6 ms·

Isn't this obvious? Why on earth would it stop? I don't actually believe that 'humans stopped evolving' was ever a widespread belief among scientists. This arti

Isn't this obvious? Why on earth would it stop? I don't actually believe that 'humans stopped evolving' was ever a widespread belief among scientists. This article has gotta be lying to me.

remarkEon 2mo ago
Perhaps it was not a widespread belief among scientists, I don't know, but if you were to posit in front of polite company that humans are today and always have been under evolutionary pressures that select for certain traits you would have gotten some odd looks. The implications are possibly a little uncomfortable, especially if what this article suggests is true and the pace of evolution is accelerating.
derektank 2mo ago
I have definitely run into the belief that humans aren’t evolving anymore (though not among scientists). I think people with an incomplete understanding of evolution look around, see most human beings survive to adulthood, and assume that there must be no more evolutionary pressures on us (perhaps with the phrase “survival of the fittest” tinging around inside their head). I honestly don’t blame anyone who hasn’t been exposed to the concept of e.g. sexual selection for making the assumption.
- delichon 2mo ago
  There's been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain. -- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Spice of Life", 2000 Gould was an evolutionary biologist and Harvard professor, and one of the most prominent popularizers of evolution since Darwin, but somehow believed that it doesn't apply to modern humans.
  - remarkEon 2mo ago
    That's such an extreme claim. It defies common sense. You'd have to proclaim that there was some event that _stopped_ evolution in humans, universally. How is that even possible? Especially 50k years ago. I'd be a little more forgiving if the claim was that evolution stopped in, say, 1999.
    - RajT88 2mo ago
      Rather a lot more things about human genomic history are known today compared to 2000. Discoveries about being able to process lactose and when those genes evolved all were after 2000, for example. Does it excuse Gould for making such bold claims? You have to decide I guess. That is a lot fuzzier.
      - remarkEon 2mo ago
        I guess I would need to read more of what Gould wrote. For example, did he claim that evolution in other species also stopped?
        margalabargala 2mo ago
        I think the claim that humans stopped evolving is an uncharitable reading. Another would be, 50k years is such a narrow window that evolution cannot be observed across it.
        t0mpr1c3 2mo ago
        It's not an uncharitable reading if Gould stated his claim unequivocably. Your alternative claim is just factually wrong. The population frequency of an allele under selection pressure can change within a few generations. For example the HbS allele, that confers both sickle cell trait and malaria resistance, became less common among Africans transported as slaves to regions where malaria was not endemic.
        asdff 2mo ago
        You can observe evolution on much narrower timescales. People were following how covid was evolving after all. Evolution just means some changes to dna. Even identical twin children have some differences between them.
        johnthewise 2mo ago
        It's more of a function of selection pressure applied to genes per unit time based on some environmental factor, so you'd expect to observe less evolution in narrower timescales simply because it takes few decades for humans to pass on genes versus bacteria or viruses. In the same fashion, if some gene pool is locally optimal(?) against the environmental pressures, it may just stop evolving meaningfully. E.g, If male baldness were reversed easily with a pill or something, the environmental pressure to select those genes would decrease rapidly.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Jach 2mo ago
    One should not read or pay much attention to anything Gould wrote or said. (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html) The amount of damage Gould has done offsets any positives. It's not just even being wrong, indeed you can charitably read that quote as being almost correct (the phrase is "anatomically modern human"); the worst thing he's done is probably to mischaracterize the rest of the field as scientists believing things they don't (or haven't for many decades before he ever tried to address them).
    - padjo 2mo ago
      Countering the nonsense prevalent in a lot of evolutionary psychology counts as a big positive in my book.
  - wahern 2mo ago
    Despite being so famous, I feel like his ideas haven't aged well. His ideas were contentious yet embraced by popular science writers, and there's never been a reckoning.
- knowaveragejoe 2mo ago
  For the average person considering this question it also goes without saying that it's hard to grasp the time scales involved.
adrianN 2mo ago
There are a couple of species that remain essentially unchanged for the last couple million years. Why can't humans become one of them?
- jl6 2mo ago
  Good question, with a couple of possible answers: 1) maybe those species aren’t as unchanged as we think, because our evidence of the past is limited to things like skeletons, and maybe the skeletal structure of the shark didn’t change much, but other aspects did. But more likely… 2) maybe unchanging requires a stable environment with stable selection pressures - but humans have had a rollercoaster of change in selection pressures, possibly more than any other species.
- asdff 2mo ago
  Nothing stops mutating. What you see with those species is that they found a zone of stability in the fitness landscape, a local optimum. They still have mutants, you just don't see them outcompeting and shifting the makeup of the overall population as the dominant form is already the most fit. Now consider our own species and the pressures that got us to this present body plan. They just aren't there. The shark still is facing pressures that favor the hundreds of millions of years old shark morphology. Are we facing pressures that our hominid ancestors faced? Doubtful. Look at how our bodies often react when they meet the pressures of our modern society: we often become anxious, depressed, and obese. Most of our ill behaviors such as this have some survival advantage to it that just isn't getting pressured in modern society. Your constant anxiety keeping you up at night is actually saving your family clan from a lurking predator in the bush. Your lack of portion control abilities means you can eat all the fish you just caught and pack on more fat to your frame to smooth over leaner times. Today these selective advantages are seen as illnesses people see doctors to get pills for. Our bodies are so misplaced for the society we've built for ourselves. Our mind's can't even fully fit this society into a working model ourselves without missing a lot of important information. We've out ran our capabilities a long time ago in some senses with the cultural/technological evolution that overshot our own biology. We are tumbling into some new body plan I'm not sure what exactly, but things aren't in any way stable now.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
Yeah, seems like either a clickbait title, or maybe they believe their readership is so misinformed as to believe that human evolution could and has stopped. I'd not be surprised if, especially in the US, a large percentage of the public does actually believe this.
- nobody9999 2mo ago
  >Yeah, seems like either a clickbait title, or maybe they believe their readership is so misinformed as to believe that human evolution could and has stopped. I'd not be surprised if, especially in the US, a large percentage of the public does actually believe this. When the belief is that of "creationism"[0], it's not so far to go to reject evidence of, well, anything that runs counter to the narrative espoused by a variety of those belief systems. Including the fact of evolution. I'd point out that those who subscribe to such belief systems are a large fraction of the human population, the largest contingent of which are not resident in the United States, nor are they Americans. And perhaps those who create such titles are cynically exploiting the gullible. Then again, I'd posit that Hanlon's Razor[1] be assessed in this case. Such an assessment might well uncover cynicism/evil, but probably not -- as those involved may well subscribe to the belief systems referenced above and/or are ignorant/dumb. All that said, such an idea isn't new. Here's an analog[0] from more than 400 years ago (circa 1600AD): What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
    Sure the US only comprises 5% of the global population, so insignificant in terms of global thought trends. I only mentioned the US since this is an American magazine and the title is probably chosen to appeal to an assumed mostly American readership. I was referring to scientific illiteracy/denial rather than creationists (who don't believe we're the product of evolution in the first place). I don't think Hanlon's Razor applies here. The author of a Harvard Magazine article is unlikely to be stupid, especially given the article in question, nor can choosing a clickbait title be considered as "malice". One can wonder what was the exact thought process in coming up with the title - perhaps more charitably they just thought that many people might think that human evolution is slowing, if not actually stopped, or maybe there really wasn't much thought put into it at all !

