🧵 Did civilization kill genetic mutations?
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:45:17 UTC No. 16429254
Everytime the topic of human mutation comes up its always sometime in prehistory and never within the last 5 thousand or so years. I can't help but wonder if the era of genetic mutations is over.
Let's say that Wang is born in China at 500 AD with a mutation that gives him shining blue eyes. They're beautiful and everyone loves it. Had he been born back in the Ice Age when populations were a lot smaller his gene could spread in a few generations. But because he lives in a land with tens of millions of people, it'll be hard for his genes to spread. It feels like humans stopped evolving new traits just due to our sheer population size.
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:10:19 UTC No. 16429452
>>16429254
human civilization is dysgenic at this point. bad genes aren't filtered out anymore. we keep everyone with every shitty mutation alive and what's worse is we let them procreate. this isn't sustainable long term.
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:47:31 UTC No. 16429536
>>16429254
Spiteful mutants are alive and more numerous than ever
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 22:31:29 UTC No. 16429642
Can I get an answer that isn't some brainlet babbling?
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 22:32:55 UTC No. 16429644
>>16429642
Your question was severely retarded, so, no.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 06:45:18 UTC No. 16430401
>>16429254
You don't really get natural selection in 5 thousand years, it's too short a time span. You can genetically alter a species by artificial selection (selective breeding and culling) but natural selection (some genes prividing a few % better or worse survival rate in the the wild) takes much, much larger timescales to affect a species.
To answer your actual question, human civilization definitely has an effect on our species' genetic direction. It's hard to say if it will be for the better or for worse, or even if civilization will last long enough for it to matter on a genetic timescale.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:49:22 UTC No. 16430583
>>16430401
> You don't really get natural selection in 5 thousand years, it's too short a time span.
it can occur in as little as a few days in a mass extinction
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:37:28 UTC No. 16430713
>>16430583
Humans haven't suffered a mass extinction in the past 5 milenia
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:07:56 UTC No. 16431036
>>16429254
Not exactly.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:32:30 UTC No. 16431100
>>16430401
>even if civilization will last long enough for it to matter on a genetic timescale.
Well it lasted long enough for the Indigenous population of the Americas to be replaced within a few centuries and for humans all around the world to have the ability to meet and reproduce with each other.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:36:34 UTC No. 16431112
>>16431100
>Well it lasted long enough for the Indigenous population of the Americas to be replaced
True
>and for humans all around the world to have the ability to meet and reproduce with each other.
Not yet to a species-significant degree
Regional genetic diversity has been affected but it's hard to claim that civilization and technology have caused any species level genetic drift at this point