This is the power of evolution, which in the blink of an eye in human history, has created a distinct breed of human beings.
This is obviously a science fiction film, and should be treated accordingly. Indeed the scientific community is sure that such a drastic mutation cannot happen out of nowhere. The creation and maintenance of gills are complex crafts that require the cooperation of a large number of genes, all of which must change at once to create active gills in a new baby. The chance that a baby will be born tomorrow with working gills, which will also continue to function throughout his life, is comparable to the chance that Ehud Barak will leave the coalition in the government of his own accord. Actually, maybe even a little higher. And yet the question arises - how quickly can the human race adapt to different living environments? And how much can we change under extraordinary conditions?
At the beginning of this month, a preliminary answer to the question was received, from a study conducted in China on the population of Tibetans living in the high mountains of Tibet. These people had to deal with the low oxygen levels prevailing in their living environment, or their chances of survival were small. And so, from generation to generation, mainly the 'mutant' Tibetans survived - those who acquired traits that adapted their bodies better to the harsh conditions. Over a period of 2,750 years, Tibetan descendants accumulated more than thirty mutant genes compared to the inhabitants of the plains of China, and almost half of the mutations occurred in genes that dictate the way the body uses oxygen.
We would expect that the most useful mutation—the one that provides the greatest survival advantage—would also be the most common. Indeed, the most common mutation appears in a gene called EPAS1, affectionately known as the 'super-athlete gene'. This gene got its name because different variations of this gene are associated with improved athletic performance. The gene is apparently responsible for regulating the blood hemoglobin level according to the oxygen level in the body and in the environment.
This gene has become so common because it gives Tibetans the ability to withstand the low oxygen levels on the mountains. The villages of the Tibetans are sometimes at altitudes of more than 4,000 meters above the ground, where oxygen levels reach only forty percent of the level at sea level. Mountain climbers who are exposed to such low oxygen concentrations tire easily, suffer from headaches, and give birth to babies whose weight is low and whose chances of dying at a young age are higher. But the Tibetans do not suffer from the same problems, probably due to the mutations they have accumulated in the genetic code.
To determine the exact differences in the Tibetan genome, blood samples were taken from fifty old Tibetan villagers living at least 4,300 meters above sea level. The active genes of those people were mapped, and markers in the genetic code that are inherited were also tested, and compared to the genetic code of forty Han residents living in the plains of China. The comparison showed that the Han and the Tibetans are both descendants of the Chinese population that existed 2,750 years ago. Around the same time, some people migrated to the highlands of Tibet, and had to quickly adapt to the harsh conditions. The weak died out quickly, but the strong - those who carried mutations in their cells that gave them better resistance to the lack of oxygen - survived and produced many descendants. Today, after dozens of generations of natural selection, 87% of Tibetans have had the mutation near the super-athletic gene, which may regulate its activity. For a reason that is not yet completely clear, the individuals who carry a double copy of the mutant gene manage to function well in the mountains, even though the hemoglobin concentration in their blood is relatively low. Apparently the mutation activates an alternative mechanism that allows its carriers to cope with the low oxygen levels.
The other mutant genes are not nest killers either. Some of the common mutations occurred near the genes responsible for hemoglobin production in fetuses and adults (fetuses have more efficient hemoglobin, so they can 'steal' the mother's oxygen). Two other common altered genes are associated with anemia, and various other genes are associated with diseases such as schizophrenia and epilepsy, which may be caused by low oxygen levels in the womb.
The Tibetans, therefore, acquired for themselves a complete set of mutations that protect them from the extreme environmental conditions in which they chose to settle. Although they did not develop gills like Kevin Costner, in less than three thousand years they have adapted well to their environment, so much so that a quick scan of their genetic code immediately proves that they do not belong to the inhabitants of the Chinese plains. For comparison, this means that from the time of the ancient Greeks until today, an entire population of humans has had enough to undergo a comprehensive genetic change and develop a set of traits that distinguish them from the rest of humanity. This is the power of evolution, which in the blink of an eye in human history, created a distinct breed of human beings. And what about the future? Evolution has solutions.
38 תגובות
The trial on Ehud Barak is very unprofessional. It's a bit disappointing to see something like this on the science site.
You see that you did not read or did not understand the article.
To Roy: How many generations is 2750 years?
How many years is considered a generation in human evolution?
According to some of the comments here (not from 'Lisa'), one gets the impression that they have six to seven billion 'varieties' of the homo species species...
A question unrelated to the discussion: What is meant by the sentence - children of mountain climbers are born with low weight? What is this sentence based on?
to R. H
The meaning, "playing with mutations", in the animal and human world.
revealed,
What you describe are physiological changes and not genetic changes in DNA. This is similar to a person who exercises and gets in shape, but his genetic load does not change.
