Comments on: We Evolved Low Oxygen Adaptation in Under 3,000 Years

By: Roland Rambau

Roland Rambau — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:11:43 +0000

the research leaves 2 questions open IMHO:

1. how do we know that the common anchestors 3000 years ago were not height adapted – could it have been the Han quickly loosing that adaptation ?

2. it seems that the data only show that many people in Tibet did not procreate – but how do we deduct from this that they died (prematurely I assume, otherwise the comment about lots of people dying would be vain). Couldn’t they have e.g. just moved elsewhere, or just stayed childless ( I seem to remember that Tibet had polyandric family structures which would allow that even when many appear married still only a small percentage of the males sire children etc. ) Could the high speed of adaptation be specifically enabled by polyandrie ?

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:19:27 +0000

Actually, the researchers did also mention neonatal death as one of the ill effects of high altitudes. I left it out as I thought it was confusing. (Who plans a birth on a hike up Everest?) But your comment makes me see why I should have left it in. One of the adaptations mentioned was the ability to bear children at high altitudes. I will include it, thanks for helping put the puzzle together.

By: Dave M.

Dave M. — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:05:19 +0000

To say “For such a very strong change, a lot of people would have had to die…” seems a little short sighted. Perhaps the people who tolerated the high altitude simply stayed up there, while the rest went back down. I.E.; instant natural selection.

By: LSJ

LSJ — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:51:58 +0000

To adapt to low oxygen, shouldn’t the Tibetans have evolved higher rb cell count and higher hemoglobin levels?

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:57:51 +0000

Susan,

This looks like the kind of story you’re interested in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/energy-environment/04solar.html?src=me&ref=business