheritance and it's been disproven.

>>3470

>How could anyone know about lactase persistence in prehistoric hunter gathers?

DNA studies.

>And just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean you lose the ability to digest it and pass on those genes.

No, but it takes out natural selection against such genes. At the same time there would be positive selection towards genes favouring herbivorism.

That is unless taking a shitload of supplements somehow prevents such evolution from happening.

>>3469

Nope that's called artificial selection, or in case of humans eugenics.

>>3471

DNA studies of what?

Their remains I guess, but it's not like we have an abundance of those so could we consider them a representative sample.

>>3471

>but it takes out natural selection against such genes. At the same time there would be positive selection towards genes favouring herbivorism

Do vegetarians have more children than anyone else?

>>3475

At least from my anecdotal experience they do, and from my anecdotal experience children have over 50% chance of inheriting the vegetarianism meme.

Note that N is about 10 families.

>>3474

Well check this article.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3736.short

It is a small sample, though.

>>3485

And Scottish Children are most likely to wear kilts.. That's culture. Not evolution.

Learned behavior doesn't change the animal.

Learned behavior is not inherited.

If you could get an Arab to eat pork,, he could digest it just as well as anyone else, even if he was the first in my family line in generations to eat pork.

>>3486

it's an extremely small sample.. nine individuals.

>>3488

>Learned behavior doesn't change the animal.

Tell that to wall lizards from Mrčaru.

>>3467

>possible evolutionary outcome in the future

Nah.

When were at the point were biological changes have been hardened, we surely already know how to make artficial vatmeat until then, rendering vegetarianism useless.

People might not eat cow anymore, but MCjoy-Vatmeat burgers in 34 tastes- crocodile flesh imitate included!

>>3454

>Humanity is no longer subject to natural selection and therefore species is not going to change.

I've heard this bullshit several times before. This is a somewhat common notion. A way of saying we beat nature. That humans are something else entirely, separated from the natural realm.

The thing is that natural selection is still acting on humanity. Natural selection works it's way trough environmental pressures. The human environment doesn't have the same pressures as a jungle (predators, sickness, hunting for survival), but it has 'social pressures', if you will.

Sexual selection of viable partners is no longer made based upon their ability to hunt prey, but on their ability to bring food to the table. Skills that require good social adaptation.

>An Eskimo is born with blubber and fur, so he can swim in the icy ocean and walk around naked in the snow for hours.

But he is also a repugnant freak that no woman will touch and is driven away from the village. No children for the next step in Eskimo evolution so it's a genetic dead end.

Yeah, no. The environment the Eskimos have to survive in —primarily— is not the polar region in itself. It's their tribal society, which in turn helps them survive the polar region.

Now you could say, "but social selection is a completely different thing than natural selection". I'm pretty much convinced that society is a survival strategy —and therefore an extension of nature— of the human species. Not that different from ant colonies…

>>3454

>species is not going to change

Except, it does.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/uol-bdw031005.php

Survivors of the black plague passed a recessive gene to it's descendants making them less prone to HIV infections.

There is evidence of directional selection (selection of a certain phenotype) as recently as 15,000 year ago. It might as well still continue to this day.

Also, for there to be a clear visible change in species, you need several million years. Homo sapiens have been on earth a meek 130,000 years only. That's something like 6000 to 12 000 generations. Not enough see speciation

>>3454

>>3472

artificial selection is part of evolution. example: dogs evolved from wolves by human hand.

>>3488

>>3488

Learned behavior might not change the animal and it doesn't need to. Natural selection does not effect the genetics of a certain individual but rather chooses it so that it can proliferate. That can also be achieved by culture, you mongol.

>>3498

someone give this man a medal

>diseases aren't selection pressures

lol

>Humanity is no longer subject to natural selection

Uhh… what? That's false.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again.

Is the word you're looking for neotony?

>>3604

>neotony

that'd be neoteny

>>3498

People seem to think that evolution only happens when some kind of super obvious selective pressure is present.

>>3498

>but on their ability to bring food to the table

No, any retard can breed and any retard will breed, cause there's nothing to stop them.

And we all know retards breed at a faster rate than smart people

>>3647

And this is how civilization will end.

Although a double sided coin, perhaps it will mean that Humanity will be put back into the evolutionary meat grinder and we could come out generally more intelligent and less retarded if we're lucky.

>>3647

So the natural selection bar has lowered.

>>3724

It's not a standard which is satisfied. It's a set of parameters. Ceteris paribus, people with gene X will produce x offspring each generation, and people without it will produce y offspring. If x>y and enough generations are iterated, X is far more common than not X.

How quick natural selection is depends on the ratio x/y. If conditions improve or worsen for everyone, x/y doesn't change. There is no minimum value for x or y either - too low for both of them and the species quickly goes extinct, but evolution continues on the way down.

>>3738

There are also serious implications in the context of r/K selection theory, by making the bar more limiting in the context of reproduction rather than survival, this completely changes the direction of evolution in that context.