Are humans still evolving?

gg_humans_evolving_main

Perplexing, isn’t it? Homo sapiens, as a species, have made it. There are now over 7 billion of us swarming across the planet, going about our daily business and often forgetting our humble origins. Indeed, often forgetting that we are a bunch of bald apes with enormous heads, doing weird things like watching football matches and hoovering and writing blogs. If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, where those organisms with the greatest reproductive success increase their gene frequencies and are ‘evolutionarily successful’ then why aren’t we all focussing on just having sex? Let’s face it; something incredibly weird has happened to human evolution.

Only 0.1% of the human genome exhibits variation, in other words we are 99.9% genetically identical. Compare any two humans, ANY two humans, and they are vastly more similar genetically than, say, a Western and Central African Chimpanzee. Despite this, ever mounting datasets from projects such as the 1000 genomes project and the HapMap project allow scientists to unpick signatures in our genetic ancestry, and identify startlingly recent instances of human evolution.

Between 8,500 and 2,500 years ago, humans started behaving differently. Many were abandoning their hunter-gatherer way of life for a more sedentary one in which they had fixed homes and farmed the land. This period is known as the Neolithic revolution. Changes in culture during the Neolithic revolution hugely altered the selective pressures which would guide the natural selection of human individuals.

Many adaptive genes increased in frequency during the Neolithic revolution, due to the drastic changes in diet. AMY1 gene, for example, currently exists in the human genome at between 2 and 15 copies, depending on the individual. AMY1 is a gene which codes for amylase, an enzyme that breaks down starchy food like bread into glucose, which can then be used to fuel respiration. So if you have a higher copy number of AMY1 in your genome, you can break down proportionately more starch. Interestingly, individuals with a higher copy number AMY1 are associated with regions where starchy food was (and still is) a key staple of the diet. So in Japan, Europe and the USA, where starch has historically been essential to the diet, AMY1 levels are higher, whereas the Mbuti and Biaka people of Africa (who live primarily by hunting and gathering) have comparatively lower AMY1 copy number.

As society has progressed and western culture has emerged, diet has not only changed but also our living standards. It is safe to say that in western culture many people are obsessed with cleanliness and as such alienate themselves from parasites and bacteria. For natural selection to be directive, a selective pressure needs to be present so if many humans live in a very hygienic environment, there is little evolutionary incentive for the species to continue to evolve immune defences to parasites and bacteria.

This ‘Hygiene Hypothesis’ goes further and says that intense cleanliness has meant that humans are slowly losing some of their ability to respond to infection. And this sounds feasible, since in this day and age even if you are genetically unhealthy, you have a plethora of antibiotics available, and so may still live to a ripe old age and have babies. Infectious diseases have fallen since the advent of medicine but immune disorders such as Coeliac disease, asthma and Crohn’s disease are on the rise. The Hygiene Hypothesis suggests that as we move beyond how our lives were in the ancestral state, we become increasingly ill-adapted to our environment.

The incredibly debilitating disorder Crohn’s disease, where patients experience life-long abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea, provides a fascinating example of how our pre-historic environment once supplemented disease. In this modern age, those with Crohn’s disease are at the whim of modern medicine. Interestingly, treatment with an age-old parasite, the tapeworm, alleviates many of the symptoms of Crohn’s.

The parasites and bacteria our ancestors faced not only helped them develop, but drove the evolution of human resistance to infectious disease. To some extent, this aspect of evolution may be stalling.

So great! We have definitely evolved in the last 8,500 years. But are we evolving NOW? The inevitable and slightly boring answer is a resounding yes. Evolution is defined as the change in gene variant frequency over time within a population. Given that we all have genes, and some of us are having children, evolution must be occurring. The more interesting question is: in which direction is evolution taking us, if any?

We have established that a selection pressure imposed by the environment drives the direction of natural selection and thus morphs the future population. So, what can we say of our selective pressures?

Well in fact, more than any organism ever on this planet, humans are now creating their own selective pressures.

Here I would like to introduce the concept of the ‘Extended Phenotype’, a beautiful concept developed by Richard Dawkins. A phenotype is an observable trait of an organism. So my red hair, or your height or my brothers blood type, are all phenotypes. The extended phenotype takes a step further. Not only is my red hair a phenotype (incidentally; dyed red hair, but then again did not my genes, development and environment not compel me to decide to dye it red?) but so too is anything that I build or create. Just as much as a bee’s hive, or a beaver’s dam, is an extended phenotype, so too is human society, built by and lived in by humans.

So why am I talking about this? I am trying to point out a fascinating and also incredibly worrying loop in the course of our own evolution. As our extended phenotype becomes ever more convoluted and complex, it extensively defines our environment. So much so that we are in fact now being subject to the selective pressures that we ourselves have created. As more and more human generations are born, the very fabric of our nature weakens. Our biology becomes hyper-dependent on our environment, an environment which we (the products of our biology and environment) have ourselves created.

So what for the future of our species?

One thing is for sure: our species is changing. In particular, as our society becomes ever more complex, it is perhaps also becoming increasingly fragile. As we become adapted to an ever more artificial environment, we can only become more vulnerable – and what will happen when that artificial environment ceases to exist? Only time will tell.

8 thoughts on “Are humans still evolving?

