Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike

Dec 10, 2007

Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different.

“We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah.

Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

-- “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”

-- “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, “and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then.”

“Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups.”

The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because “we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt,” Harpending adds. “And with a larger population, more mutations occurred.”

Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: “History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants.”

Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine.

No Justification for Discrimination

The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.

That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans – whose DNA is more than 99 percent identical – generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture plays a bigger role than genetics.

Harpending says genetic differences among different human populations “cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution aren’t predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities whatever their group.”

Analyzing SNPs of Evolutionary Acceleration

The study looked for genetic evidence of natural selection – the evolution of favorable gene mutations – during the past 80,000 years by analyzing DNA from 270 individuals in the International HapMap Project, an effort to identify variations in human genes that cause disease and can serve as targets for new medicines.

The new study looked specifically at genetic variations called “single nucleotide polymorphisms,” or SNPs (pronounced “snips”) which are single-point mutations in chromosomes that are spreading through a significant proportion of the population.

Imagine walking along two chromosomes – the same chromosome from two different people. Chromosomes are made of DNA, a twisting, ladder-like structure in which each rung is made of a “base pair” of amino acids, either G-C or A-T. Harpending says that about every 1,000 base pairs, there will be a difference between the two chromosomes. That is known as a SNP.

Data examined in the study included 3.9 million SNPs from the 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe and northern Europeans, represented largely by data from Utah Mormons, says Harpending.

Over time, chromosomes randomly break and recombine to create new versions or variants of the chromosome. “If a favorable mutation appears, then the number of copies of that chromosome will increase rapidly” in the population because people with the mutation are more likely to survive and reproduce, Harpending says.

“And if it increases rapidly, it becomes common in the population in a short time,” he adds.

The researchers took advantage of that to determine if genes on chromosomes had evolved recently. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, with each parent providing one copy of each of the 23. If the same chromosome from numerous people has a segment with an identical pattern of SNPs, that indicates that segment of the chromosome has not broken up and recombined recently.

That means a gene on that segment of chromosome must have evolved recently and fast; if it had evolved long ago, the chromosome would have broken and recombined.

Harpending and colleagues used a computer to scan the data for chromosome segments that had identical SNP patterns and thus had not broken and recombined, meaning they evolved recently. They also calculated how recently the genes evolved.

A key finding: 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, recent evolution.

The researchers built a case that human evolution has accelerated by comparing genetic data with what the data should look like if human evolution had been constant:

-- The study found much more genetic diversity in the SNPs than would be expected if human evolution had remained constant.

-- If the rate at which new genes evolve in Africans was extrapolated back to 6 million years ago when humans and chimpanzees diverged, the genetic difference between modern chimps and humans would be 160 times greater than it really is. So the evolution rate of Africans represents a recent speedup in evolution.

-- If evolution had been fast and constant for a long time, there should be many recently evolved genes that have spread to everyone. Yet, the study revealed many genes still becoming more frequent in the population, indicating a recent evolutionary speedup.

Next, the researchers examined the history of human population size on each continent. They found that mutation patterns seen in the genome data were consistent with the hypothesis that evolution is faster in larger populations.

Evolutionary Change and Human History: Got Milk?

“Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation,” the study says. “The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease.”

The researchers note that human migrations into new Eurasian environments created selective pressures favoring less skin pigmentation (so more sunlight could be absorbed by skin to make vitamin D), adaptation to cold weather and dietary changes.

Because human population grew from several million at the end of the Ice Age to 6 billion now, more favored new genes have emerged and evolution has speeded up, both globally and among continental groups of people, Harpending says.

"We have to understand genetic change in order to understand history,” he adds.

For example, in China and most of Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase remains active, so “almost everyone can drink fresh milk,” explaining why dairying is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean and Africa, Harpending says.

He now is studying if the mutation that allowed lactose tolerance spurred some of history’s great population expansions, including when speakers of Indo-European languages settled all the way from northwest India and central Asia through Persia and across Europe 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. He suspects milk drinking gave lactose-tolerant Indo-European speakers more energy, allowing them to conquer a large area.

