Is human evolution finally over? (Looks like we're stuck)

Is human evolution finally over?

Scientists are split over the theory that natural selection has come to a standstill in the West. Robin McKie reports

Sunday February 3, 2002
The Observer

For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing.

That is the stark, controversial view of a group of biologists who believe a Western lifestyle now protects humanity from the forces that used to shape Homo sapiens.

'If you want to know what Utopia is like, just look around - this is it,' said Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, who is to present his argument at a Royal Society Edinburgh debate, 'Is Evolution Over?', next week. 'Things have simply stopped getting better, or worse, for our species.'

This view is controversial, however. Other scientists argue that mankind is still being influenced by the evolutionary forces that created the myriad species which have inhabited Earth over the past three billion years.

'If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe a mere 50,000 years ago, you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,' said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. 'Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed?'

Some scientists believe humans are becoming less brainy and more neurotic; others see signs of growing intelligence and decreasing robustness, while some, like Jones, see evidence of us having reached a standstill. All base their arguments on the same tenets of natural selection.

According to Darwin's theory, individual animals best suited to their environments live longer and have more children, and so spread their genes through populations. This produces evolutionary changes. For example, hoofed animals with longer necks could reach the juiciest leaves on tall trees and therefore tended to eat well, live longer, and have more offspring. Eventually, they evolved into giraffes. Those with shorter necks died out.

Similar processes led to the evolution of mankind, but this has now stopped because virtually everybody's genes are making it to the next generation, not only those who are best adapted to their environments.

'Until recently, there were massive differences between individuals' lifespans and fecundity,' said Jones. 'In London, the death rate outstripped the birth rate for most of the city's history. If you look at graveyards from ancient to Victorian times, you can see that a half of all children died before adolescence, probably because they lacked genetic protection against disease. Now, children's chances of reaching the age of 25 have reached 98 per cent. Nothing is changing. We have reached stagnation.'

In addition, human populations are now being constantly mixed, again producing a blending that blocks evolutionary change. This increased mixing can be gauged by calculating the number of miles between a person's birthplace and his or her partner's, then between their parents' birthplaces, and finally, between their grandparents'.

In virtually every case, you will find that the number of miles drops dramatically the more that you head back into the past. Now people are going to universities and colleges where they meet and marry people from other continents. A generation ago, men and women rarely mated with anyone from a different town or city. Hence, the blending of our genes which will soon produce a uniformly brown-skinned population. Apart from that, there will be little change in the species.

However, such arguments affect only the Western world - where food, hygiene and medical advances are keeping virtually every member of society alive and able to pass on their genes. In the developing world, no such protection exists.

'Just consider Aids, and then look at chimpanzees,' says Jones. 'You find they all carry a version of HIV but are unaffected by it.

'But a few thousand years ago, when the first chimps became infected, things would have been very different. Millions of chimps probably died as the virus spread through them, and only a small number, which possessed genes that conferred immunity, survived to become the ancestors of all chimps today.

'Something very similar could soon happen to humans. In a thousand years, Africa will be populated only by the descendants of those few individuals who are currently immune to the Aids virus. They will carry the virus but will be unaffected by it. So yes, there will be change there all right - but only where the forces of evolution are not being suppressed.'

However, other scientists believe evolutionary pressures are still taking their toll on humanity, despite the protection afforded by Western life. For example, the biologist Christopher Wills, of the University of California, San Diego, argues that ideas are now driving our evolution. 'There is a premium on sharpness of mind and the ability to accumulate money. Such people tend to have more children and have a better chance of survival,' he says. In other words, intellect - the defining characteristic of our species - is still driving our evolution.

This view is countered by Peter Ward, of the University of Washington in Seattle. In his book, Future Evolution, recently published in the US by Henry Holt, Ward also argues that modern Western life protects people from the effects of evolution. 'I don't think we are going to see any changes - apart from ones we deliberately introduce ourselves, when we start to bio-engineer people, by introducing genes into their bodies, so they live longer or are stronger and healthier.'