Liza, as I wrote above, I don't like the term "human species" but I'm not from the Academy of Language and a semantic debate about something we all understand, that a population with a high prevalence of a certain mutation was created in Tibet, doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. We want a breed that will be a breed.
As for defining Zen in general, it reminds me of our old debate. Nature is ripe for it and we define it and put it in bins because that's how we know how to think. Classification and sorting.
There are different types of people with different genetic loads. And that is all the beauty in the diversity of the human race. A new study shows that Jews of all denominations carry a special genetic stain that does not exist among Gentiles. The research is only in its infancy but very interesting.
Regarding the Tibetans, it is not at all certain that the mutations were created 2750 years ago.
I know that patients with certain visual diseases travel to rest in high places. And there, a kind of adaptation to the diluted oxygen is formed in the body and when after about a month they return to the lower place, they have a great medical benefit due to a better utilization of the oxygen. And they also tested people who moved to a very high place and within half a year developed a high utilization of oxygen.
Year:
And as I already explained - it is indeed a matter of political correctness even if you don't admit it.
First of all - otherwise you wouldn't use the phrase "extremely problematic".
Besides - the word "species" has a definition and it is based on genetic changes in a subpopulation that has not split into a different species, as well as on geographic separation.
That's exactly what's going on here.
Apart from that - I showed on Wikipedia the definitions of Race and Subspecies which are both equal and translate in Hebrew to "species" and I pointed out that they define Race differently but are reluctant to define different subspecies.
I don't think there was any reason to make me repeat things.
Machel,
As answered by R.H. 18 I did not raise a question of political correctness, but what is the degree of difference that justifies the definition of a human species. Is it correct to identify a significant number (10? 20?) of varieties in the population of the State of Israel? I don't have an answer for that, and anyway I would hesitate to identify a human species based on skin color, properties of oxygen absorption, resistance to malaria, and the like.
Thank you so much.
R.H.:
What is your opinion on the subject?
As for 23, yes, the mutation would have formed as often, but it had no advantage, so its frequency was the same as in the people who live at sea level.
Reuven 22,
You are a bit out of date, since the 70's man has been "playing with mutations". What are the results? Maybe all medicine, biology, agriculture and many other branches are based on it?
Lisa:
All our words are "vague" (p The stacking paradox).
This is not a reason to cancel them.
In the link I provided it says that the word Race is equivalent to the word subspecies which is the translation of "Zen".
On the other hand, there is a funny thing because you don't dare to classify people into different "species" even though they are classified into different races and the Hebrew translation of Racism is generally "racism" which is derived from the word "race" which in taxonomy is equivalent to "species".
For completion, you should look at the definition of the term species (which, as explained in the previous link - justifies the classification of humans into different species):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies
An interesting question arises here - what is the definition of a separate species in biology?
My impression is that it is a remnant from an ancient world in which they tried to classify the animal world before there was knowledge that there was existence on the genetic code - is this the case?
After all, every species in nature differs from other species in some almost infinite sequence of small changes - where do you draw the dividing line?
Also, a more precise definition of the terms breed, species, family, etc. would help here...
One clear criterion seems to be the ability to mate. Beyond that, what are the other criteria?
According to the article and the comments, the conclusion is that the person asks or forces his body to create the mutation, so that he can
survive in the existing environmental conditions. If I had provided oxygen bottles to those people, living at high altitude, would the same mutation have occurred even then?
L. H.
If it were possible to "play" with mutations, what would the results be?
incidentally:
It is very easy to notice the linguistic entanglement that the same political correctness imposes on us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)
Rah:
The preoccupation with words diverts attention from the main point.
It really doesn't matter if it is a breed or a special breed as long as you understand that discrimination on racial grounds is prohibited.
As soon as we deal with words, we limit the ability to convey information effectively.
Apart from political correctness, there is no reason not to define the Negroes, the Jews and any genetically distinct group as a separate species.
To my father
Gargamel continues to harass with comments that mean nothing.
Reuben,
Directed mutations can be created in flies, mice and many other organisms. Theoretically it is also possible in a person, but for ethical reasons it is not carried out.
The mutations are not induced by radiation, but there are other methods of genetic engineering.
Regarding the second question, it is not meant that they acquired three new genes, but that three mutations were found in them with a high frequency in genes that exist in all of us.
Regarding the distinct human species, I also disagree with the phrase (and not because of political correctness). Are Chinese Negroes and Caucasians defined as separate human species? Are the Ashkenazi Jews in whom there is a high prevalence of, for example, Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis a distinct human species?
Yehuda:
Genes that are not needed can last even hundreds of millions of years.
Birds and sperm whales still have perfectly normal genes to make two or parts of them.
Different snakes still grow tiny legs in some cases.
Year:
There is no point in the games of political correctness that prohibit the use of expressions such as "distinct human species".
