Slashdot Mirror


Geneticist Claims Human Evolution Is Over

GogglesPisano writes "UK geneticist Steve Jones gave a presentation entitled Human Evolution Is Over. He asserts that human beings have stopped evolving because modern social customs have lowered the age at which human males have offspring, which results in fewer of the mutations necessary to drive evolutionary change. Apparently the fate of our species now depends upon older guys hooking up with younger woman. I, for one, welcome this development."

15 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. Darwinian evolution? by Cowclops · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if this guy turns out to be wrong for the reasons he gave, I wouldn't be surprised if modern society is messing with the evolution of humans compared to most other species in the past. Modern medicine may SAVE people that "should have" died and not passed on their genes. For better or worse, this is different than what happens outside of human society.

    1. Re:Darwinian evolution? by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree, but usually those "saved" people don't breed or become uncapable of.

      And I don't know about "de-evolving", but for me it seems like people "with low IQ" (I don't know how to say it without being offensive) are breeding more than smart people, because usually smart people leave having children for later, or even not even have them, for the sake of their careers. I don't have anything against pursuing what you wanna do with your life, but I'd rater have more smart kids being born.

    2. Re:Darwinian evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your radical new ideas have already occurred to Mike Judge.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

    3. Re:Darwinian evolution? by StrahdVZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or more accurately, his ideas have been studied/proposed since the early 1900s.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

    4. Re:Darwinian evolution? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why is Hitler a source for your argument? Do you ask someone in the street for their opinion of the stock market? Who cares what he thought about Jews.

      Having good genes does give you an advantage in life - just like having a predisposition to creativity, good motor skills, not being born a psycho or any number of traits with genetic components. Having good parents (also an unearned privilege) is a massive advantage in life. Likewise being born a haemophiliac or with down syndrome is a disadvantage. However that is life, and you have to make the best of what you have.

      As for your notion that this is how things should be all I can say too bad. Life is how it is, and pretending otherwise doesn't change anything. http://xkcd.com/240/

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  2. Seems a little strange by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Women are definitely having children later. So late in many cases that there is a significant chance of genetic abnormalities like Down's Syndrome.

    Are males really having children younger? Enough to offset women having children later?

  3. Dysgenics by Scarbo27 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree with the thesis, but not the cause. The problem is that modern welfare programs protect the stupid, lazy, and generally incompetent; and allows them to breed without regard for the fact that the parents are not capable of providing for their children. The most basic and immutable law of economics is that you get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you tax. In America, and other first-world countries, we subsidize illegitimacy and tax work. I am not suggesting we do away with welfare, but we shouldn't ignore the consequences of a welfare system that doesn't either encourage birth-control, or discourage unrestricted breeding. Let the hating begin.

  4. Re:Not evolving because why? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One moment he's complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he's complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?

    It's not that the mutants survive, it's that everyone survives, so there's no basis for any one mutant having a better chance of survival. Which means we'll just have a lot of mutants.

    Evolution can't work if "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of everyone". It looks like we'll either stagnate or evolve completely randomly, in all directions that don't outright kill us. Probably some combination -- all these random mutations won't get really exaggerated, because they'll just be absorbed back into the population.

    Of course, that's not really the end of human evolution, it's more the end of meaningful human evolution. Idiocracy is an example of how humanity could (or already has) evolved in a direction we probably don't want, and don't think of as "progress" -- but Darwinian evolution does not necessarily equal progress.

    I'm not really sure what the endgame is. I really only see three outcomes: Idiocracy (we stop caring about real science, and fall back on Darwinian evolution); MAD (we blow ourselves up (selecting ourselves out), and science dies with us); or posthumanism (science continues at roughly the pace it has, which means we'll use technology to enhance ourselves).

