HUMAN EVOLUTION

Humans haven’t stopped evolving. Although civilization hasn’t been around long enough to
see any extraordinary changes, we can nonetheless expect to see some as time draws on.
This list will outline ten major changes we can expect to see over the next 200,000 years –
assuming that civilization continues along the same path it treads today. First of all let us
know what is the meaning behind this
word evolution. Most non-scientists
seem to be quite confused about precise
definitions of biological evolution. Such
confusion is due in large part to the
inability of scientists to communicate
effectively to the general public and also
to confusion among scientists
themselves about how to define such an
important term. When discussing
evolution, it is important to distinguish
between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution.
And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in
mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or
that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies,
languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution is change in the properties of
populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of
an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in
populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic
material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it
embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a
population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals
and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
generations.This is a good working scientific definition of evolution could be one that can be
used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another
common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a
gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these
newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say
that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the
frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic
changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from
a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two
separated populations since they became isolated. Unfortunately, the common definitions of
evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise
Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose
from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for
the past 3000 million years."This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this
definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual
process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to
refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition, it is possible
to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of
distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among
Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the colour
changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific
definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of
lower." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive
state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately, it is common for non-scientists to enter
into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless
debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When
someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable
scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to
demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity. Recently, I read a
statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk
about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public.
The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all
about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific
definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really
meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still
be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable
changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that
this excludes religion.

Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers.
However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for
testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology
of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and
ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and
test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like
the plesiomorphic ape Proconsul heseloni and the hominins Ardipithecus
ramidus and Australopithecus sediba. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity
among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes:
autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent
adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively
little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits
ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly
dexterous anthropoids.

The hand is one of the most distinctive traits of humankind and one of our main sources of
interaction with the environment. The human hand can be distinguished from that of apes
by its long thumb relative to fingers which has been related functionally to different
selective regimes—manipulation vs locomotion—acting on human and ape hands. During
the first half of the twentieth century, theories on human evolution were dominated by the
view that humans split very early from the common stock of apes, and largely preserved
generalized (plesiomorphic) hand proportions similar to other anthropoid primates6,7,8. To
the contrary, extant apes were seen as extremely specialized animals adapted for below-
branch suspension. However, since the molecular revolution in the 1980–1990s (which
provided unequivocal evidence for humans and chimpanzees being sister taxa) a prevalent
and influential evolutionary paradigm—said to be based on parsimony—has assumed that
the last common ancestor (LCA) of chimpanzees and humans was similar to a modern
chimpanzee. This shift resurrected the ‘troglodytical’ stage in human evolution, which
assumes that a chimp-like knuckle-walking ancestor preceded human bipedalism. Most
subsequent hypotheses dealing with human hand evolution have been framed assuming a
‘long-handed/short-thumbed’ chimp-like hand as the starting points of the LCA and basal
hominins, with strong selective pressures acting to reverse these proportions in the context
of stone tool-making and or as a by-product of drastic changes in foot morphology in the
human career. However, the current fossil evidence of early hominins and fossil apes
challenges this paradigm. Collectively these fossils suggest instead that hand proportions
approaching the modern human condition could in fact be largely plesiomorphic, as was
previously suggested before the advent of molecular phylogenetics. If that were the case,
this would have profound implications relevant to the locomotor adaptations of the
chimpanzee-human LCA, as well as the relationship between human hand structure and
the origins of systematized stone tool culture.

There are several factors that affect human evolution such as mutation, natural selection,
gene flow, genetic drift and sexual recombination. First and foremost is mutation. Mutations
result from errors during DNA replication or other types of damage to DNA, which then may
undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining), or cause an
error during other forms of repair,or else may cause an error during replication (translesion
synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to
mobile genetic elements. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the
observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal
and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the
immune system, including junctional diversity.The genomes of RNA viruses are based on RNA
rather than DNA. The RNA viral genome can be double stranded (as in DNA) or single
stranded. In some of these viruses (such as the single stranded human immunodeficiency
virus) replication occurs quickly and there are no mechanisms to check the genome for
accuracy. This error-prone process often results in mutations.Mutation can result in many
different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter
the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations
can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species
of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result
is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have
damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial. Due to the
damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as
DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its
original state.