If people start to live to 150, and are capable of producing children for more than 100 of those years, the effects could be dramatic, he says. 'People will start to produce dozens of children in their lifetimes, and that will certainly start to skew our evolution. These people will also have more chance to accumulate wealth as well. So we will have created a new race of fecund, productive individuals and that could have dramatic consequences.

'However, that will only come about when we directly intervene in our own evolution, using cloning and gene therapy. Without that, nothing will happen.'

Stringer disagrees, however. 'Evolution goes on all the time. You don't have to intervene. It is just that it is highly unpredictable. For example, brain size has decreased over the past 10,000 years. A similar reduction has also affected our physiques. We are punier and smaller-brained compared with our ancestors only a few millennia ago. So even though we might be influenced by evolution, that does not automatically mean an improvement in our lot.'

How about this:

You don't have to genetically engineer yourself or anyone else in your family. I, however, am totally for the genetic manipulation of my kids, and even possibly myself. I, and many other people, believe that genetic engineering can create "enhanced" people with no side-effects. If you see it differently, I have no problem with that, so long as you do not try to force your will on me or someone else. After all, you would stand to lose nothing from this affair - you can simply opt to not modify the DNA of your children. However, trying to make it totally illegal would be like me trying to make it totally mandatory. Making it optional would be the best solution since those who are opposed to it can remain opposed to it, whereas those who aren't can start preventing diseases in their children.

Oh, I think for myself, which already tells me that I'm a dying breed, bent on extinction. I don't depend on government to help me out, and I don't want social programs to help me when I'm old and infirm. I don't want people telling me what is right or wrong, nor do I want people to have influence over me. This is how I know I am doomed to extinction, as the public schools and liberal colleges will dumb down any children I have, and by government mandate I won't be able to home school my children because some government agency will do a study saying it's not right.

Trust me, I only agreed that government has an agenda to dumb down the rest of America, as stupid people are easy to rule.

Absolutely untrue. In modern societies, the higher the income, the less likely the person is to reproduce. Thus, intellectual ability, to the extent it is hereditary, is if anything breeding itself out of the population.

Most of the arguements were flawed but this one jumped out at me too.

One would wonder why there are more wildabeast in those Nat. Geo. specials than there are giraffes.[grin]

Wealthy people certainly have the resources to have more children than poor people, although the difference is slight in today's world. It's just that wealthy people today prefer to have fewer children. Birth control and abortion allow them to make their preference reality.

It's interesting that in surveys as late as mid-1800's Britain, the poverty line was defined as that income below which the family did not have enough food to feed all its children.

Stringer disagrees, however. 'Evolution goes on all the time.[...]

Of course it does. Three elements are needed:

1. The reproduction rate should differ between people with different characteristics.

2. Those characteristics should be inherited at least to some extent.

Those inheritable traits which are correlated with higher or lower number of children define the direction of the evolution. For example the propensity for the high academical achievments is probably inherited and as we know is correlated with smaller number of children. The natural selection result is obvious.

It's just that wealthy people today prefer to have fewer children. Birth control and abortion allow them to make their preference reality.

Birth control probably but the vast majority of abortions are performed on teenage minorities.

It's interesting that in surveys as late as mid-1800's Britain, the poverty line was defined as that income below which the family did not have enough food to feed all its children.

I have occasion to go into some of the poorest homes in the inner-city of Milwaukee and I have yet to go into one without a T.V. or Telephone. Makes one wonder if the Left has ever "left" our borders.

Looks like some of the evolution theory nutcases are backpedalling. It is clear that the spurious theory of biological evolution cannot be corelated with evolution of human knowledge and skills which leads to more advanced civilizations. The only way Man has exhibited evolution in known history is by selective process of cross breeding. In fact with current continuing advances in science and engineering leading to the increasing ability now to grow tissue, manipulation of genes,etc., Man is trying to emulate God and actually trying to be God. Thus Man are becoming Creationists.

All the elements can be found in the various handfuls of earth and these can be put together to form Man, and then later with some gene splicing with a rib, form a Woman! One can see God as the Supernatural "Mad" Scientist churning out different "designer" species by trial and error, and thus creating various different species of apes and monkeys before being satisfied with the one which resembles him most which he calls Man. To have more leisure time for himself, he makes sure they can procreate by themselves by creating different strains to breed and automatically weed out the bad genes by retardation and the cycle of life and death. After all nothing comes between designer "genes"!!

