[HN Gopher] More and more humans are growing an extra artery, sh...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       More and more humans are growing an extra artery, showing we're
       still evolving
        
       Author : donatzsky
       Score  : 60 points
       Date   : 2021-08-26 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sciencealert.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencealert.com)
        
       | benkuhn wrote:
       | I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but it seems to me that the
       | claimed magnitude of the change is wildly implausibly fast from
       | an evolutionary perspective. I'm confused that neither the
       | article, nor the paper it cites, addresses this.
       | 
       | To go from 10% to 30% in ~5 generations, the median-artery-having
       | population would have had to expand by (30/10)^(1/5) = 25% more
       | than the non-median artery population over each generation. It
       | just seems totally implausible that median artery carriers could
       | have that much more offspring.
       | 
       | This makes me pretty suspicious that the paper may be wrong.
        
       | sxg wrote:
       | I really dislike these articles on pop-sci websites. It's
       | basically just another clickbait news site except it has the word
       | "science" displayed everywhere to give itself slightly more
       | legitimacy.
       | 
       | This artery is just another normal variant. There are tons and
       | tons of normal variants throughout the body including major
       | central arteries (eg aberrant right subclavian, retropharyngeal
       | carotids). The changing prevalence is likely more an artifact of
       | data collecting than anything meaningful, just like most of the
       | articles on these sites that gain any traction.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | ozarkerD wrote:
       | Given that there's so much technology available to keep humans
       | alive, will human evolution continue? It seems like it could give
       | rise to a lot of negative traits propagating that would usually
       | mean death before producing offspring a couple hundred years ago.
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | Evolution will continue. It just won't be heavily influenced by
         | our ability to survive in the natural world.
         | 
         | One evolutionarily change I predict is that certain forms of
         | birth control will become less effective over the next
         | generations. Hormonal birth control isn't 100% effective and
         | there's probably a genetic component to that. So the women for
         | whom birth control doesn't work as well will tend to have more
         | offspring and pass those traits on.
        
         | thunderbird120 wrote:
         | Evolution is the propagation of traits of individuals who
         | survived and reproduced and whose offspring survived and
         | reproduced. In a modern developed country survival is less
         | uncertain but reproduction of healthy individuals is actually
         | more uncertain as can be seen by looking at the birth rates in
         | essentially any developed country. As a result, traits that
         | affect certain behaviors, such as underlying desire to
         | reproduce, are likely under more intense selection pressure now
         | than any traits in all of human history.
        
         | thaumasiotes wrote:
         | > will human evolution continue?
         | 
         | This is a nonsensical question; it isn't possible to have
         | reproduction without evolution.
        
           | echelon wrote:
           | > This is a nonsensical question; it isn't possible to have
           | reproduction without evolution.
           | 
           | It's possible to have reproduction without evolution.
           | 
           | We have monoclonal immunocompromised mice with fixed genomes.
           | We created them.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | You say that like clonal organisms aren't out in the wild,
             | evolving. It is not possible to have reproduction without
             | evolution.
        
               | echelon wrote:
               | Monoclonal mice aren't out in the wild. But more
               | importantly, some of the lines are incapable of breeding,
               | yet we keep making them.
        
         | jl6 wrote:
         | In general it's hard to make value judgements about which
         | traits are positive and which are negative. Natural selection
         | cares only for survival advantage of offspring in the immediate
         | environment.
         | 
         | A good example is sickle cell trait, which provides a higher
         | resistance to malaria, but a risk of a variety of other
         | complications. In areas where malaria is a severe threat, the
         | survival advantage of the higher resistance outweighs the other
         | drawbacks. Medical intervention such as administering a malaria
         | vaccine might reduce the threat of malaria such that there
         | would be selection pressure against the sickle cell trait
         | instead of for it.
        
         | woleium wrote:
         | right, so without external pressure we get diversification,
         | making a more resilient pool of phenotypes.
        
       | idiotsecant wrote:
       | No, it's showing that we maintain the extra artery. There is no
       | reason to believe this is an evolutionary change - there are
       | plenty of hormonal and other environmental factors that could be
       | contributing as well.
        