Next is natural selection. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of
individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change
in heritable traits of a population over time. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural
selection", and compared it with artificial selection.Variation exists within all populations
of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an
individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the
individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. The
environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other
individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment. Individuals with certain
variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less
successful, variants; therefore, the population evolves. Factors that affect reproductive
success are also important, including sexual selection and fecundity selection.Natural selection
acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic basis
of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a
population. Over time, this process can result in populations that specialise for
particular ecological niches and may eventually result in speciation (the emergence of new
species, macroevolution). In other words, natural selection is a key process in the evolution
of a population. Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection, in which humans
intentionally choose specific traits, whereas in natural selection there is no intentional
choice.Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The concept, published
by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in a joint presentation of papers in 1858, was elaborated
in Darwin's influential 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
which described natural selection as analogous to artificial selection, a process by which
animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically
favoured for reproduction. The concept of natural selection originally developed in the absence
of a valid theory of heredity; at the time of Darwin's writing, science had yet to develop
modern theories of genetics. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent
discoveries in classical genetics formed the modern synthesis of the mid-20th century. The
addition of molecular genetics has led to evolutionary developmental biology, which explains
evolution at the molecular level. While genotypes can slowly change by random genetic drift,
natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution.

Gene flow also can affect evolution. In population genetics, gene flow is the transfer of genetic
variation from one population to another. If the rate of gene flow is high enough, then two
populations are considered to have equivalent genetic diversity and therefore effectively a
single population. It has been shown that it takes only "One migrant per generation" to
prevent population diverging due to drift. Gene flow is an important mechanism for
transferring genetic diversity among populations. Migrants into or out of a population may
result in a change in allele frequencies , changing the distribution of genetic diversity within
the populations. Immigration may also result in the addition of new genetic variants to the
established gene pool of a particular species or population. High rates of gene flow can reduce
the genetic differentiation between the two groups, increasing homogeneity. For this
reason,gene flow has been thought to constrain speciation by combining the gene pools of
the groups, and thus, preventing the development of differences in genetic variation that
would have led to full speciation.Gene flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to
another population through immigration of individuals.There are a number of factors that
affect the rate of gene flow between different populations. Gene flow is expected to be lower
in species that have low dispersal or mobility, occur in fragmented habitats, there is long
distant between populations, and smaller populations sizes. Mobility plays an important role
in the migration rate as a highly mobile individuals tend to have greater migratory potential.
Animals tend to be more mobile than plants, although pollen and seeds may be carried great
distances by animals or wind. As dispersal distance decreases, gene flow is impeded and
inbreeding, measured by the inbreeding coefficient , increases.For example, many island
populations have low rates of gene flow due to geographically isolated and small population
size. The Black Footed Rock Wallaby has several inbred populations that live on various islands
off the coast of Australia. The population is so strongly isolated that gene flow is not a
possibility leading to high occurrences of inbreeding.

Next factor would be genetic drift. Genetic drift is the change in the frequency of an existing
gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms. The alleles in the
offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether
a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of
the copies of one gene that share a particular form.Genetic drift may cause gene variants to
disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation. When there are few copies of an
allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller.
In the early 20th century, vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural
selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher, who explained
natural selection using Mendelian genetics, held the view that genetic drift plays at the most
a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968,
population geneticist Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular
evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a
population are caused by genetic drift acting on neutral mutations.

Finally, sexual recombination also contribute an equal impact to the human evolution. Genetic
recombination is the production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those
found in either parent. In eukaryotes, genetic recombination during meiosis can lead to a
novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring. Most
recombination is naturally occurring.During meiosis in eukaryotes, genetic recombination
involves the pairing of homologous chromosomes. This may be followed by information
transfer between the chromosomes. The information transfer may occur without physical
exchange (a section of genetic material is copied from one chromosome to another, without
the donating chromosome being changed); or by the breaking and rejoining of DNA strands,
which forms new molecules of DNA Recombination may also occur during mitosis in
eukaryotes where it ordinarily involves the two sister chromosomes formed after chromosomal
replication. In this case, new combinations of alleles are not produced since the sister
chromosomes are usually identical. In meiosis and mitosis, recombination occurs between
similar molecules of DNA (homologs). In meiosis, non-sister homologous chromosomes pair
with each other so that recombination characteristically occurs between non-sister
homologues. In both meiotic and mitotic cells, recombination between homologous
chromosomes is a common mechanism used in DNA repair.Genetic recombination and
recombinational DNA repair also occurs in bacteria and archaea, which use asexual
reproduction.Recombination can be artificially induced in laboratory (in vitro) settings,
producing recombinant DNA for purposes including vaccine development.

