5 ms·

Has human evolution stopped?

14 points by ksvs 18y ago

tokenadult 18y ago
"Scientific orthodoxy says that human evolution stopped a long time ago." No it doesn't. I call blarney on this article.
- jballanc 18y ago
  That was in the title...did you bother to read any further?
  - tokenadult 18y ago
    Yes. The book review was written by someone less familiar with the research than I would have desired. The opening line I objected to was probably inserted by a Wall Street Journal editor, but the book under review is less impressive than, say, http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-of-Intelligence/dp/B000PY4UU2/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-of-Intelligence/dp/B000PY4U... or http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp/0226311260/ http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp... or other books I've read on closely related subjects. This is a subject that deserves a lot of books, but one might as well read the better books.
jacquesm 18y ago
The Wall Street Journal should know better than to comment on stuff they haven't got a clue about. Every time an egg gets fertilized that's evolution in progress, every time a human being does not get offspring because his/her desired mate gets snagged by a more appealing specimen that's evolution in progress and every time somebody gets killed by accident before they get to reproduce that's evolution in progress too. The fact that the changes accumulate too slow for you to witness this in real-time does not mean it does not happen. Any scientist that works in biology claiming that human evolution has stopped will soon find himself/herself the laughingstock of his profession.
- trapper 18y ago
  Most layman I have talked to think of evolution as having a fitness function selecting for perfection. Most of these type of arguments end up being about environmental pressure selecting non-desired traits rather than evolution per se. It's a terminology problem. The arguments are correct if you ignore this. I like "descent with modification" when explaining what evolution is to layman. They find it easier to understand as the term isn't so loaded.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    I like "descent with modification" when explaining what evolution is to layman. What, then, would devolution be?
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - kaens 18y ago
      Devolution is a nonsense concept.
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        So, then, are higher mammals and higher animals misnamed? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+mammals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+mammals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+animals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+animals%22 The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions plants that are more highly evolved than others: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+evolved+plants%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+evolved+plants%22 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463192/plant http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463192/plant for example, the most highly evolved plants reproduce by means of seeds, and, in the most advanced of all plants (angiosperms), a reproductive organ called a flower is formed.
        kaens 18y ago
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
chris11 18y ago
I was unimpressed by their analysis of the genetic causes of intelligence. Just because some genetic disorders and intelligence happen to be correlated doesn't mean that both are caused by the same gene. I think the reasoning in this article was incredibly sloppy.
vaksel 18y ago
only in the south
10ren 18y ago
Whatever is causing today's lower fertility rates is a profound pressure on human evolution.
kaens 18y ago
No. People need to stop asking this. As far as I understand it, evolution is not a thing that stops. I am significantly annoyed at the propagation of stuff like this. It's like this horrible catch-22 where such a small amount of the population actually understands current theory, and the rest just have these really off-the-wall interpretations, with a similarly small percentage admitting that they have no clue what they're talking about - like how the (stereotypical) average american citizen thinks of abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang as one big lump of a theory. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but saying somethings "evolution has stopped" is nonsense, right?
- bianco 18y ago
  I have a dumb question: how can a theory stop?
  - endtime 18y ago
    Evolution is a process. Processes can stop. No one is suggesting that the theory of evolution has stopped; as you point out, that would not be a meaningful statement.
- jballanc 18y ago
  You're not completely wrong, but you're also not completely right. Remember, simply selecting for best fit individuals is not evolution, that's natural selection. Furthermore, reproduction introducing new variants is also not, on its own, evolution, that's descent with modification. Evolution only occurs when you've got descent with modification and natural selection working together to push species toward one niche or another. Certainly evolution can stop. Take, for example, dinosaurs! Of course, extinction is an extreme case. So can an existing species stop evolving? For better or worse, the answer depends on a concept which is still not fully resolved: neutral evolution. The general idea of neutral evolution is that, even when you're not selecting for one variant or another, introducing new variants will make you better fit for the next selection event (presuming you subscribe to the punctuated equilibria views). Essentially, you might not be evolving now (i.e. no selection pressure exists), but you might be stacking the deck to evolve better in the future. ...confusing, right? I love this stuff! :-)
jballanc 18y ago
Here's what happened... I loaded HN, saw a headline which mentioned "evolution", saw that this headline was sourced from the Wall Street Journal, and thought to myself "Damn, the Journal really is turning into yet another right-wing rag...I wonder what they've dredged up this time" ...then I did something that, apparently, most of the members leaving comments thus far did not do: I read the article. First, this is a book review. The only question of accuracy is how well the review represented the content of the book. Second, though the term is not used in the article, the mention of Gould gives away the topic of the book. It's a concept called "punctuated equilibrium", and it's very much an open question in biological research. The most troubling result of the ID movement is the subsequent balkanization of views on all sides of the issue. What we have here (and by here, I mean this comment thread, not the article) is a prime example of individuals jumping to "defend" evolution without giving much thought or analysis to what it is they're defending. Modern theories of Evolution are as complete and sound as Newton's laws of motion... I should know, since I'm currently completing a Ph.D. looking into some of them...
bianco 18y ago
There is macroevolution (molecule-to-man theory) and microevolution (no increase in complexity and no new species). And then there is natural selection, which decreases the amount of variation of a species. It's very important to keep different things separate.
- jballanc 18y ago
  Macroevolution vs. microevolution is a false dichotomy dreamed up by the Creationism/ID crowd. It's the way they allow themselves to acknowledge incontrovertible evidence for evolution, like acquiring antibiotic resistance, while still denying evolution. Unless you can give me a strict definition of the boundary between macro and micro, then they're all the same governed by the same laws.
turtle3 18y ago
It is an interesting discussion. The article's points about evolution continuing in terms of disease prevention, ability to fight germs, etc. are understandable, as with greater population density, exposure to those things do go up. On the other hand, every time we make a scientific advance which allows people to continue living/reproducing when they wouldn't have before, we lower the selection criteria, and it seems like this would have to slow evolution as a result, right?

