Did humans evolve anything new since 10.000 BC?

When did ASPM and DAB1 gene come about?

ASPM seemed to bring about written language and modern civilization in the west.
I don't know but would guess that the DAB1 in the east had similar consequences.

>>8415569
Evolution kind of requires the pressure of natural selection. We've adapted to most pressures with our memes instead of adapting with our genetic material. In a way memes are an extension of ourselves and they've adapted far faster than physical evolution would allow. I'm sure our physical ability to use memes has been selectively bred to be strengthened over time.

>>8415569
We should just get over the ethics thing and start making designer babies. Evolution just works to slow for a species that only breeds ever 25 years, and there isn't enough external pressure anyway.
Designer babies are far more ethical than eugenics. And I'm not just talking about erasing genetic disorders, that's just the start.

>>8415659
as somebody who was cursed with medium brown eyes and hair I approve of this post.

I wish I had blue eyes.

>>8415569
>might just be a hearsay
which led to rank 30 in life expectancy.

Yes, we are constantly adapting, popsci brainlet.

Sage, /sci/ is for higher-level discussion.

File: 1.jpg (647KB, 930x834px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 930x834px

>>8415685
>Yes, we are constantly adapting

I guess then it won't be a problem for you to name a few things humans had evolved or adapted to since 10.000 BC?

>>8415569
>but I can't find any studies on it
Adaption to a macronutrient is going to be difficult. It's like a biological logistics problem.

Just look around and you'll see who isn't adapted.

>>8415678
You can make your eyes blue.
>>8415659
Nobody gives a shit. People who agree with eugenics are mostly retards who hate niggers and arabs.

Most don't know shit about education and "advantage conditions".

File: 1475925372385.jpg (245KB, 1440x1415px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1440x1415px

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882605/#!po=58.2873

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALMS1

Involved with insulin resistance with several other alles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectodysplasin_A_receptor

Look under derived edar alle (anatomical structure differences).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5

look under interaction with IL2RB (immune response).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingelap

look under colorblindness, then follow the below link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition

look under sensory inhibition "visual inhibition"

>>8415569

Blue eyes isn't evolution.

>>8415569
Autism

>>8415754
The phasing out of wisdom teeth for one, some selective genetic resistance to malaria, the human eye seeing more than 24 fps

>>8415911
I still have my wisdom teeth.

>>8415911
>The phasing out of wisdom teeth for one
That's a meme perpetuated by greedy, dishonest American dentists. Nowhere else in the world they are removing the wisdom teeth for no good reason. Not that they're finished lying, dental veneers are their newest scam.

File: 1460727292129.jpg (207KB, 1608x1190px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1608x1190px

>>8415923

>blue eyes and lactose tolerance
Speak for yourself

t. regards Ginger master race

attached earlobes and people who are immune to hiv

>>8415972
those girls are Irish

>>8415972
>>>/pol/

>>8415754
Smell receptors are constantly evolving. Same with the MHC locus for immunity.

>>8415569
I heard we're losing our wisdom teeth as the foods we eat are much more processed. I was only born with three.

We're getting taller.

>>8415923
Nah, wisdom teeth cause big problems for a significant chunk of the population. I'm potentially one of them: I have a wisdom tooth that's sideways and impacting one of my other molars. It's not causing any trouble yet, but it has a very high chance of doing so in the future, so I'm probably going to have to get it removed.

Whites are calcium deficient. And their bone structure is weak.
I do not place whites as the advancement of humans at all. They are actually less efficient if you want to believe in evolution.

I believe they are the inbred offspring of fallen angels that mated with humans during and after the great flood.

>>8416826

how much of that is genetic though?

>>8415569

OP Evolution is, first of all, heritable change that may occur due to genetic drift, mutation, or migration as well as natural selection. Second of all, you realize that for changes like the ones you're describing you'd need a lot people without those changes not to breed, right? Do you see that happening, is there any selective force on the human race as a whole wherein lots of people with a certain genetic background aren't breeding?

>>8417052
99% of it?

>>8417003
Mesial drift is a concern even with normal non-impacted teeth. It is perfectly normal, but is often cited as a reason to remove wisdom teeth, which doesn't fix the problem.

>>8417052
How much of it do you think is environmental during growth?

>>8415569
Probably lactase production once animal husbandry included dairy.

>>8417082
>What is nutrition?

>>8417080
/thread

>>8417082
no its not, we know that things like nutrition play a big role in why peope have got taller recently. and i dont know trends in height before the modern era.

>>8417103
1%. Even if you eat well you won't grow further than what your genetics let you grow. If you eat badly you obviously have a chance of not growing to your fullest.

>>8417023
smaller dicks too

>>8417167
saw some article saying 60-80%. far from 1%.

and even if you have good genes, you wont grow further than what is allowed by nutrition. theres no point separating them; you cant because theyre dependent on eachother, neither factor on its own encodes a particular height.

and even so, % variation doesnt actually tell you the proportion of influence on a particular individuals height. it just tells you how much of individual differences can be explained by genetics over a whole population.

even if that was what i was talking about, im talking about changes in height not absolute height itself. the variation caused by genetics for a population at both A and B could be 99% at each time but the proportion of the change in height between those two points can still be 100% environmental. thats easily possible. and im thinking that most of the proportion for changes in height over the last century or two would probably be nutrition since its quite a short period, it seems to be uniform across the world and i dont really see any big selection pressure on height in the modern world in the west atleast.