         | edgyquant wrote:
         | I mean, how is that not potentially evolution?
        
         | evancox100 wrote:
         | Agreed, pretty clearly an epigenetic or environmental change,
         | not an evolutionary DNA change.
        
         | crazygringo wrote:
         | Exactly -- if the rate of change is as high as they state --
         | from 10% to 30% of people in a little over a century -- it
         | seems it would be essentially impossible for it to be the
         | result of natural selection or genetic change.
         | 
         | As you say, the obvious explanation is hormonal/environmental
         | factors.
        
           | gpsx wrote:
           | Yes - in order to have a change be that fast it would have to
           | be something that makes those people dramatically better at
           | surviving, like X-men type mutations, or reproducing. I don't
           | think the change of this blood vessel is really turning the
           | tables between survival and death, or making these people
           | that much more successful at reproducing. But with the
           | prevalence of online dating these days, maybe it is a big
           | help by allow people to navigate faster? /s
        
             | Osiris wrote:
             | A mutation will also stick around if it doesn't prevent the
             | person from reproducing.
             | 
             | That can still be considered evolution even if it doesn't
             | provide an obvious benefit.
        
           | enkid wrote:
           | What do you mean by environmental factors? The environment
           | drives evolution, so changes in the environment would change
           | who survives, which would lead to evolution. If it is an
           | environmental factor that led to selection of individuals
           | having this vein being more likely to propagate, that would
           | still be evolution. This also some very simple scenarios that
           | could lead to such a pressure, like the artery having some
           | minor benefit in reproduction, but a disease we eradicated
           | would disproportionately kill people with the artery.
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | OJFord wrote:
             | They mean within a lifespan factors, like pollution, diet,
             | lifestyle, etc.
        
             | TrispusAttucks wrote:
             | Evolution is of a change in the genes. Environmental
             | factors can influence the expression of a gene (think
             | Testosterone or Estrogen) without a change of genetics.
             | 
             | The change in expression over time and participant count
             | the study highlights is not compatible with a natural
             | selection driven evolution.
        
       | mrkramer wrote:
       | Evolution is constant since environment we live in is always
       | changing and we need to adapt to it. Extra artery is an
       | anatomical variation[1] because in order to evolve random
       | mutations are happening and whatever works is passed to
       | offspring.
       | 
       | For example this article[2] explains Alan Turing 's Turing
       | pattern[3] and pattern variation of denticles, the toothlike
       | protrusions that cover the skin of sharks.
       | 
       | The article says "Nature tends to invent something once, and then
       | plays variations on that theme." That's true because variation is
       | a way for nature to trial and error certain solutions until good
       | enough solution is found.
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_variation
       | 
       | [2] https://nautil.us/issue/68/context/how-alan-turing-
       | deciphere...
       | 
       | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_pattern
        
       | jacquesm wrote:
       | Of course we are still evolving. It's just that the selection
       | pressures applied are different now than they were in the past,
       | and this doesn't look like something subject to selection
       | pressure so I doubt it is an example of evolution in progress.
        
       | aksss wrote:
       | This is about a condition called Persistent Median Artery or PMA,
       | and it's a bit of a rabbit hole. Evidently having this condition
       | is associated with increasing your odds or the impact of carpal
       | tunnel syndrome.
       | 
       | PMA can manifest in a few different configurations, like depth to
       | which it extends in the hand, thickness, etc. Here's an
       | interesting read with pictures of dissected forearms showing PMA
       | variants. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327784/
        
       | kafkaIncarnate wrote:
       | More and more people are also getting heart attacks. Coincidence?
       | I think not! Evolution is selecting humans out!
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | I think human diet is selecting humans out. Nature didn't
         | create food products, humans did. We took food, and created a
         | product. How absolutely mind boggling dumb that just sounds to
         | me. Food doesn't have ingredients; food are ingredients.
        
           | bserge wrote:
           | Only those who can live on a diet of McDonald's and soft
           | drinks will survive!
        
             | dylan604 wrote:
             | I honestly wouldn't want to live in that world. Eating is
             | something to be enjoyed not just to survive.
        
               | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-26 23:02 UTC)