But Harpending believes the speedup in human evolution “is a temporary state of affairs because of our new environments since the dispersal of modern humans 40,000 years ago and especially since the invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago. That changed our diet and changed our social systems. If you suddenly take hunter-gatherers and give them a diet of corn, they frequently get diabetes. We’re still adapting to that. Several new genes we see spreading through the population are involved with helping us prosper with high-carbohydrate diet.”

Source: University of Utah

Explore further: Sheep flock to Eiffel Tower as French farmers cry wolf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Brain folding

Nov 26, 2014

The neocortex is the part of the brain that enables us to speak, dream, or think. The underlying mechanism that led to the expansion of this brain region during evolution, however, is not yet understood. ...

Beyond human: Exploring transhumanism

Nov 25, 2014

What do pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, Iron Man and flu vaccines all have in common? They are examples of an old idea that's been gaining in significance in the last several decades: transhumanism. The word ...

Evolution: The genetic connivances of digits and genitals

Nov 20, 2014

During the development of mammals, the growth and organization of digits are orchestrated by Hox genes, which are activated very early in precise regions of the embryo. These "architect genes" are themselves regulated by ...

Scientists map mouse genome's 'mission control centers'

Nov 19, 2014

When the mouse and human genomes were catalogued more than 10 years ago, an international team of researchers set out to understand and compare the "mission control centers" found throughout the large stretches ...

Recommended for you

Genomes of malaria-carrying mosquitoes sequenced

13 hours ago

Nora Besansky, O'Hara Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame and a member of the University's Eck Institute for Global Health, has led an international team of scientists in sequencing ...

Bitter food but good medicine from cucumber genetics

13 hours ago

High-tech genomics and traditional Chinese medicine come together as researchers identify the genes responsible for the intense bitter taste of wild cucumbers. Taming this bitterness made cucumber, pumpkin ...

New button mushroom varieties need better protection

18 hours ago

A working group has recently been formed to work on a better protection of button mushroom varieties. It's activities are firstly directed to generate consensus among the spawn/breeding companies to consider ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bigwheel
1 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2007
I see everything but some actual genetic codes showing any
difference at all. What a crock that these people get paid for
making crap like this up. mutations always cause deformities or
weaknesses in people, never seen anything to the contrary
MikeMarianiMD,FAAP
4.3 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2007
Mutations are genetic changes. Suggesting that all mutations are negatively impactful is erroneous. Indeed, now that humans have profoundly over-populated our ecological niche there is a huge surfeit of genetic variation. Ergo, acceleration of human evolution is certain. Will it be advantageous?
Time will tell.
wesgeorge
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2007
This is very interesting results, because the politically correct dogma has always been that evolution in humans stopped once we left the caves. I suppose the no recent evolution dogma meant our so-called intellectual elites could turn a blind eye to a whole gamut of sticky issues.

Lawrence Summer's got fired from his job as president of Harvard for even bring up the topic of possible genetic difference between the sexes. Left wing academics practically lynched the guy and surely violated his first amendment rights.

This data supports opening vast new horizons in social history and policy such as pursued by Gregory Clark, an economic historian at UC Davis who in a new book presents genetic evidence for why the industrial revolution occurred in Europe and not say in Africa or China.

Perhaps, EO Wilson of Harvard kicked off the whole area of research back in 1978 with his book introducing the then new field of sociobiology.

Well, it's going to be an interesting next few decades of research. Might make the current climatology wars look tame in comparison.
mabarker
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2007
Rite, Dr. Mike. Most mutations are negative or neutral. Whether there are real beneficial mutations (i.e. genetic mistakes that actually code for new structures, tissues or organs - would some 1 on this post please list all of them for me? Thank you). In my last reading of Levinton's 'Macroevolution' 2nd ed (has any 1 read this?) I did not come across an example of a single "beneficial" mutation. Not one. Under the word 'mutation' in the Index (p. 612) there's no 'beneficial' listed. Why is that?
I was disappointed that Harpending et al did not address macroevolution - who is our alleged evolutionary ancestor(s) since 'Lucy', H. habilis & H. erectus have been removed from the supposed "family tree". It almost looks like man was . . . awww - never mind.
Anyway - all this article addressed was minor variation of people groups ("races" is a racist word - very un p.c.). There is only 1 race and that's the human race.
Mike, you said "acceleration of human evolution is certain" - but what kind of evolution? Surely not macroevolution since that is a philosophy, not science. Remember what atheist J. Trefil said in his 1996 book, %u201CHuman paleontology is a field that has always been %u2013 and most likely always will be %u2013 starved for data [scientific evidence].%u201D - p. 276. I agree. Way back in Aug of '07 evolutionist Seth Borenstein said, "Fossils paint messy picture of human origins" and %u201CNew findings raise questions about who evolved from whom." There's nothing we know about human evolution [sic].