"so long as you do not try to force your will on me or someone else"

"There must be a line drawn somewhere in which certain boundaries are created to maintain a relatively peaceful society"

These are contradictory statements. What if I want my children to be smarter or faster or have far better eyesight? Then my children would get all of the best jobs for smart, fast or keen-eyed folks. Then everyone else would be forced to enhance their offspring likewise or see their kids stuck working for fast food chains.

I realize that this "natural" selection already goes on to some extent, but peoples' wills and other good points can overcome the relatively slight differences in natural inheritance. If, however, kids can be significantly enhanced to be 10X more smart or 2X as fast as the best natural genius or athlete, then they will quickly form an elite.

At some points nations might require genetic manipulation, or at least strongly encourage it, so that the average American will be able to better compete with the average Chinese, for instance.

But all of this talk about genetic manipulation is really quite silly. If we are going to paint the next generation of "humans" with new brushes, e.g. genetic manipulation, then why not paint on new canvases as well, e.g. silicon? Why limit ourselves to biological beings? Why not become AI robots with infinite lifespans ... or at least lifespans only limited by being obsoleted by the next generation of AI robots?

The knowledge we gain from manipulating DNA, will give us a greater understanding of how the brain works and how we developed abstract thinking, higher brain functions, and even consciousness.

There's no need to tie all of this intellect to a non-bullet-resistant, non-radiation-proof, mortal being that requires 8 hours of sleep each day!

P.S.: For the record, I am anti-transhumanist.

I think you totally missed my point. I said nothing about objecting to DNA manipulation and nothing about making laws about it and not one word about the morality/immorality of it. If you want to believe that man can think himself out of the state of suffering that has existed since the beginning go ahead. If you beleive that science can overcome the state of impermanence that pervades all phenomena I have to wonder just what raw materials the geneticists will have to work with in your line. No need to be defensive though, I'll give some more examples of how man has conquered nature:

"The Oceans Have Been Mastered By An Unsinkable Ship-HMS Titanic"
"Hybrid Plant Strains End Crop Failures"
"The Industrial Revolution Ended Human Toil"
"Modern Agriculture Ends World Hunger"
"Nuclear Energy Solves Worlds Energy Problems"

I have no doubt that genetic science will cure many diseases and lead to many marvelous discoveries but after a century of man made miracles falling far short of their Utopian promises I guess I'm a little jaded. So far the complexity and inevitability of natural laws has confounded every attempt to end impermanence and suffering. But hope is good. Keep hope alive. ; )

Good point. If immortality and freedom from pain and disease are the goals then lose the bio-bodies. Nothing but trouble with flesh. But there is one more thing the proto-evolutionists need to fix and fix fast. Emotions. Breed out anger and jealousy and do it quick or the Cro-Magnon non-geno-breeders may rise up and kill the genoid-freaks. Especially in your scenario. We all know how quickly our new Dell becomes a dinosaur. Imagine being an AI lifeform with a lifespan of 10,000 years and next years improvements make you look pathetic. No room for ego there.

Ahhh, but the slow witted barbarian bio-breeders couldn't topple the empires of Science, I hear the techno-wizards say! Unless 19 or 20 of them got control of 3 or 4 airplanes and managed to destroy the economic infra-structure one day.

So which gene sequence is it that controls emotions again?

>They just don't seem to get it....

They don't WANT to get it. The effects of accepting it are too devestating to a long series of myths built on not understanding it.

It's like understanding The Lost Tribes of Israel. Once you do, it changes the whole landscape of history on which mountains of false illusions are built. (See my Profile for more details.)

"There's gonna be people that can live in the sea, breathe the water. People that can live on Mars with just a SCUBA. People that can live forever and never die. People that can regrow vital organs and limbs. Coming soon."

Yeah.

They'll cure my diabetes and heart problems the day after I'm in the ground.

Too late for me. Today's kids--maybe. Their kids--assuredly.

--Boris

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.