Tuesday, October 7, 2008 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

by Times Online

Thanks to SSW for the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over
By Julia Belluz

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. "Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error," he said. "For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on — each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

"For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation."

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.

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."

Decreasing randomness is another contributing factor. "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.

"Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown."

Posted: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 123 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #261499 by Pertwee's Bouffant on October 7, 2008 at 12:32 am

I heard him on the wireless this morning whilst queuing to get through the Blackwall tunnel. He had a brief stint on radio 4 and suggested that human evolution is "slowing down" rather than has stopped; though I guess that doesn't sound quite as melodramatic for a news headline. He didn't go into much detail but suggests things are averaging out.

Other Comments by Pertwee's Bouffant

2. Comment #261502 by rod-the-farmer on October 7, 2008 at 12:42 am

Has anyone done comparison test for IQ, between religious fundamental types, and rationalist types ? Not sure it can be done equitably, but it may show we are "dumbing down" the human race, what with the much larger birth rate among some fundies.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

3. Comment #261503 by Bonzai on October 7, 2008 at 12:42 am

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.

But there were only so many women to go around, so if some older men were having a lot of wives does it not follow that there were many other men without mates? If that was the case would it not follow that actually there were less, not more variations in the gene pool?

EDIT: In those days it probably wasn't common for women to be having affairs, open relationships or getting divorce, so once they were married they were effectively out of reach for other men.

Other Comments by Bonzai

4. Comment #261510 by hungarianelephant on October 7, 2008 at 12:59 am

Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now �" about the size of the population of Glasgow.

Must ... fight ... urge ... Glasgow ... Neanderthal gags ...

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

5. Comment #261513 by fsm1965 on October 7, 2008 at 1:08 am

Presumably the rise of more monogamous relationships also has a deleterious effect (less random mixing).

If there is no weeding out of the unfit through competition for resources, natural selection cannot work. (I am not advocating this course of action at all! - like RD I believe evolution through natural selection is a fact, but a bad way to run a society).

Other Comments by fsm1965

6. Comment #261515 by BarelyEvolved on October 7, 2008 at 1:15 am

What about genetic drift - no selection pressure but drift could account for some evolution?

Other Comments by BarelyEvolved

7. Comment #261516 by Bonzai on October 7, 2008 at 1:17 am

If there is no weeding out of the unfit through competition for resources, natural selection cannot work. (I am not advocating this course of action at all! - like RD I believe evolution through natural selection is a fact, but a bad way to run a society).

Actually, it is more basic than that.

Except for some rare situations like almost fatal genetic diseases there is no meaningful way to talk about "fitness" independent of the environment. When you say "weeding out the unfit", it is not clear "unfit" for what.

Humans create their environment to varying degrees through planning and technology as a result of civilization, thus the very concept of "natural selection" is rather dubious when applying to humans. For example, the "social Darwinists" are not really using "natural selection" to run society, but "selection" based on their owb artificial criteria. Nature never tells us that people who make most money are most "fit".

Other Comments by Bonzai

8. Comment #261517 by Vaal on October 7, 2008 at 1:18 am

Bonzai

To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years

1.2? What's the 0.2, now that must be minus 6 dress size :) 888 kids. Man, 2.4 birthday's a day. Wonder when he ran out of names, unless of course they were all called Mohammed :) Wonder if the poor guy ever got a day off?

Don't go there with the Neanderthal jokes Hungarian, I got slated for being superior with an earlier jocularity.

Of course, we are evolving all the time. I did see a report that we are currently evolving into 2 different species, the thicko's who are breeding like locusts (the Morlocks) and everybody else (The Eloi).

Now, evolution will start to motor again when we become space-faring. People born and living on Mars will change dramatically in body shape, and may in a few generations be unrecognisable from their original parents. Who knows what our ancestors will be like when they are living as Alpha Centaurians or Vegans?

Other Comments by Vaal

9. Comment #261519 by Buddha on October 7, 2008 at 1:20 am

What about genetic drift - no selection pressure but drift could account for some evolution?

You still need some degree of mutation/variation for genetic drift as well.

Other Comments by Buddha

10. Comment #261520 by Bonzai on October 7, 2008 at 1:21 am

Vaal

The bad news is the Morlocks (uneducated fundies?) won.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #261521 by Vaal on October 7, 2008 at 1:23 am

Don't go there Bonzai. Millions of Wooters!!