>>8417167
oh i read back and realised, when i said "how much of that is genetic though?" i meant how much of the getting taller is genetic. not height itself. just to clarify.

>>8415582
Wat

The ability to read silently is relatively new. How could that have come about if it were so uncommon among the literate of 2000 years ago?

>>8417080
.....intelligent people

File: The_10,000_Year_Explosion_(Cover).jpg (37KB, 256x390px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 256x390px

/sci/ doesn't know about the 10,000 year explosion.

Increased population size has allowed evolution to speed up.

>>8415569
One thing that would come in mind is high IQ.
By todays standard, a caveman from 10.000 BC would have an IQ of 60.
Naturally, not all people evolved IQ at the same speed, thats why blacks are much dumber than whites

>>8417929

That's not how IQ works you retard. A 10,000 B.C. human would arguably be in the negatives assuming nonweighted (even weighted too) battery testing results existed to be compared with today.

>>8417929
again, i dont know if you could say thats mostly genetic or not (regardless of the original number >>8417948 ). impossible to tell, but i do imagine a significant part of that IQ change is environmental.

desu, even so, i wouldnt know the timespan it takes for a given change of IQ to take place based on genetic variation alone.

however i do know that there is not really evidence for selective pressure on genes for iq atm and no studies have ever quanitfied the genetic input to racial variations in IQ. So your comment is premature. I believe though that in all likelihood, environment has a very big impact on group differences in IQ.

>>8417881

i always thought that the bigger and more sparsely distributed the population, the slower changes take place.

>>8415569
We are constantly developing. Though these are minuscule things, they compound. Blue eyes and lactose tolerance isn't just like: wow look blue eye gene and lactose tolerance gene just popped into existence, 'cause evolution. That's not how it works at all.

>>8417667
a just question my liege

>>8417881
years ago when I posted about this in human evolution threads /sci/ told me multiple times the book is bullshit, popsci and racist and I should rather go read guns germs and steel since its more acurate.

File: index.jpg (5KB, 105x160px)

5KB, 105x160px

>>8418218
forgot image to make people read my post

>>8415812
>People who agree with eugenics are mostly retards who hate niggers and arabs
Yeah, so? Where's the problem.

>>8415923
yeah, removing my wisdom teeth didn't drasticaly drop my daily ibuprofen intake...

>>8415569
Ability to digest lactose past 3 years old

>>8415976

>ginger master race

Speaking of genes that won't be around in 200 years.....

File: birth.png (8KB, 423x344px)

8KB, 423x344px

>>8415582
>>8415659
>>8415754
>>8417080
evolution is happening right this second, in fact I think it is happening at the fastest rate it has ever happened. The selective pressure isn't an environmental factor, it isn't a disease, it is the thing that decreases the birth rates in those exposed to it most. What is it you ask that, when exposed to it, some people have the necessary traits to still reproduce, while others dont? Education. This is the greatest selective pressure today. It is a pressure we have never been exposed to before. Most people exposed to it decide to not have kids and put their career or hobbies first. Only a select few (those whose progeny will further the human race) either have an inborn inclination to ignore education, or are rarely able to become educated and still choose to have many kids. This is fact, not debateable, and backed up by every study out there. It is why we are frantically trying to educate every female in 3rd world countries. But it won't matter cause those immune to the negative selective pressure of education are the ones who will breed anyways.

>>8417080
>le no selective pressure meme
sexual selection is always present and the majority of people lives in 3rd world shotholes where natural pressures still very much apply.

>>8417667

memes as in the classical definition

>>8419316

this has always made me extremely uncomfortable

File: idiocracy.jpg (67KB, 645x363px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 645x363px

>>8415569
Humanity is getting more stupid. Stupid people breed like crazy and educated people maybe have one or two children.
>Idiocracy was not just a film

>>8415569
if vertical advantage is anything but sexual selection we may have evolved height-wise

>>8419316
Don't we negative natural selection nowadays? Usually the most useless, dumb people reproduce the most.

>>8415569
The same genetic buffers that keep you having five fingers also prevent radical changes in phenotype variation.

Having webbed feet or wings on your back are traits that are not likely to occur because of how mutation works and the speed it operates at per each generation.

If you are expecting rapid changes then it is the brain and nervous system that should be examined. We are not the same creatures as our ancestors a thousand years ago.

Even if much of the physical components that make up the brain are of following the same blueprint, the size, power, structure, and efficiency of our brains has undergone changes.

Look no further than aboriginals, africans, and latvians. They all have features close to that of apes, chimps, and the neanderthal.

>>8415569
Yes, many many types.

Everything from HIV resistance to electricity resistance to the ability to breathe at normally lethal altitudes.

File: Terra Formars Ch. 90 p.000.png (430KB, 1099x1600px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1099x1600px

>>8415569 (OP)
>Did humans evolve anything new since 10.000 BC?
Yes
>But shouldn't new adaptations have emerged by now?
They do almost all the time

>>8415659
>Designer babies are far more ethical than eugenics

Designer babies IS eugenics. You seem to have a distorted understanding of the word.