Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Geneticist Claims Human Evolution Is Over

Posted by samzenpus on from the flame-on dept.

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."

7 of 857 comments (clear)

  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: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!
  4. 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

  5. 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_.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  6. 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.

  7. 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