

By Razib Khan | December 2, 2011 11:58 am






More specifically, the researchers were interested in genetic markers which are likely to be in regions which hint at natural selection, and therefore adaptation. Whether adaptation in human populations is driven by climate, diet, or pathogen load is a million-dollar question, and this is one attempt to answer it. This is particularly relevant to the initial public confusion we’re faced with: that evolution is a process whereby populations adapt to changes in the natural, physical environment. Is that so? For human populations the answer is a resounding no!

Rather, the authors found that adaptation to pathogens exhibited particularly strong signals of local adaptation—in particular, adaptations to varieties of worms. This aligns with the deduction of some evolutionary biologists that host-parasite interactions drive much of adaptive evolution in complex organisms. Why the local adaptation with worms? The authors posit that worms evolve slower than bacteria, and are also more localized in distribution. Climate and diet? Not so much effect. At least for humans the public perception is close to 100% wrong. Humans adapt to local biological forces, not to the local natural environment.

Should this truly surprise us? Minnesotans are no furrier than Floridians. They make a cultural adaptation to climatic differences. In contrast, West Africans do have biological defenses against malaria which Minnesotans lack. And it is a popular “fun fact” that there are 10 times as many bacterial cells within the human body as human tissue cells. Most of these are “good bacteria,” but obviously not all of them are. The fact is that we live embedded in a world of microorganisms. The prevalence and power of microbes is also one leading possible explanation for sex: Because small asexual microorganisms evolve so fast the only way lumbering complex organisms can compete with them in the arms race of evolution is to continuously shuffle and rearrange their own genetic portfolios through sexual reproduction.

Finally, this should perhaps allow us to reconceptualize adaptation. It’s not due to something out there, but something in there. Biological organisms by and large aren’t reacting to geological forces, but to other biological entities. This is what makes biology such a frustrating science when you’re faced with the beauty and linearity of physics. The planets may move, but they move regularly. In contrast, as organisms trace evolutionary paths they exhibit chaotic creativity, responding to each other’s dodges and jabs. Evolution is not a smooth gradual geological process, but a noisy and scattered perpetual re-oganization of living organisms again and again in kaleidoscopic patterns.

Image credit: Zink Dawg



Razib Khan’s degrees are in biochemistry and biology. He has blogged about genetics since 2002 (see his Discover blog, Gene Expression) and is an Unz Foundation Junior Fellow. He loves habaneros.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Living World, Top Posts
  • Harville

    “Humans adapt to local biological forces, not to the local natural environment.” I believe this should say “Modern humans” because we now adapt to our environment, but the aborigines are physically more fitted to their environment than any population not living in a similar climate. Also look where a climate is colder, the native people have shorter appendages and a thicker midsection to conserve body heat. The native population of an area is the key in finding evidence of Physical Evolution. Cultural evolution should be looked at through a psychological perspective (how the society that is evolving is interacting with itself). Though biological evolution is interesting and very valid.

  • judith weingarten

    I think that this kind of study is due in no small part to the work of Lynn Margulis, who died last month. A short tribute (and explanation) at Gaia is a Tough Bitch

  • Matt Gruner

    Does natural selection drive the elimination of harmful parasites or the easing of defenses against commensals to out compete the harmful parasites? How does parasite diversity correlate to host diversity?

  • Chris

    Fascinating. I never thought of it that way. Thanks!

  • Mike Magee

    It may be that worms are more important than external physical factors in human beings, but we are the most generalized of animals, able to live in widely different and often hostile environments because of our intelligence. The case will be different for animals the more specialized they are. In any case, the environment is not just the physical environment of climate, geography, medium, and so on, but anything that affects the species, and that includes other animals within the species, and in other species, whether symbionts, parasites, predators, prey, rivals, etc, etc. We are all a point in a sort of multidimensional space made up of everything else, from which we are cutting out slices to examine.

  • Mark

    “Humans adapt to local biological forces, not to the local natural environment.” But aren’t local biological forces interrelated with the local natural environment? You are implying that there is no connection.

    This point confuses me and I would like more clarification on this.

  • winkle

    A fine piece of science writing here. With concision and verve Mr. Khan tears off a dispatch to the laity.

    It’s always invigorating to re-contemplate that it’s parasitic churn which is the primary fluidizing-hence-lubricating mechanism that allows for a quicker slide of evolutionary metamorphoses along the planes of time.

    Viva la Kaleidoscope! Great image. Enriching.

  • Brian

    I need a dictionary to get through this article. I can appreciate a wide vocabulary, but this is almost borderline flaunting…


Discover's Newsletter


The Crux


About Razib Khan



See More

Collapse bottom bar

Login to your Account

E-mail address:
Remember me
Forgot your password?

Not Registered Yet?