14 points by ksvs 18y ago

"Scientific orthodoxy says that human evolution stopped a long time ago." No it doesn't. I call blarney on this article.

jballanc 18y ago
That was in the title...did you bother to read any further?
- tokenadult 18y ago
  Yes. The book review was written by someone less familiar with the research than I would have desired. The opening line I objected to was probably inserted by a Wall Street Journal editor, but the book under review is less impressive than, say, http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-of-Intelligence/dp/B000PY4UU2/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-of-Intelligence/dp/B000PY4U... or http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp/0226311260/ http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp... or other books I've read on closely related subjects. This is a subject that deserves a lot of books, but one might as well read the better books.

jacquesm 18y ago

The Wall Street Journal should know better than to comment on stuff they haven't got a clue about. Every time an egg gets fertilized that's evolution in progress, every time a human being does not get offspring because his/her desired mate gets snagged by a more appealing specimen that's evolution in progress and every time somebody gets killed by accident before they get to reproduce that's evolution in progress too. The fact that the changes accumulate too slow for you to witness this in real-time does not mean it does not happen. Any scientist that works in biology claiming that human evolution has stopped will soon find himself/herself the laughingstock of his profession.

trapper 18y ago
Most layman I have talked to think of evolution as having a fitness function selecting for perfection. Most of these type of arguments end up being about environmental pressure selecting non-desired traits rather than evolution per se. It's a terminology problem. The arguments are correct if you ignore this. I like "descent with modification" when explaining what evolution is to layman. They find it easier to understand as the term isn't so loaded.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  I like "descent with modification" when explaining what evolution is to layman. What, then, would devolution be?
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - kaens 18y ago
    Devolution is a nonsense concept.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      So, then, are higher mammals and higher animals misnamed? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+mammals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+mammals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+animals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+animals%22 The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions plants that are more highly evolved than others: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+evolved+plants%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+evolved+plants%22 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463192/plant http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463192/plant for example, the most highly evolved plants reproduce by means of seeds, and, in the most advanced of all plants (angiosperms), a reproductive organ called a flower is formed.
      - kaens 18y ago

