Your speculation seems preposterous, that the human race has undergone
perceptible "genetic mutations" in historical or near-historical time in
response to "stress". The standard account of evolution wouldn't support
this (changes are too big, too fast, not enough selection). Yet three
items in my recent reading support this idea.
a. A fairly well-received book of a few years ago pointed out that the
current size and organization of the human brain appeared with lightening
speed during the last big ice age. The book offered an explanation of why
ice age stress had dramatic results.
b. Some people argue that blood type "O" is archaic, that Os are
concentrated in Northern Europe, thrive on fatty fish, and are intolerant
of grain. Grain is a very late invention (it caught on 5,000 years ago).
The other blood types seem to tolerate grain better.
c. Stuart Kauffman, in At Home in the Universe, reviews several
non-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution, all of which can work more quickly
than mutation/selection. He mentions E. O. Wilson's speculation that the
dramatic change in culture, starting about 1000, is accompanied by genetic
change.
While this topic isn't directly about LO, it is interesting to consider
that the cultural change we accelerate through learning can feed back to
change the human physical substrate. And that's without even mentioning
genetic reengineering.
Steven J. Gould's new book, Full House, argues convincingly that 'higher'
animals are not evidence of progress. Any genetic change is just more
variety, not progress. That would lead one to conclude that any cultural
emergence is also not progress, just something we are driven to do. So
maybe that's a second point about LO, that it's just an activity, not
progress, even if it is so momentous as to modify the human animal!
-- Kent Myers myersk@us.netLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>