Isn't this obvious? Why on earth would it stop? I don't actually believe that 'humans stopped evolving' was ever a widespread belief among scientists. This article has gotta be lying to me.

remarkEon 2mo ago

Perhaps it was not a widespread belief among scientists, I don't know, but if you were to posit in front of polite company that humans are today and always have been under evolutionary pressures that select for certain traits you would have gotten some odd looks. The implications are possibly a little uncomfortable, especially if what this article suggests is true and the pace of evolution is accelerating.

derektank 2mo ago

I have definitely run into the belief that humans aren’t evolving anymore (though not among scientists). I think people with an incomplete understanding of evolution look around, see most human beings survive to adulthood, and assume that there must be no more evolutionary pressures on us (perhaps with the phrase “survival of the fittest” tinging around inside their head). I honestly don’t blame anyone who hasn’t been exposed to the concept of e.g. sexual selection for making the assumption.

delichon 2mo ago
There's been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain. -- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Spice of Life", 2000 Gould was an evolutionary biologist and Harvard professor, and one of the most prominent popularizers of evolution since Darwin, but somehow believed that it doesn't apply to modern humans.
- remarkEon 2mo ago
  That's such an extreme claim. It defies common sense. You'd have to proclaim that there was some event that _stopped_ evolution in humans, universally. How is that even possible? Especially 50k years ago. I'd be a little more forgiving if the claim was that evolution stopped in, say, 1999.
  - RajT88 2mo ago
    Rather a lot more things about human genomic history are known today compared to 2000. Discoveries about being able to process lactose and when those genes evolved all were after 2000, for example. Does it excuse Gould for making such bold claims? You have to decide I guess. That is a lot fuzzier.
    - remarkEon 2mo ago
      I guess I would need to read more of what Gould wrote. For example, did he claim that evolution in other species also stopped?
      - margalabargala 2mo ago
        I think the claim that humans stopped evolving is an uncharitable reading. Another would be, 50k years is such a narrow window that evolution cannot be observed across it.
        t0mpr1c3 2mo ago
        It's not an uncharitable reading if Gould stated his claim unequivocably. Your alternative claim is just factually wrong. The population frequency of an allele under selection pressure can change within a few generations. For example the HbS allele, that confers both sickle cell trait and malaria resistance, became less common among Africans transported as slaves to regions where malaria was not endemic.
        asdff 2mo ago
        You can observe evolution on much narrower timescales. People were following how covid was evolving after all. Evolution just means some changes to dna. Even identical twin children have some differences between them.
        johnthewise 2mo ago
        It's more of a function of selection pressure applied to genes per unit time based on some environmental factor, so you'd expect to observe less evolution in narrower timescales simply because it takes few decades for humans to pass on genes versus bacteria or viruses. In the same fashion, if some gene pool is locally optimal(?) against the environmental pressures, it may just stop evolving meaningfully. E.g, If male baldness were reversed easily with a pill or something, the environmental pressure to select those genes would decrease rapidly.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- Jach 2mo ago
  One should not read or pay much attention to anything Gould wrote or said. (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html) The amount of damage Gould has done offsets any positives. It's not just even being wrong, indeed you can charitably read that quote as being almost correct (the phrase is "anatomically modern human"); the worst thing he's done is probably to mischaracterize the rest of the field as scientists believing things they don't (or haven't for many decades before he ever tried to address them).
  - padjo 2mo ago
    Countering the nonsense prevalent in a lot of evolutionary psychology counts as a big positive in my book.
- wahern 2mo ago
  Despite being so famous, I feel like his ideas haven't aged well. His ideas were contentious yet embraced by popular science writers, and there's never been a reckoning.
knowaveragejoe 2mo ago
For the average person considering this question it also goes without saying that it's hard to grasp the time scales involved.

