Evidence For Rapid Evolutinary Change in Humans

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7539

Humans may have evolved during a few rapid bursts of genetic change, according to a new study of the human genome, which challenges the popular theory that evolution is a gradual process.

Researchers studying human chromosome 2 have discovered that the bulk of its DNA changes occurred in a relatively short period of time and, since then, only minor alterations have occurred.

This backs a theory called “punctuated equilibrium” which suggests that evolution actually occurred as a series of jumps with long static periods between them.

Evolutionary stages are marked by changes to the DNA sequences on chromosomes. One of the ways in which chromosomes are altered is through the duplications of sections of the chromosomes. These DNA fragments may be duplicated and inserted back into the chromosome, resulting in two copies of the section.

Evan Eichler, associate professor of genomic sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, and colleagues looked at duplicated DNA sequences on a specific section of chromosome 2, to compare them with ape genomes and Old World monkey genomes. They expected to find that duplications had occurred gradually over the last few million years.

Instead, they found that the big duplications had occurred in a short period of time, relatively speaking, after which only smaller rearrangements occurred. Eichler found the bulk of the duplications were present in the genomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans, but were absent in Old World monkeys - such as baboons and macaques.
Narrow window

An analysis of the degree of chromosomal decay for this section showed that the major duplications occurred in the narrow window of evolutionary time between 20 million and 10 million years ago, after human ancestors had split from Old World monkeys, but before the divergence of humans and great apes.

“It is unclear why [these duplication] events occurred so frequently during this period of human and great ape evolutionary history. It is also unclear as to why they suddenly cease, at least in this region of chromosome 2,” Eichler says.

“Other regions may show different temporal biases. The important implication here is that episodic bursts of activity challenge the concept of gradual clock-like changes during the course of genome evolution,” he says.

“Since duplications are important in the birth of new genes and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, it may follow that these processes may have gone through similar episodes of activity followed by quiescence.”
Growing evidence

Laurence Hurst, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bath in the UK, says the study was very interesting, although he would like to see this “punctuated evolution” demonstrated for other chromosomes, to be more confident that this is a general pattern.

“There is growing evidence that evolutionary processes may occur in bursts. We now know, for example, that 50 million years ago there was a burst of activity that resulted in lots of new genes being produced,” he told New Scientist.

It is unknown what effect the sudden duplication activity may have had on chromosome 2. Eichler theorises that it may have resulted in genes for increased brain size or pathogen evasion. “If specific regions of chromosomes can have very punctuated events, it means our models based on gradual evolution are probably wrong,” he says.

The group will continue looking at the chromosome duplications to try and correlate them with changes in gene function or expression.

latebloomer: We kissy kiss in the rear view (latebloomer), Monday, 20 June 2005 02:28 (twenty years ago)

(its important to remember that even when scientists refer to 'rapid' change, such as with punctuated equilibrium, it still is a process taking thousands of years. it is only 'rapid' geologically speaking).

latebloomer: We kissy kiss in the rear view (latebloomer), Monday, 20 June 2005 02:31 (twenty years ago)

Serious question; how come people AROUND my age (I'm 27, but I'm meaning both a fair bit older and younger (obv)) have a natural aptitude w/electronic shit (appliances, computers) but people from around 50 or so up just don't? In fact, if anything, they (IN MY EXPERIENCE ETC) have a fairly massive natural INeptitude. I don't care (no valuejudgements from me about this stuff, unless I have to teach my Mum to send an email again (think she's picked it up fine by now, two years in)), but it's pretty fucking odd. I didn't grow up on electronics much more than my Mum did (she got a Tv when she was like nine, ours was blackandwhite as early as I remember), people in their 30s prob grew up living w/electronics even less than I, it's all odd. And more, maybe, than grist for "Everybody Loves Raymond" type mills.

A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Monday, 20 June 2005 03:09 (twenty years ago)

It's not so much that you have a natural aptitude, just that you don't have the conviction that you'll never understand electronic things. The past 25 years have been spent with the makers of electronic equipment designing them to be idiot-proof. Sending an email is easier than mailing a letter, visiting a website is easier than writing a company requesting information, and looking up data on anything with Google (or whatever) is easier than researching it any other way. It's a mindset problem.

