Gavin's Darwin awards got me thinking...

[Ben Thomas]

Not strictly work related, but an interesting thought...

Reading about the guy who deselected himself from the human race got me thinking about evolution. At the risk of sounding Malthusian, I have wondered for some time about how mankind is evolving in the modern world. Received wisdom is that it can take up to 10,000 years for any major change to occur in the DNA, however a recent study of Sticklebacks in the US has turned that on its head. The visibility in a particular lake was just a few inches and the fish had little need for protection. Consequently they had light colouring and relatively few spines. A large scale clean-up took place in the 60s, one of the costliest environmental actions of the decade, resulting in 5ft of clear visibility. Within 40 years, all of the fish had grown armour and thorny spines and their skin had turned very dark. The scientists suggested that this was genetic change at an accelerated rate. My thought was 'natural selection'. If there were a few fish with a genetic mutation like the new fish, they would be the onlt survivors and therefore the only successful breeders - all the babies would have the same traits... To reinforce the genetic mutation idea though, there was a study conducted in Scandinavia somewhere, regarding a family where all the kids were nocturnal, they just couldn;t keep awake in the day. With a very small gene pool and a traceable family tree, they found that it was one of the great grandparents, who had worked all his life on night shifts.
If there is the possiblity of accelerated genetic mutation based on environmental factors rather than simple mutations, I wonder how our behaviours now - driving everywhere, reduced exercise, increased calorie intake etc will affect future generations in the not too distant future. Equally, is there any evidence to support the idea that a top achiever can pass on elements of their (learned) behaviour to their kids / grand-kids, or is 'success' in life from an evolutionary perspective, still only measured in environmental terms at a genetic level? In other words, can we evolve intellectually, or is it just physical?

[Jason]

I've thought about this over the years as well. It does not appear, to me, that humans will evolve quickly unless there is a major event that kills of most of the population. For proof, look around and see that so many people breeds "successfully." This is not limited to the best among us (nor am I implying that it should be). Since anyone can breed and their children can also breed the human gene pool is actually getting worse over time. Modern medicine has made it more likely that less adaptive DNA will be passed through the gene pool. Over 10,000 years I wonder what effect this might have on humanity?
That being said, I think success in life from a genetic level is having your genes pass along to the next generation and then again to the next. That's it, that's all. Really very simple. Success in life is a much different monster.

I hope no one takes this as an argument for some crazy action to limit who can procreate etc. Morals and ethics should not be dictated by science but rather the inverse.

[Ben Thomas]

I agree that this is dangerous ground, if you read up on 'the 'Reverend Malthus', it could be argued that mankind is sitting on a timebomb. What got me thinking about this is the recent uncertainties in the global markets. A british General once said that you are only three meals away from anarchy. We can 'manage' population growth as long as we keep some sort of economic stability. If things go 'pear shaped', we are left with a food supply which can't support the numbers of people and a population which includes hordes of people who wouldn't stand a chance in a more primitive world. This is not some argument for eugenics, simply an observation and as such, it is interesting to consider that maybe a weaker gene pool is the price we pay for 'interference' with natural selection through 'civilisation'. I would imagine that if the worst were ever to occur, nature would happily redress the balance. In the meantime, I still wonder if mental ability will / is something which nature is passing on in some way, as some sort of 'default' natural selection? If its not about the best hunter, then what is it all about now...