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."

How convenient!

[rk (6314)]

Imagine that. Old guy scientist claims that old guys should bag young women. "But, baby, it's scientific!"

I immediately thought of this:

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

Re:How convenient!

[idonthack (883680)]

MEIN FÜHRER! I CAN WALK!

Re:How convenient!

[MightyMartian (840721)]

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.

All sorts of species evolve in spite of any particular start or length of reproductive capacity. Since the vast majority of what diversity between members of a population happens during conception, the evolutionary engine is largely fueled at that point.

Ugh

[areusche (1297613)]

"I for one welcome our old men banging young women overlords."

Keep on dreaming buddy.

Re:Ugh

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

Yeah, like a young woman could be an overlord... (not counting if McCain wins and has a heart attack)

No, we're not counting a 44-year-old bit^H^H^H as a "young woman".

Darwinian evolution?

[Cowclops (630818)]

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.

Re:Darwinian evolution?

[Alexandra Erenhart (880036)]

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.

Re:Darwinian evolution?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Your radical new ideas have already occurred to Mike Judge.

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

Re:Darwinian evolution?

[Amiga Trombone (592952)]

Yes, but OTOH smart people have more opportunities to meet each other that they didn't have in the past. If you were born on a farm in 1900, chances are you'd stay there all your life, even if you had an IQ of 160. Now, most reasonably smart people have the opportunity to go to universities, and work in environments where they're going to meet other smart people. Of course, the children of smart parents tend to regress toward the mean, so genetics may play a lesser role in intelligence than you might think.

Seems a little strange

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

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?

Re:Seems a little strange

[Trip6 (1184883)]

It used to be that you had your kids within a year after reaching puberty. And you died by 40. Today society outlaws this behavior, and even people having kids in their 20s are deemed "too young." So what is this guy talking about?

Re:Seems a little strange

[davolfman (1245316)]

I thought the average lifespan was so low mostly because it was a mean with high infant mortality.

I accept my fate

[JWSmythe (446288)]

    I accept my fate. I will propagate with younger women, if for nothing else than to save our species. :)

Right for the wrong reasons

[caller9 (764851)]

If human evolution is slowing, it isn't because of old dudes having mutated sperm.

* Historically most people and any animal I've heard of reproduced as soon as possible, old fart mating doesn't really make sense. People are actually reproducing at an older age(TRUE)...we get autism(*WILD SPECULATION*).

* Stupid people have more kids, raise them to be stupid.

* Smart people have fewer kids, raise them to reproduce responsibly(less).

* Health care, safety measures, and social medicine keep stupid people alive to the age of reproduction.

This guy is waaaay off. We're devolving...at least mentally, has nothing to do with saggy old balls.

Re:Right for the wrong reasons

[tibman (623933)]

It's not devolving, there's no such thing. People will evolve to best adapt to the environment over a long period of time. If the best way to survive is have the "talking shit and lying out your ass" trait then you'll start to see it more. If rich & smart people aren't reproducing as much then apparently there is a level of stupidity and poverty required for reproduction. Though that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nature doesn't give a fuck about money or intellect, only the ability to survive the longest and create the largest amount of progeny.

Evolution doesn't just "stop"...

[Ruke (857276)]

It's not like evolution just stops because of technological advances. We're just evolving within a different environment, with different selective pressures. Remember, evolution isn't driving us towards a "best," it's driving us towards a "works for now."

Besides, society and technology have only been around for a few thousand years. If you're an optimist, the future of the human race looks really hot, and is fairly promiscuous. If you're a pessimist, society collapses, and we're back to the good ol' fashioned try-not-to-die for a while.

The article is worth reading.

[Pinckney (1098477)]

The author makes two additional points that the summary doesn't mention. Firstly, children born in the west are dramatically more likely to survive. They experience significantly less natural selection. Secondly, our large populations make any genetic fluke less likely to survive. Think of inbreeding here; with a small population, otherwise rare genes can become common. We're experiencing the reverse trend.

This is absolute rubbish

[presidenteloco (659168)]

Bacteria, for example, reproduce at age 1 hour, say, and have no trouble evolving. This thesis is just another example of denying we are animals [wordpress.com],

Idiot

[DrSkwid (118965)]

Yeah, were under no evolutionary pressure. The world is in stasis. There will be no more pandemics like Spanish Flu that wiped out tens of millions of us a couple of generations ago.

What a fucking tool.

Anonymous Coward

[by Anonymous Coward]

This is absolute garbage science of the highest order and I'm surprised it is even mentioned here.

Idiotic

[Xonstantine (947614)]

Evolution of a species only stops with extinction. Period.

He is almost right

[Plutonite (999141)]

Disclaimer: IANAEB

This has nothing to do with older men and younger women.

I say we will stop evolving any significant changes fairly soon because:

A) We have interracial mixing on all continents and in almost all genetic populations due to advances in human transportation.

B) Our other technological advances mean that we are highly capable of surviving due to the nature of our innovations as opposed to radical changes in our bodies (that in other species' histories may have been the major factor of eliminatig the unsuitable). This includes fighting natural disaster, possible predators, and food supply/type changes (industrialized production of food).

C) Welfare. We have organised the distribution of our resources. The weak will not flourish, but they won't die.

D) We are highly selective physically (males at least, females to a much lesser extent) due this time to communications technology and the entertainment industry broadcasting good genes everywhere, so we are less forgiving in terms of physical absurdity that may occur in our corner of the world.

E) He just wants to bang young girls. The hypothetical secretary in his office, to be exact. Slashdot is being used. Again.

Re:The Problem is Natural Selection

[Fieryphoenix (1161565)]

Utterly wrong on so many levels. Natural selection is going along just fine and dandy, thank you very much. The human environment has simply changed. The hemophiliacs now are fit, because their environment no longer kills them. Evolution is only ever relative to a species' environment, and many traits formerly selected against due to lethality are no longer relevant in this brave new world.

Re:Not evolving because why?

[Kandenshi (832555)]

There's a blog post from PZ Myers on Pharyngula that addresses this statement from Steve Jones fairly well I think. Read it in full here [scienceblogs.com]
 

This[the idea that older men have more mutations in their sperm] is true, but it makes no sense. It's not as if younger fathers produce no mutations -- they generate plenty. It's a difference in degree, nothing more, so we still have plenty of new mutations percolating into the population. And of course, over most of human history parents have been relatively young, since you couldn't count on living to the age of 35.

And then there's this odd argument.

        Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. "In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21."

That makes even less sense. Natural selection is going to eliminate variants; by reducing its effects, we permit more mutations to persist in the population. One moment he's complaining that fewer mutations are being produced, the next he's complaining that the mutants are thriving. Which is it?

tl;dr = Steve Jones is full of wacky.

Re:Dysgenics

[wizardforce (1005805)]

I would hope against all evidence to the contrary that human beings' lives will eventually be valued by society and most humans in general more than their ability to create money.