As human being we also do affect our own evolution. How do we affect our evolution? We
are the only living things that have the ability to counter the forces of evolution. In the past,
our ancestors relied on genetic adaptations for survival. Today, technology, rather than
biology, has become the key to our survival as a species. There are many ways we affect our
evolution such as medical advances, curing diseases, living longer, reproducing later, fixing
our genes (the human genome project), technological advances, technological and the end of
isolation, the impact of agriculture on human evolution, genetic adaptations evolving from
agriculural lifestyles, extinction, meteorite or comet impact, spread of plagues and viruses and
destruction of biosphere. In the past, those of our ancestors who were best adapted to the
environment passed on their genes to their offspring. Today, medical advances have allowed
those that would not previously have survived to reproduce and contribute to the human gene
pool. The benefits to the individual person are obvious. However, due to the size of our
population, this has little effect on the overall genetic make-up of our species. The major
consequence of medicine has been the increase of genes that have little or no resistance to
disease. In the future, there will be a greater reliance on medicine for survival rather than
genetic adaptations.Infectious diseases are one of the major causes of human mortality and
were responsible for over 25 per cent of all deaths in developed nations prior to the
introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s. The application of vaccinations and antibiotics has
reduced this figure to about 1 per cent. Unfortunately, not all humans share such access to
modern medicine and preventable infectious disease remains the largest killer of people in
developing nations, accounting for over 40 per cent of all deaths. In the developed world,
over-use of antibiotics has led to most of the harmful bacteria becoming immune, so that
many infectious diseases are once again becoming significant killers.The last century has seen
a tripling of newborn life expectancy in developed nations. This means that nearly all children
in those countries will survive childhood and live to the age that they can reproduce. This,
rather than increased adult survival, is one of the major causes behind the increase in average
life expectancy, and is linked to improvements in medicine and hygiene. An interesting
consequence of improved medical technology is that humans can now reproduce, or prefer to
reproduce, at a later age. This increases the chance of a mutation occurring in the sex cells
and being passed on to offspring. The long-term effect is that more genetic mutations, and
hence variation, will be introduced into the human gene pool. This research project, overseen
by the Human Genome Organisation, is locating and mapping every gene contained in human
DNA. By knowing the position of each gene, it is possible to understand what they do and
how genetic diseases arise. The impact of this will be felt in every area of biology and medicine
throughout the next century, with huge implications for the prevention and diagnosis of
disease. Scientists predict that some potential diseases will be cured at the molecular level
before they arise in an individual. Technology has helped us to become the first species
capable of adapting the environment, to a certain degree, to suit ourselves. This has reduced
the need to rely on genetic adaptations like our ancestors did in the past. We now have the
ability to live in any climate and, assisted by transportation, have become a global species.
Technology has also had a negative impact on our species. It has been responsible for the
deaths of millions- through war, environmental pollution and degradation and the introduction
and spread of disease. In the past, our ancestors lived in small, isolated populations, where
inbreeding was common and genetic mutations could spread easily. Over time this could lead
to the evolution of a new species. We now live in a highly populated world where we have
the ability to travel anywhere and potentially share our genes with anyone. The end of isolation
has significantly reduced the chance of evolutionary change. The role of agriculture was
important in the development of civilisation and the ability to sustain large populations of
people. It has also been responsible for the introduction of diseases, such as smallpox and
measles, which developed from diseases plaguing domestic animals about 10,000 years ago.
Although farmers eventually evolved genes resistant to these diseases, hunter-gatherers died
in droves when they were first affected. Many groups have developed specialised eating habits
due to their lifestyle. One such habit that has been identified as a genetic trait is the ability to
digest milk as an adult. All infant mammals rely on milk for sustenance but, as they grow
older, the enzyme that digests lactose (a sugar found in milk) disappears. This means adult
mammals cannot normally tolerate milk. However, as a result of an agricultural ancestry, some
adults, like the Masai of Kenya, the Beduoin and most Europeans, are still able to digest milk.
Others, such as Australian Aborigines and west and central Africans, find milk indigestible.
This adaptation probably only evolved in the last 10,000 years as agriculture developed and
animal milk was collected and consumed. The fossil record demonstrates that all organisms
exist for a limited time span and then become extinct. This suggests that extinction would
also be the expected outcome for our own species. Some of the extinction events in the past,
such as meteorite or comet impacts, are beyond our control. Most other causes of extinction,
including major climate change, can now be overcome by technology, if we are willing to act.
Although technology may allow us to avoid the fates of all other species, if we are not careful
how we use it, technology could also lead to the destruction of our planet. Major collisions like
this are a statistical certainty in the Earth's future, and would be catastrophic for most species.
The ‘nuclear winter’ that could follow the impact would profoundly disturb global ecology,
leading to mass extinction. Around 500 meteorites hit the Earth each year, with most landing
in the oceans. In the age of travel it is easy for disease to become pandemic (widespread)
overnight. Crowded cities and poor hygiene are breeding grounds for many of these
organisms. New strains of virus and bacteria can develop rapidly, with new types emerging
that we are not aware of and that we may not be able to fight effectively. The worst pandemic
in modern times was the bubonic plague or Black Death (caused by the bacteria Yersinia
pestis) which occurred in Europe between 1346 and 1353. Over one third of the population
died from this disease. Other outbreaks occurred over the centuries but the plague is now
eradicated from Europe, although it still exists in other regions of the world. We are the only
species capable of destroying the biosphere. Many ecosystems have now been lost through
pollution, land clearance,climate change and overpopulation. We cannot have such an affect
on our planet without feeling the impact of our actions in the future.