  1. A very interesting blog.
    I like to take a more optimistic view of our genetic future though:
    As our knowledge of the genome grows, we’ll become more and more able to directly intervene. It’s already happening with gene therapy for cystic fibrosis. Eventually we’ll be able to tease out and model the phenotypic effects and interactions of every single base pair of our genome, and change them routinely.
    At this point we’ll have to decide exactly what we want humanity to be, and then we can allow natural evolution to give way to a sort of intelligent design, with ourselves as the designer.

  2. Hey Tim! Thanks for your comment! I don’t know if you know about ENCODE, but they’ve generated vast amount of data on the human genome. The problem is, the epigenetic state of our genome turns out to be insanely complicated and often has unpredictable effects. I often feel that we really know hardly anything about our genome.. Modelling the effects of altering base pairs on phenotype also could be a long way away, the number of interactions would be unimaginably large (due to epistatic and additive effects etc). So first we need to think about building a computer to hold that kind of data.
    Certainly, we now understand the vast majority of the genetics underpinning Mendelian diseases such as CF, but as far as I am aware we are still a long way away from successful gene therapy and even further away from understanding complex disease such as T2 diabetes.
    As to your last comment, you will recall that evolution isn’t predictive – and even if it was can you really see humans achieving this? There would be no benefit for hundreds of generations (if ever a benefit), and it could mean a return to primitive living..
    Very interesting thought experiments! Definitely room for a more optimistic attitude towards our genome, perhaps I will talk about it in future blogs..

  3. Wow! Charlotte you have really opened my eyes to the human condition from a genetics standpoint. I never thought I’d find something like this interesting! You’ve converted me! I’ll definitely be taking biology A level now!

  4. Hey Clarissa! I discussed human evolution a lot in Cambridge with the very brilliant zoologist Dr Matthew Wilkinson and my uni peers. Also I’ve learned a lot about it from my undergraduate lectures and reading papers and books like Richard Dawkin’s ‘The Extended Phenotype’. Basically from being a massive nerd and thinking about evolution a lot!

    Charlotte

  5. Every time I hear “man,” or “human” made enviroments such as “man made lakes, or that humans are causing global warming to incresse faster or something like I think, well man IS nature. We as humas aren’t above any other factor that changes the earth and the world we a live. People will argue or give the excuse that humas can think and therefore “know better” as to not to harm or change the environment. I argue that. Even though we know certin things we do can or will harm the enviroment we do them anyway. It is in our genes. Of course there are some that believe if they act or do differently they can make a change or preserve things that it will prevent harm to the earth, but the percentage of humas that actually do that is a pitance compared tho the population of the world. So “man made”. No such thing! If a giant meteriote colided with earth today like they have in the past, the earth and everything natural or “man made” will vaporize and disapate. The earth would be a molten ball. When the earth cooled down and recovered everything would start over. In 3 billion years and if the sun has not died, and humans evolved again there would be no evidence that there was any living, or man made thing before the melt down on earth that the earlest fosils they found would indicate.

  6. Every time I hear “man,” or “human” made environments such as buildings, cities, factories, “man made” lakes etc, or that humans are causing global warming to increase faster, or humans are destroying the environment, I think, well, man IS nature! We came from the earth the same as any entity on it. We as humans aren’t above any other factor that changes the earth, environment, and the world we a live. People will argue or give the excuse that humans can think and therefore “know better” as to not to harm or change the environment. I argue that. Even though we know certain things we do can, or will harm the environment, we do them anyway. It is in our genes. Of course there are some that believe if they act or do differently they can make a change or preserve things that it will prevent harm to the earth, but the percentage of humans that actually do that is a pittance compared the population of the world. So “man made”. No such thing! If a giant meteorite collided with earth today like they have in the past, the earth and everything natural or “man made” will vaporize and disappear. The earth would be a molten ball. When the earth cooled down and recovered everything would start over. In 3 billion years and if the sun has not died, and humans evolved again there would be no evidence that there was any living, or man made thing before the melt down on earth that the earliest fossils they might find would indicate.

  7. Please ignore and don’t post my first comment #5. It I forgot to spell check. It is racked with errors.

  8. Yes I agree that man is part of nature, and by extension, you could define our actions and creations as natural. However, how useful is this argument? We need a way of referring to the pollutants that humans produce, as these pollutants are incredibly different to the ones other animals can make. We are able to pull enormous amounts of carbon out of the Earth and pump it into the sky, to make incredibly stable polymers, to slaughter entire species.

    As to your argument that this destructive behaviour is ‘in our genes’, I’m afraid as a geneticist I entirely disagree. Genes codes for RNA codes for proteins. Genes do not code for things like environmental disregard. We are fortunate to have evolved into existence with a large, complex and plastic brain. We are able to learn. We can either use our brains to stop wreaking havoc on our planet, or we can ignore the whole situation and let millions of eco-systems slip away.

    To me, the argument you postulate provides an easy way for people to ‘get out of’ caring about their actions, it is a dangerous argument in the hands of people who don’t understand genetics are a looking for an excuse to make their actions justified.

    As to your meteorite argument, I am not sure how big an asteroid would need to be to turn our planet into a fireball. But if this did happen, most geologists agree that complex life could not evolve again. Our sun is too old.

    Thanks for your post – really thought provoking.
    Charlotte

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>