BTW - since you're a doctor I was wondering if you agree with the statement that "rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations" has allegedly occurred? I'm a zoologist and I find it to be laughable - unless there are clear scientific citations. The dentition of man has changed due to diet (e.g. removal of wisdom teeth) not random genetic mistakes changing the mandible.
MongHTan,PhD
not rated yet Dec 11, 2007
Mutations are genetic changes. Suggesting that all mutations are negatively impactful is erroneous. Indeed, now that humans have profoundly over-populated our ecological niche there is a huge surfeit of genetic variation. Ergo, acceleration of human evolution is certain. Will it be advantageous?
Time will tell.


Evolution of life species happens all the time since the Biogenesis on Earth over 3 billion years ago. The modern human evolution will depend on how we interact with the environments; as of now, since the Indusrial Revolution, we might be evolving ourselves into a self-extinction on Earth, if we still have no plans of protecting our environments, including environmental pollutions and global warming, etc!

This is very interesting results, because the politically correct dogma has always been that evolution in humans stopped once we left the caves. I suppose the no recent evolution dogma meant our so-called intellectual elites could turn a blind eye to a whole gamut of sticky issues.

Lawrence Summer's got fired from his job as president of Harvard for even bring up the topic of possible genetic difference between the sexes. Left wing academics practically lynched the guy and surely violated his first amendment rights.

This data supports opening vast new horizons in social history and policy such as pursued by Gregory Clark, an economic historian at UC Davis who in a new book presents genetic evidence for why the industrial revolution occurred in Europe and not say in Africa or China.

Perhaps, EO Wilson of Harvard kicked off the whole area of research back in 1978 with his book introducing the then new field of sociobiology.

Well, it's going to be an interesting next few decades of research. Might make the current climatology wars look tame in comparison.


You have raised several important but contradictory issues that could not be adequately rebutted or explained herein. If you're still interested, you might want to read my 2006 seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" as I explained to the interested PhysOrg.com readers here (posted on August 2, 2007):

http://forum.phys...ic=16357&view=findpost&p=243832.

Thank you all!
wesgeorge
4 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2007
Mabarker,

You said..."In my last reading of Levinton's 'Macroevolution' 2nd ed (has any 1 read this?) I did not come across an example of a single "beneficial" mutation. Not one...Why is that?"

Harpenning mentioned at least one in the article. "He now is studying if the mutation that allowed lactose tolerance spurred some of historys great population expansions."

Sounds like a pretty benefical mutation to me. I can think of a few thousand more myself off the top of my head. Remember that Harpenning is investigating the genetic markers of evolution, rather than the natural selection scenarios.

I think what you meant to say is: Mutations are always random and never directed towards an outcome. No mutation occurs as an adaptational response to a stimulus. That would be Lamarckian, kinda.

Natural selection forced by environmental pressures is what moves genetic variation along or directs it, so to speak. Not Mutations, per se.

However, without mutations occurring all the time in the background randomly, natural selection would run out of variation to select from. Dig it? There wouldn't be any wings or eyes, or for that matter people. Life wouldn't have even got to the single cell stage before variation ran out of options.

Say, only one in a million mutations ever end up being selected for the beneficial adaption of the organism. Even though that one in a million mutation was totally random, in the end it's beneficial.

Thus, there have been literally trillions of beneficial mutations just in the last few million years on this planet alone.

mikerr
not rated yet Dec 12, 2007
"published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "
- I didn't find the original publication. Can you help me? - Thanks.
mikerr
lengould100
not rated yet Jul 18, 2008
I sometimes wonder about the effects of modern medicine and relatively easy lifestyle on nature's selection mechanisms....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.