Is there a link between genetic evolution and technological evolution

[Deja Vu]

Hi, this is my second thread on this site.

 

There was a thought that just came across while I was reading about the evolution of human beings, could there be a link between genetic mutations and technological development of human beings? Such as, does the development of technologies cause humans to evolve in or adapt in environments, or even change the physiology of humans, in ways that would otherwise be impossible.

 

I do know one instance of this, the Inuit tribes for example, in that they can survive in weather much colder than we can to the point where their bodies are even adapted to the climate (much shorter and wider than most of us). Also, I read that the last significant change in human evolution occurred 10000 years ago, which also coincides with the development of agriculture. Could there be a link between that and the genetic mutations that occurred throughout human evolution, or is this just wild speculation?

[alanrocks]

no there is a connection

 

as our technology advances it takes less energy to survive

 

examples:we are taller(we have better diets due to agricultural breakthroughs) our population is larger(we have become the dominant life form due to technology) we have no natural predators (we have transcended our place in the food chain to now be the virus that continuously rips it apart and re assembles it to fit our needs in a location)

[Deja Vu]

no there is a connection

 

as our technology advances it takes less energy to survive.

 

I don't see how that can be, especially since the energy consumption per human has increased dramatically and continues to do so. All of the activities you listed, such as having a large population, take a great deal of energy to maintain.

 

 

What I'm wondering is whether or not the use, or the availability of, technology can be a direct cause of physical or physiological adaptations, or vice versa.

[Mr Skeptic]

The presence of technology is part of our environment; as such, we must eventually adapt to it. Technology is a creation of man; as such, it will adapt to man's needs.

[alanrocks]

i meant that only on the single person scale

 

we don't run from predators

 

we don't have to hunt our food

 

we don't walk everywhere

 

thus if you put a average person from say 3000 years ago and put him/her in a physical competition with an average person of todays time

 

our participant would ultimately lose

[Psycho]

thus if you put a average person from say 3000 years ago and put him/her in a physical competition with an average person of todays time

 

our participant would ultimately lose

It depends what they were doing, I think a person from our time would easily win at most events considering I can go buy a tuna steak and assorted vegetables from the shop and they would end up with some boiled rabbit they had caught.

[pioneer]

Technology builds upon itself in a logical way. We start with a carriage. We add a motor for a horseless carriage. We add better suspension, better stirring, better brakes, etc. It continues to build upon simple things and gets more and more evolved. Evolutionary theory is more based on a three stooges approach. There is no logical progression in terms of building onto simpler designs. The designs and change are assumed based on accidents and good luck. Moe goes to hit Larry, Larry ducks, and Curly gets hit. He tips over the paint. The paint spills on the car. They all argue and try to clean it up and now cars have more than one paint color.

 

With the logical evolution of technology, humans have evolved. This implies logic leading evolution. That logic has outpaced the three stooges. We didn't have to wait for Curly to get his head stuck in the vice and Larry and Moe try to free him by pulling his legs, for humans to get taller. There was no selective advantage to get taller, with them breeding more etc., it just happened across the board due to the result of technology.

[SkepticLance]

The original question needs modifying since it mentions mutation. I am sure that was an error. Mutation is largely unaffected by technology, though in the modern world certain chemicals and radiation may increase the rate. it will not make the mutations useful, though, and the vast majority remain harmful.

 

However, I have had a personal theory for a long time that technology has been the primary driver of human evolution over the past few million odd years. You need to accept that technology includes very simple methods. For example ; modern day chimps in the wild crack nuts between two rocks. That is the use of tool, and is therefore technology, albeit very simple.

 

If we accept that our ancestors have been using, to an increasing extent, simple technology for some millions of years, then that technology must have had an impact, and those individuals with genetic ability to use simple technology better than others would have a selective advantage. So upright stance can be seen as an adaptation to use tools and weapons..

 

The technology would also have an impact by permitting other changes. The loss of fur in humans is unique, in that we are the only terrestrial mammal in our size range to lose fur. There are obvious advantages in improving cooling and in permitting easier parasite removal. However, other species have not made the change. Why? I suggest it is because technology permitted other means of keeping warm (even the tropics can get cold) such as clothing or the use of fire. With an alternative warming method at times when it is cold, loss of fur to improve stamina for hunting would make sense.

 

If we are discussing human evolution, we have to discuss a time period of hundreds of thousands of years or more, since evolution is a slow process. So, has technology influenced human evolution over that time period? I think it has.

[Ophiolite]

If we are discussing human evolution, we have to discuss a time period of hundreds of thousands of years or more, since evolution is a slow process.

This turns out not to be the case. Evolution is current, ongoing and much more rapid than you suggest. For example,

 

Hawks,J. et al Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution PNAS Dec 26 2007

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

 

Full article here: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full.pdf+html

[SkepticLance]

To Ophiolite

 

I understand your point, and it is valid. However, it does not change the fact that evolutionary change over periods of thousands or tens of thousands of years, on a species with a long time between generations, must be quite small. It is still present, but not substantial. To get strong change of the kind we have been talking about in this thread requires hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

[iNow]

To get strong change of the kind we have been talking about in this thread requires hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

 

No, it doesn't. Try reading the article again, or for the first time.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

We are going to end up arguing semantics. Strong change requires a lot of time. However, your definition of strong may be different.

[iNow]

Please quantize your qualitative descriptor of "strong." The argument you suggest is a direct result of your not being specific.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

The original question on this thread relates to the possible impact of technology on human evolution. I doubt the questioner was referring to subtle changes that can be measured only by genomic studies. In that light, when I talk about strong changes, I mean those that can be seen and measured by ordinary people without scientific training or DNA analysis.

 

For example ; the loss of body hair by Homo sapiens is a strong change.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say that a new allele that is, say, 0.01% different from previous alleles would qualify as a significant change. I doubt we'll be seeing that amount of change in humans between now and whenever evolution gets obsoleted by genetic engineering.

 

The problem with SkepticLance's definition is that it would count some single nucleotide mutations as a strong change, which seems unusual.

[iNow]

The problem with SkepticLance's definition is that it would count some single nucleotide mutations as a strong change, which seems unusual.

 

Yes, that is ONE problem. I, however, wouldn't call it a definition at all.