# We've Been Domesticated!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weve-been-domesticated/336368>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [December 19, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weve-been-domesticated/336368 "2005-12-19T23:36:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weve-been-domesticated/336368/1 "2005-12-19T23:36:40Z")

</div>

[You know, that _does_ answer a whole lotta nagging questions.](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8483&feedId=online-news_rss20)

> [@](#):
>
> A detailed look at human DNA has shown that a significant percentage of our genes have been shaped by natural selection in the past 50,000 years, probably in response to aspects of modern human culture such as the emergence of agriculture and the shift towards living in densely populated settlements.

> [@](#):
>
> This analysis suggested that around 1800 genes, or roughly 7% of the total in the human genome, have changed under the influence of natural selection within the past 50,000 years. A second analysis using a second SNP database gave similar results. That is roughly the same proportion of genes that were altered in maize when humans domesticated it from its wild ancestors.

> [@](#):
>
> Genes that aid protein metabolism – perhaps related to a change in diet with the dawn of agriculture – turn up unusually often in Moyzis’s list of recently selected genes. So do genes involved in resisting infections, which would be important in a species settling into more densely populated villages where diseases would spread more easily. Other selected genes include those involved in brain function, which could be important in the development of culture.

Of course, much of the research is in preliminary stages, so it might turn out to not be as significant as it first appears.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weve-been-domesticated/336368/2 "2005-12-19T23:42:29Z")

</div>

> [@Tuckerfan](#):
>
> [You know, that _does_ answer a whole lotta nagging questions.](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8483&feedId=online-news_rss20)Of course, much of the research is in preliminary stages, so it might turn out to not be as significant as it first appears.

It kind of makes me question the idea that we are all the same under the surface. I have heard many scientists scoff that different human populations could be all that different because we diverged from the same groups fairly recently. I am not suggesting anything in particular but this finding does suggest that say Australian Aborigines that separated from the rest of the populations tens of thousands of years ago could indeed be significantly different genetically from a European or African populations. That is just one example.