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

chris11 18y ago

I was unimpressed by their analysis of the genetic causes of intelligence. Just because some genetic disorders and intelligence happen to be correlated doesn't mean that both are caused by the same gene. I think the reasoning in this article was incredibly sloppy.

vaksel 18y ago

only in the south

10ren 18y ago

Whatever is causing today's lower fertility rates is a profound pressure on human evolution.

kaens 18y ago

No. People need to stop asking this. As far as I understand it, evolution is not a thing that stops. I am significantly annoyed at the propagation of stuff like this. It's like this horrible catch-22 where such a small amount of the population actually understands current theory, and the rest just have these really off-the-wall interpretations, with a similarly small percentage admitting that they have no clue what they're talking about - like how the (stereotypical) average american citizen thinks of abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang as one big lump of a theory. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but saying somethings "evolution has stopped" is nonsense, right?

bianco 18y ago
I have a dumb question: how can a theory stop?
- endtime 18y ago
  Evolution is a process. Processes can stop. No one is suggesting that the theory of evolution has stopped; as you point out, that would not be a meaningful statement.
jballanc 18y ago
You're not completely wrong, but you're also not completely right. Remember, simply selecting for best fit individuals is not evolution, that's natural selection. Furthermore, reproduction introducing new variants is also not, on its own, evolution, that's descent with modification. Evolution only occurs when you've got descent with modification and natural selection working together to push species toward one niche or another. Certainly evolution can stop. Take, for example, dinosaurs! Of course, extinction is an extreme case. So can an existing species stop evolving? For better or worse, the answer depends on a concept which is still not fully resolved: neutral evolution. The general idea of neutral evolution is that, even when you're not selecting for one variant or another, introducing new variants will make you better fit for the next selection event (presuming you subscribe to the punctuated equilibria views). Essentially, you might not be evolving now (i.e. no selection pressure exists), but you might be stacking the deck to evolve better in the future. ...confusing, right? I love this stuff! :-)

jballanc 18y ago

Here's what happened... I loaded HN, saw a headline which mentioned "evolution", saw that this headline was sourced from the Wall Street Journal, and thought to myself "Damn, the Journal really is turning into yet another right-wing rag...I wonder what they've dredged up this time" ...then I did something that, apparently, most of the members leaving comments thus far did not do: I read the article. First, this is a book review. The only question of accuracy is how well the review represented the content of the book. Second, though the term is not used in the article, the mention of Gould gives away the topic of the book. It's a concept called "punctuated equilibrium", and it's very much an open question in biological research. The most troubling result of the ID movement is the subsequent balkanization of views on all sides of the issue. What we have here (and by here, I mean this comment thread, not the article) is a prime example of individuals jumping to "defend" evolution without giving much thought or analysis to what it is they're defending. Modern theories of Evolution are as complete and sound as Newton's laws of motion... I should know, since I'm currently completing a Ph.D. looking into some of them...

bianco 18y ago

There is macroevolution (molecule-to-man theory) and microevolution (no increase in complexity and no new species). And then there is natural selection, which decreases the amount of variation of a species. It's very important to keep different things separate.

jballanc 18y ago
Macroevolution vs. microevolution is a false dichotomy dreamed up by the Creationism/ID crowd. It's the way they allow themselves to acknowledge incontrovertible evidence for evolution, like acquiring antibiotic resistance, while still denying evolution. Unless you can give me a strict definition of the boundary between macro and micro, then they're all the same governed by the same laws.

turtle3 18y ago

It is an interesting discussion. The article's points about evolution continuing in terms of disease prevention, ability to fight germs, etc. are understandable, as with greater population density, exposure to those things do go up. On the other hand, every time we make a scientific advance which allows people to continue living/reproducing when they wouldn't have before, we lower the selection criteria, and it seems like this would have to slow evolution as a result, right?