I'll be 48 next month and my VCR is not flashing 12:00.

nickn (nickn), Monday, 20 June 2005 03:35 (twenty years ago)

OTM nickn

Making off like a lucky bandit / Kate (papa november), Monday, 20 June 2005 03:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm 30 and my VCR is flashing 12:00. With Cable and a bullshit tv with built-in tv guide (???) and a dvd player, I'm lucky I can get the VCR to record anything. I certainly can't watch something ELSE while my VCR is recording anything and I can't program it for shit.

My mom has learned computers quite well. I suppose it is just a bit nerve wracking when you're older. Your brain isn't as ready to learn new things as it is when you're younger, unless you've been keeping it fit by continually learning. Most people stop once they know enough to get by.

Stoner Guy, Monday, 20 June 2005 03:41 (twenty years ago)

Andrew,

I'm not sure why you chose to ask your question in this thread. Perhaps you think that computer and other kinds of tech usage skills are a new trait that can be attributed to a rapid evolutionary change? The changes aren't that rapid (you're talking one, maybe two generations here) and don't affect that kind of thing, which is based on learning skills when the brain is still very adaptable (ie young) and not so inflexible (ie old.) Your question is really about neuropsychology and not evolutionary biology.

Anyway, this is pretty interesting news, but also pretty predictable. Humans evolved the same way following the same rules as everything else, and punctuated equilibrium has settled in as an orthodox interpretation of the data. The really interesting part here is that they've located the precise time that the rapid changes (speciation) occurred, which means they can probably soon identify what caused the isolation of the populations which took divergent paths.

Hey, nickn - do I know you from pf?

Austin Still (Austin, Still), Monday, 20 June 2005 03:43 (twenty years ago)

That article omits the Intelligent Design perspective. It's when God did upgrades!

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 20 June 2005 03:46 (twenty years ago)

nobody fuckin loves raymond yo

suckafree!, Monday, 20 June 2005 03:54 (twenty years ago)

Don't like asking new questions, also this looked like it'd die pretty quick. "based on learning skills when the brain is still very adaptable (ie young) and not so inflexible (ie old.)"- I don't think the difference is that clear. How young is "young" wrt learning? 35?

"The past 25 years have been spent with the makers of electronic equipment designing them to be idiot-proof." -hasn't helped anyone ever that I know of. The mindset thing'll be it, it's what I presumed, it seems odd that's the only reason tho. I think computer shit IS creating new (semi)traits in peoples' makeup, but yeah on a psych not bio level.

A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Monday, 20 June 2005 03:57 (twenty years ago)

Hey, nickn - do I know you from pf?

Yes, I'm that nickn. I noticed Dock and Phil here, and I saw your name and eventually got enough cross-references to assume you were the PF austin, but have never said anything because I don't post that much over there to assume anyone would recognize me.

nickn (nickn), Monday, 20 June 2005 04:17 (twenty years ago)

Well, howdy! I haven't seen Milo in these parts, though he says he rolls through occassionally. I did see Lee Caulfield on some revived threads, though. I've even mentioned this as a better fallout shelter than WC or Tribe or whatever, but nobody seems to take any notice of it.

Anyway, back to the topic:

Uh, I got nothing right now.

Austin Still (Austin, Still), Monday, 20 June 2005 04:33 (twenty years ago)

Main topic: dodgy conclusions. Firstly it has 'rapid' meaning 10 million years, which isn't rapid even in these terms; but secondly, it does NOTHING to show that there has not been a similar degree of chromosomal and genetic change in the 10 million years since - all it shows is that the changes that have stuck were mostly the older ones. This fits with natural selection - only some changes will stick, and circumstances and luck will kind of determine which ones. We could talk more about local peaks and the like, but that's getting even more speculative.

That's not to say that I disagree. Very gradualist theories have looked more and more untenable, and complexity theory has made jumps, what they call here punctuated equilibrium, look more and more natural, even inevitable. I just think it's reaching to read this as strong evidence for that.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 20 June 2005 07:30 (twenty years ago)

Another simple question with a difficult answer: Are we supposed to be here?

dog latin (dog latin), Monday, 20 June 2005 10:13 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.