As I understand it, birth defects are like 99.999% of the time unhelpful. But that 0.0001% of the time the genetic freak is a huge advantage and that gets passed down in the gene pool and thus, over many many generations, evolution.

Alcohol, which is known to increase birth defects, should increase the speed at which that happens. Right? Like playing the lottery with more tickets.

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    No. Alcohol is not mutagenic, the issues it causes in fetus are not DNA related. On the other hand smoking or other carcinogens definitely do affect DNA so they could “speed” evolution. Unfortunately any species advanced enough to smoke will also be advanced enough to be able to control the environment around them to a certain extent, so besides the one good trait getting develop you would also have dozens if not hundreds of bed ones that get preserved because the species is somewhat above natural selection.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    None of the birth defects caused by boozing it up whilst pregnant affect the genetics of the child. it disrupts the development, and does not generally effect the genetic make up.

    in short, fetal alcohol syndrome is not a heritable trait and have no reasonable effect on ‘the rate of evolution’.

    Keep in mind, evolution is a slow process consisting of gradual changes resulting in divergent species.

    • Depress_Mode@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I also want to add that evolution is a species-wide phenomenon over hundreds or thousands of generations, it’s not done individually.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I guess I was understating the slowness, lol.

        I do wonder if it might not actually slow down evolutionary change by removing otherwise beneficial traits?

        Probably not on the scheme of things. It’s not like alcoholic mums haven’t always been around.

  • dihutenosa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Of course!

    You need to have evolutionary pressure to have directed evolution, and “alcoholism is a disadvantage” is as good as any. By drinking more, one reduces their and their kids’ chances to survive, making those alcoholic genes less frequent.

    By the way, I hear propensity to alcoholism is also an inheritable trait.

    • Yermaw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I wonder if that cuts the wrong way in humans.

      Alcoholism generally keeps people down societally, but I imagine a shitload of babies are born because drunk people didn’t worry about a condom

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This is like someone who has faulty math, faulty logic, and fails on every level of a mathematical process. They have nothing but errors when they show their math, but somehow come up with the right answer.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I have a hard time believing that not having enough sex was ever the reason that prehistoric people had too few children.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Oh they HAD enough children. The majority just died early. Disease, fire, cliffs, dinosaurs eating them. It was rough.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          The only “dinosaurs” that were around at the same time anything vaguely human was, was chickens and such other theropod descendants.

          We, uh, ate them.

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Fetal alcohol syndrome has to have a huge negative impact on population survivability. I have a hard time believing that even that one one-in-a-million genetic freak superman is able to offset that. Seems more likely that if anything, the general benefits of alcohol consumption (e.g. incentive to settle down into agrarian communities, increased social cohesion) outweight the negative health impacts.