[WaxProlix]

If mutation is the engine of evolution, an increase in mutation should mean an increase in the speed of evolution. Obviously not on the scales we're talking about here, but the premise doesn't seem too unsound, external pressures being equal.

[tstactplsignore]

The premise is highly unsound. This study is talking about somatic mutations, which can only be harmful to an organism. Why? Because they can be beneficial to an individual selfish somatic cell, which is what we can cancer. In other words, when a somatic mutation is succesful, it spreads and becomes cancer. And of it doesn't spread, it can't have a serious impact on the phenotype of an entire organism.

So, the mutations discussed in the article have nothing to do with evolution, because they are somatic, and not passed on to offsprig. But even if smoking caused germ cell line mutations, it's also important to note that "highly evolved" is a mostly nonsensical phrase that has no real meaning, and there is absolutely no guarantee that any individual germ line mutations would confer a selective advantage to the off-spring- in fact, the majority of the time, specific mutations are neutral or harmful. Thus, even if smoking did increase the mutation rate in the germ line of a smoker, any given smoker kid would probably just have more problems than benefits. And because mutation rate is (maybe this is somewhat controversial) a phenotype that can and has evolved into itself, changing it artificially through smoking would likely result in a net reduction in "evolvability" as it has been called. Anyways these are all long term (and I mean LONG) population level effects and have nothing to do with individuals being "more evolved".

Just trying to make the point that the original assumption was three times removed from a sound understanding of evolution and showed some pretty big misconceptions.

[adrianN]

"Can only be harmful" is pretty strong. You could have a set of mutations in a T-Cell for example that makes it super good at killing all forms of cancer.

[vibrio]

You could get a 'super T cell' that behaves just as you want, or as is empirically observed, mutations would more commonly lead to leukemia. There is a phenomenon call somatic hypermuatation, that as T-cell respond to antigens, they 'get sloppy' in coding their DNA to optimize the response. It' has also been linked to blood cancers, so it is a risky approach, like many aspects of immunity.

[adrianN]

Of course almost all mutations won't be beneficial (this is also true of germline mutations). But "can only be harmful" seems to imply that beneficial mutations are impossible.

[vibrio]

agreed. sort of my point: some changes can be beneficial, but the process is very risky and the cell goes through great measures to minimize any sequence changes. some viruses are sloppy on purpose, as they have tens or hundreds of thousands of offspring, so trial and error is acceptable.

[tstactplsignore]

I'm still skeptical- I doubt a single T-cell can have anything but a ever so slight statistical inpact on the phenotype of an entire organism, and there is no selective process to keep that mutation around, so it cannot last long in the body, either.

[thesimpsons1022]

sure stand in some radiation then and we'll watch you become evolved

[beedogs]

Mutations can be beneficial, benign, or harmful. Smoking obviously only really creates the latter two.

[mrpopo]

That's definitely not obvious. I would agree that mutations due to smoking could be in majority harmful due to the chemical components and the high temperatures involved. Other than that, a mutation is a mutation, whether due to smoke, nuclear irradiation, high altitude, or chance. In all cases, they can be beneficial or harmful. The evolution process will then cause only the beneficial ones to perdure.

[RyanZAG]

> The evolution process will then cause only the beneficial ones to perdure.

This isn't correct and is a common misconception about evolution. The process which does this is natural selection, and it only occurs through the organism being unable to reproduce as well as an organism with beneficial evolutionary changes.

With humans in the modern world, there is no natural selection because of state benefits that keep people alive and able to reproduce who would usually be unable to do so in a world without safety nets.

So in the modern world, any evolution in humanity - either positive or negative - will perdure. In effect we've ended the traditional form of evolution ages ago when we became civilized.

[johncolanduoni]

Another common misconception is that evolution can only occur via natural selection. Assortative mating[1] can still drive evolution for segments of the population, if not necessarily the whole population.

Also, the entire world does not have modern safety nets, not even close.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating

[flukus]

A social safety net may stop some negative mutations from being selected against, but positive traits still get people laid more.

[RyanZAG]

In USA, families on welfare benefits are also often the largest families. Being laid more is irrelevant if it does not result in a child. It's more reason as to why evolution is simply not a factor in the modern world.

Also, why do you say 'some'? It would stop all negative mutations, as all people are given the ability to reproduce. Your argument seems to be that people with negative mutations would not be attractive, but often they are attractive to others with negative mutations themselves. Or just people who no longer breed purely based on biological fitness - again because of modern civilization.

[meric]

You have already said some people have larger families than others and these people have differences than others thus contradicting your premise where there is no longer evolution in human genes.

[ommunist]

I think you are missing he point. Evolution is a process of selection of the offspring. It always happen. Just its factors change.

[graovic]

I think he means generally among all species and not particularly people in last 200 years.

[beedogs]

It's funny how only one of those things you listed is a voluntary activity.

Anyway, by all means, continue smoking if you think it's going to give you some sort of superpowers or immunity that you can pass on to your progeny. Most likely it'll just give you a disease.

[flukus]

Why only the latter two? I would assume it's the same as natural mutation, which is also primarily the later two.