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  5. Re:How convenient! by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you mean with genetic engineering then I agree - otherwise I think there is a limit to how much you can fix from the outside, if things are badly broken on the inside. Diabetes and such are liveable, but what if you are missing (broken) an enzyme for making ATP? Or one of the main positioning marker proteins is broken meaning your body parts are all in the wrong places! So at the very least there will be natural selection pressure there.

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  6. Re:How convenient! by easyTree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's difficult to see how a geneticist could actually make such an absurd statement. I suspect either there is major misrepresentation going on, or he's about to have his proverbial testicles handed to him by any number of researchers showing that the claim is factually false and conceptually retarded.

    You think that's absurd? Read some of the comments. From a quick reading of about twenty, there were four or five who simply don't believe in evolution at all!

    Here are a few examples (because I *know* you're not gonna RTFA):

    Why doesn't the eminent scientist come out and admit that evolution has been the ultimate of hoax's. There is not a single scrap of transpeciation in the fossil record, not one on this entire earth that has been recorded. Just a couple examples of micro adaptation - thats it!

    David, Smithers,

    That anyone believes in this made up religion of evolution still amazes me. So little evidence, so much faith required to buy in. Does anyone not notice how often evolutionists change their stories to fit the latest finding? Study creation, it makes sense and fits the same evidence. I dare you.

    John, WR, USA

    Pathetic. Anyone who in this day and age of genetics believe we humans evolved from ape's (sic) need to wake up.

    Caroline Carter, London, UK

    One problem is that the academic elite is completely sold out to Darwinian evolution, and to oppose it is academic death because Darwinism is a religion that will not tolerate dissent.
    Robert Moore, Canton, U.S.A.

    It seems that there's still lots of randomness of _belief_.

  7. Re:How convenient! by peterofoz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If genetic mutations is all that is required for evolution, there is more than age that can cause this.

    Nearly every month there seems to be a new discovery that some virus or environmental factor causes genetic mutations that result in cancer. Those are just the ones that kill us.

    Perhaps there are also some benign or beneficial mutations occurring because of disease or dirty environment. I, for one, believe kids (and adults) should play outdoors and get dirty to help boost their immune systems and reduce the likelihood of allergies.

    Eat more dirt

  8. Re:How convenient! by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Read some of the comments.

    Pathetic. Anyone who in this day and age of genetics believe we humans evolved from ape's (sic) need to wake up.

    Caroline Carter, London, UK

    That is of course true. Humans did not evolve from apes but from a common ancestor.

    If you think I'm nitpicking, I find this common misunderstanding to be one of the best ways to tell whether I'm going to have a useful discussion with someone or whether I shouldn't bother in the first place.

  9. you never saw this? by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

    we are also apparently splitting into two sub-races.. I call them the morlocs and the eloi
    (as I tend to represent the morloc heritage more closely)

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  10. Re:How convenient! by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One way of seeing this is that a man that has become older and is still healthy means that the genes provides less risk of inherited disabling diseases and therefore is a better mate from that perspective. An older man is also likely to have gained a better position in society.

    Evolution is still going on, but it is also circumvented by modern medicine. I would rather claim that medicine is the limiting factor for evolution.

    Today we have a large number of diseases that is caused by our lazy living and sugared diets. So evolution will pick off the ones that aren't able to live lazy by heart attacks and similar defects.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  11. Re:How convenient! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If we can now take care of some of the genetic factors that would limit someone in a more primitive society, then we can start emphasizing the factors that provide advantages in a more sophisticated one. If someone is highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive, then that's a reason we want them and it's a plus if a no-longer issue prevents them from passing on their genes.

    You seem to be working under the delusion that evolution is something that someone has control over. Other than the women, I mean. Face it, being highly intelligent and creative and socially supportive may be really desirable, but unless the WOMEN are looking to screw men like that (or the men screw women like that), it ain't gonna be.

    What's going to happen is that women will continue to screw the same guys they've been screwing, and the highly intelligent, creative, socially supportive guys will continue to spend time in their basement trying to justify why women should be chasing them in droves.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"