Medical and technical advances have allowed more of us to survive and to live longer , healthier lives . Does this make evolution irrelevant ?
In the most basic sense , evolution refers to the process of genic modification in a population over time . It occurs because gene variants are more likely to survive and prosper if they offer the being an reward over others , in turn get to it more likely they will survive and reproduce – thus passing on their traits to next genesis .
This process has been subservient to our survival as a species . Through development , our human ancestors developed a whole host of trait that made them better suited to their surround , whether that is the ability to recover quicker from disease , fend off hungry predators or grow more succulent berries than their neighbour .
A famous example includes the ( literally ) breath - taking ability of members of theBajau Lauttribe , who are able to agree their breath for minutes at a time . This unbelievable exploit enable them to contact levels more than 70 cadence ( 230 feet ) underwater sans diving event equipment when collect seafood . Othergenetic variantshave provided protection to those with the sport to diseases such as malaria , T.B. and leprosy .
However , with the advent of technologies and medicines that enable us to hold up longer , healthier biography , many have question what role phylogenesis in the traditional sentiency will play in our growing as a species . Even life scientist , broadcaster and British national hoarded wealth , Sir David Attenborough , has expressed doubts .
“ We stopped natural survival of the fittest as soon as we started being able to rear 90 - 95 % of our baby that are born . We are the only species to have put a halt to natural choice , of its own free will , as it were , ” he tell the Radio Times , media at the timereported .
So , will we keep to develop when the selection pressures that impacted our ancestors cease to be a sprightliness and demise situation ? According to recent studies , the answer is yes .
One of the factors driving development today is civilisation , which can impact sexual selection . This refers to preference that influence who we find attractive and who we choose to multiply with , and can have an effect within comparatively a myopic time chassis .
“ If a genetically based trait , like hairsbreadth color , becomes more common or less vulgar from one coevals to the next then that is considered evolutionary alteration , ” Scott Solomon , an evolutionary biologist at Rice University , antecedently toldIFLScience .
“ That ’s often different from what your average mortal on the street might think about evolutionary change . It does n’t necessarily mean new trait come in into existence , it could just mean live trait are more common or less usual . ”
One example of this is highlighted by astudypublished in 2015 , which find that intimate selection in the Netherlands in late decades privilege tall men . Dutch men today are among the tallest in the human race but this was not the guinea pig in the eighteenth century , when the average height of Dutch soldiers was 165 centimeter – below that of men in the United States and many other European populations . In just 150 years , or a few generations , Dutch mankind have added approximately 20 cm to their altitude as a consequence of innate choice , overtaking men in the US and much of the earth .
Another recent example of natural selection was spur by the salary increase of a fresh baneful computer virus , HIV . According toYourGenome , rates of transmitted variants that offer up a protective vantage against the computer virus are increase in region most affected , such as South Africa . It is think that mothers with the adaption are more likely to survive an contagion and are , therefore , able to pass it on to their tyke .
So while what cause the process of evolution may change over time , it does not seem to be stop any clip soon .