adrianN 2mo ago

There are a couple of species that remain essentially unchanged for the last couple million years. Why can't humans become one of them?

jl6 2mo ago
Good question, with a couple of possible answers: 1) maybe those species aren’t as unchanged as we think, because our evidence of the past is limited to things like skeletons, and maybe the skeletal structure of the shark didn’t change much, but other aspects did. But more likely… 2) maybe unchanging requires a stable environment with stable selection pressures - but humans have had a rollercoaster of change in selection pressures, possibly more than any other species.
asdff 2mo ago
Nothing stops mutating. What you see with those species is that they found a zone of stability in the fitness landscape, a local optimum. They still have mutants, you just don't see them outcompeting and shifting the makeup of the overall population as the dominant form is already the most fit. Now consider our own species and the pressures that got us to this present body plan. They just aren't there. The shark still is facing pressures that favor the hundreds of millions of years old shark morphology. Are we facing pressures that our hominid ancestors faced? Doubtful. Look at how our bodies often react when they meet the pressures of our modern society: we often become anxious, depressed, and obese. Most of our ill behaviors such as this have some survival advantage to it that just isn't getting pressured in modern society. Your constant anxiety keeping you up at night is actually saving your family clan from a lurking predator in the bush. Your lack of portion control abilities means you can eat all the fish you just caught and pack on more fat to your frame to smooth over leaner times. Today these selective advantages are seen as illnesses people see doctors to get pills for. Our bodies are so misplaced for the society we've built for ourselves. Our mind's can't even fully fit this society into a working model ourselves without missing a lot of important information. We've out ran our capabilities a long time ago in some senses with the cultural/technological evolution that overshot our own biology. We are tumbling into some new body plan I'm not sure what exactly, but things aren't in any way stable now.
HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago

HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago

Yeah, seems like either a clickbait title, or maybe they believe their readership is so misinformed as to believe that human evolution could and has stopped. I'd not be surprised if, especially in the US, a large percentage of the public does actually believe this.

nobody9999 2mo ago
>Yeah, seems like either a clickbait title, or maybe they believe their readership is so misinformed as to believe that human evolution could and has stopped. I'd not be surprised if, especially in the US, a large percentage of the public does actually believe this. When the belief is that of "creationism"[0], it's not so far to go to reject evidence of, well, anything that runs counter to the narrative espoused by a variety of those belief systems. Including the fact of evolution. I'd point out that those who subscribe to such belief systems are a large fraction of the human population, the largest contingent of which are not resident in the United States, nor are they Americans. And perhaps those who create such titles are cynically exploiting the gullible. Then again, I'd posit that Hanlon's Razor[1] be assessed in this case. Such an assessment might well uncover cynicism/evil, but probably not -- as those involved may well subscribe to the belief systems referenced above and/or are ignorant/dumb. All that said, such an idea isn't new. Here's an analog[0] from more than 400 years ago (circa 1600AD): What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
  Sure the US only comprises 5% of the global population, so insignificant in terms of global thought trends. I only mentioned the US since this is an American magazine and the title is probably chosen to appeal to an assumed mostly American readership. I was referring to scientific illiteracy/denial rather than creationists (who don't believe we're the product of evolution in the first place). I don't think Hanlon's Razor applies here. The author of a Harvard Magazine article is unlikely to be stupid, especially given the article in question, nor can choosing a clickbait title be considered as "malice". One can wonder what was the exact thought process in coming up with the title - perhaps more charitably they just thought that many people might think that human evolution is slowing, if not actually stopped, or maybe there really wasn't much thought put into it at all !