Human evolution goes on

I missed it when it first went up, but over at The Crux, Discover’s new group blog, Razib Khan has pointed to a couple of interesting papers on the heritability of fertility. As natural selection acts strongly on fertility and the traits that affect it, you might expect that the heritability of fertility would be low as variation is eliminated. But change the environment, and heritability can increase drastically. Razib writes:

Quebec is also an ideal “natural experiment.” It began as a frontier society with a small founding population on the order of thousands, but now has a population of over 8 million. …

One study http://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040.abstract focused on a 140-year period on an island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over five generations, the island’s population increased by a factor of 10 through natural increase, while the average age of first reproduction declined from 26 to 22. Just as menarche and menopause are heritable (variation in genes explain much of the variation in the outcome of the trait), so too age at first reproduction seems heritable. …

Another group focused on the differences between core and frontier populations in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec. It turns out that the majority of the modern population descends from those in the frontier zone, not the core. Women on the frontier were ~20% more fertile, and fertility as a trait was heritable on the frontier but not in the core. (On the frontier, there was a connection between relatives and how many offspring they would have, in direct proportion to the amount of genes they shared. E.g., two sisters tended to have similar numbers of offspring, while there was no correlation between strangers.) …

Changes in the environment can dramatically change the power of selection on traits. While a trait may not be heritable in one environment, it may be in another. Considering the changes in environment to which humans have been exposed over the last couple of hundred years, there must be many traits now experiencing significant selective pressure. I recommend that you read the whole post by Razib.

One comment

  1. I see a problem with the assumption that many people today have no kids because they choose so. I guess it would be possible if we had free will (based on some ghost in our brain), but since we don’t, people’s “decision” not to have children doesn’t really differ from, say, not having kids due to an ilness.

    Pinker once said he decided not to have kids and if his genes don’t like it, they can go and jump into the lake–or something like that. I have always wondered, What if not the Pinker’s genes (or his brain built by his genes) is actually deciding against the genes’ wishes?

Comments welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s