This is the kind of “science” story that drives me crazy. A scientist hypothesizes that “human evolution is over”—and it is taken seriously. From the story:
Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert. Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations, according to Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.
Speaking today at a UCL lecture entitled “Human evolution is over” Professor Jones will argue that there were three components to evolution—natural selection, mutation and random change. “Quite unexpectedly, we have dropped the human mutation rate because of a change in reproductive patterns,” Professor Jones told The Times. “Human social change often changes our genetic future,” he said, citing marriage patterns and contraception as examples. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could alter genetics, one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced age in men. This is because cell divisions in males increase with age...
Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years.
You just knew this would end up in dirty old man territory, didn’t you?
On a more disturbing note, Dr. Jones also could be suggesting that we adopt a mindset about this so-called problem that could, if taken seriously, move us toward a eugenics/social Darwinistic mindset:
On a more disturbing note, Dr. Jones also could be suggesting that we adopt a mindset about this so-called problem that could, if taken seriously, move us toward a eugenics/social Darwinistic mindset:
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...And, there appear to be shades of deep ecology and anti-humanism:
“Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now—about the size of the population of Glasgow.”
One can’t tell from the story, but I sense that Professor Jones may regret that we have thrived so successfully. But I don’t wish to cast unfounded aspersions.
Of course, the reason we are thriving so successfully is because we are the exceptional species, who unlike flora and fauna, are not passive flotsam and jetsam to environmental changes that can lead to species decline. We have much, albeit not total, control over our own flourishing.
The whole concern about stopping evolution is simply ridiculous. First, there is no way to ever prove or disprove it—at least not in our lifetimes or indeed, those of our great grandchildren. Second, if true, why is it bad? Species like the horseshoe crab that stop evolving do so because they are so successful. Third, what can we do about it even if it is bad?
Well, I suppose, getting back to dirty old man territory, we could convince nubile young women to, shall we say, look kindly upon men my age. But then again, Secondhand Smokette would have something definite to say about that, immediately and unequivocally ending the Wesley does his part to help humans evolve plan before it ever got started!
Beyond that, the transhumanists would say: “Why worry about natural selection when we are so close to achieving the singularity? No need to evolve naturally when your species becomes immortal. Then, we will be able to design and redesign ourselves to suit changing conditions.
But that’s as much a fantasy as nubile young women lining up to have the babies of aging Baby Boomer men. So, this is basically a non story about nothing. No wonder it made the MSM.
Of course, the reason we are thriving so successfully is because we are the exceptional species, who unlike flora and fauna, are not passive flotsam and jetsam to environmental changes that can lead to species decline. We have much, albeit not total, control over our own flourishing.
The whole concern about stopping evolution is simply ridiculous. First, there is no way to ever prove or disprove it—at least not in our lifetimes or indeed, those of our great grandchildren. Second, if true, why is it bad? Species like the horseshoe crab that stop evolving do so because they are so successful. Third, what can we do about it even if it is bad?
Well, I suppose, getting back to dirty old man territory, we could convince nubile young women to, shall we say, look kindly upon men my age. But then again, Secondhand Smokette would have something definite to say about that, immediately and unequivocally ending the Wesley does his part to help humans evolve plan before it ever got started!
Beyond that, the transhumanists would say: “Why worry about natural selection when we are so close to achieving the singularity? No need to evolve naturally when your species becomes immortal. Then, we will be able to design and redesign ourselves to suit changing conditions.
But that’s as much a fantasy as nubile young women lining up to have the babies of aging Baby Boomer men. So, this is basically a non story about nothing. No wonder it made the MSM.