The article clarifies exactly what it is about and does not encourage any discrimination on the basis of the genetic difference that there is no reason to ignore (sometimes ignoring the genetic difference of certain populations can actually harm them).
Regarding the dates - as you will see HERE , there is a dispute about it.
Avi:
As you must have noticed, there is a new troll on the site who is wasting people's time.
to Arya Seter
Is it possible to cause a deliberate or random mutation in the cow fly, whose life span is very short after a number of generations, by irradiation. Is it even possible today or in the future, to cause a mutation with receipts. If I understood you correctly, the number of genes is a function of the amount of the organism in the body. What will happen if the number of genes jumps to + 15000 genes, compared to what is in the human body today. In the article it is written that they accumulated thirty gardens, compared to those who live in the plain. Where does the material come from and who is responsible for their production.
Would like to receive articles of the site that are sent to a distribution list if there is one.
Reuven. Genes do not develop, genes are not activated, genes do not meet the demands of the cell. Genes simply change randomly - mutations and then it either has no effect, or it interferes and in rare cases it helps something and then there starts to be a variation in the species or a new species is created. Science can try to activate mutations - for example by radiation, but as a rule it is impossible to know what this will cause. I have a feeling that in playing to other commenters you have a desire to learn and understand.
Reuven
Your logic is twisted.
"Today that man is already adapted to the non-threatening environment, as in the distant past, what can cause the development of additional genes in the future, we will say in 10000 years. Or just for the needs of adapting to the environment, genes develop, assuming that the climate does not change."
The difference that exists between each organism is the difference of the genes. The difference between organism and organism is originally the difference of the genes between the organisms.
The difference between genes exists because genes are constantly changing from the moment they are created.
The gene that has changed in relation to another gene is called a mutation.
Genes that are not needed disappear and quite quickly. Herbivores stranded on isolated predator-free islands quickly become short-legged. The body will target those with short legs and will not prefer to waste resources on growing long legs.
It would be interesting to make a comparison with Indians living in the high Andes of the same order of magnitude and see if similar mutations happened to them as well.
It is not true that mutations did not change the genes of the inhabitants of Europe. If I'm not mistaken, the owner of a garden called Delta 32 (or something like that) survived the many plagues of the Middle Ages and there are villages where the majority of the population contains this garden even today
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Reuben,
Genes do not evolve, except in the sense that they have mutations. The people who carry harmful mutations "disappear" - they do not reach the point where they pass these mutations on to their offspring (unless something covers up the damage - medicine for example). Mutations that are not harmful are passed on to the next generations, and if a situation arises in which their action is beneficial (the oxygen in the human environment becomes thin, for example) they spread in the population because those who carry them get to bring more offspring into the world than those who do not carry them.
Omri,
Is the conversion of genes in the body according to the cell's demand, regardless of the environment. Today that man is already, adapted to the non-threatening environment, as in the distant past, what can cause the development of additional genes in the future, it will be said in 10000 years. Or just for the needs of adapting to the environment, genes develop, assuming that the climate does not change.
Interesting article
Is the number 2750 years based only on archeology or also on molecular calculations?
The closing sentence of the article claiming that Tibetans are a distinct human species is extremely problematic.
Laria Seter,
Did Kim create a reservoir of inactive genes that is not expressed, due to its lack of necessity, in the present
And in the future, when necessary, it is put into practice. Can science accelerate the development of genes?
To 4:
What will happen is that the genes that give them the ability to live in the mountains will not be necessary,
Then there is no reason for them to remain in the gene pool because they do not give them an advantage in the environment in which they live,
And eventually they will disappear.
Do not get confused, this process can take tens and thousands of years if not longer, since the presence of the gene in question is not a disadvantage, the chances of those who carry the gene and those who do not have equal offspring,
And so it will take a long time for the "unnecessary" gene to disappear.
Reuven. Genes that are not needed, do not interfere and therefore remain (there is no pressure to remove them). They are also called "garbage" and sometimes evolution makes use of them (a mutation that occurs in them does indeed cause something). Genes for hereditary diseases are indeed in the process of extinction (unless there is also something positive associated with them). In the end you will learn more!
For 4: They will probably suffocate from the amount of oxygen that is down here 😉
And thanks again for an interesting article; The matter only proves that humanity will also survive "2012" or whatever you call it.
If genes develop in relation to adapting to the environment, why don't genes, which are not needed, be shed. or defective genes that cause hereditary diseases, for example.
What will happen if those people, who have adapted to living at high altitude, if you put them at sea level, will they lose the genes they have acquired over the years, in order to adapt
to their new location.
Strengthens 2 by 1
...but it's both true and funny... so why not actually?
It's not about bringing politics into a scientific article and I'm talking about the sentence: "The chance that a baby will be born tomorrow with working gills, which will also continue to function throughout his life, is comparable to the chance that Ehud Barak will leave the coalition in the government of his own accord. Actually, maybe even a little higher."