*holds head in hands*

Back to the caves...

Other Comments by Vaal

12. Comment #261525 by gazzaofbath on October 7, 2008 at 1:35 am

I think it is true to say that human evolution via natural selection is probably finished though I wouldn't go down the line of Steve Jones, who is still looking at natural processes working under the pressure of 'older fathers', etc.

Science is making tremendous progress in understanding genetics - look what has happened over the last 100 years and anticipate what will happen over the next 100. In the not too distant future we will be making basic genetic decisions for future generations not via natural selection.

I don't make a moral judgement on it; its obviously got bad as well as good possible outcomes. As with all technology it depends how its applied and controlled. But the simple fact is that we will be controlling future human evolution technologically.

Now that could lead to real 'intelligent design'!.

Other Comments by gazzaofbath

13. Comment #261530 by fretmeister on October 7, 2008 at 1:53 am

There could be another reason - the NHS.

Effectively we treat all manner of diseases / defects etc that in the past would have caused a person to die before they reached breeding age.

Now those people survive and breed and so do their genes.

I'm not saying we should start granting breeding permits a'la Gattaca, but it rather seems that humans have opted out of evolution to an extent because of it.

Other Comments by fretmeister

14. Comment #261534 by Tumara Baap on October 7, 2008 at 1:59 am

Evolution can never be stopped. Right now, the world population is expanding. Once it's static, evolutionary leads should manifest themselves, led by sexual selection pressures for example. Or the accumulation of mutations that lead to loss of function. Since natural selection pressures have been so heavily altered, many of our senses may go the route of our sense of smell, down the tube ... color blindness is already more prevalent in modern settings than it is in primitive groups.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

15. Comment #261535 by JemyM on October 7, 2008 at 2:04 am

Oh crap, I need to get a kid soon, else I will breed mutants.

Other Comments by JemyM

16. Comment #261536 by NJS on October 7, 2008 at 2:06 am

Sutely "most" human evolution took place when the chances of living to 50 and fathering kids were a lot less thatn they are now?

Other Comments by NJS

17. Comment #261537 by King of NH on October 7, 2008 at 2:20 am

I strongly doubt these findings, but am open to enlightenment.

Evolution also uses one more element not mentioned: environmental change. Currently, humans adjust the environment to meet the needs of our species. This would negate evolution. Rather than making a species more fit for the world, we have made the world more fit for our species. But we have done a rather poor job of it. In a climactic Armageddon (forgive the phrase) humans would be forced back into "red in tooth and claw" survival. Those same people from Glasgow, the ones that wear shorts in January and say it's not that cold, are already adapted to a colder earth and would be better suited to an icy end to civilization. The ones wearing sweaters in June (*cough, Brits) would fare better in a steamed end.

The human population is riddled with genetic variation, though less than many other species. When we lose our ability to shape our world, our world will once again shape our population using the existing genetic diversity, and then compounding it. If we don't just go extinct, that is.

Other Comments by King of NH

18. Comment #261540 by jonjermey on October 7, 2008 at 2:34 am

Surely the strongest driving force behind evolution is sexual selection? The more choice we all have of sexual partners, the more talented, intelligent and sexually attractive our children are likely to be. On that basis human evolution must be faster now than it was, say, five hundred years ago when you were virtually forced to find a partner from within a three-mile radius or die celibate. Look at the increasing numbers of stunning Eurasian models and actors, for instance.

Other Comments by jonjermey

19. Comment #261542 by Cartomancer on October 7, 2008 at 2:41 am

Could it perhaps be that 64 year old Steve Jones isn't getting as much bedroom action as he would like?

"Won't sleep with me? It's people like you who are responsible for the end of Natural Selection as we know it!"

Other Comments by Cartomancer

20. Comment #261553 by decius on October 7, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #261510 by hungarianelephant

Other Comments by decius

21. Comment #261557 by dvespertilio on October 7, 2008 at 3:33 am

Read this earlier today via a different link from the Atheist Nexus. I seriously doubt that evolution in the human species has stopped, but the question may be moot given apparent trends in world civilization that will either cause its collapse or lead to a technologically advanced society where evolution is controlled and humans as well as other organisms (and maybe whole ecosystems?) are designed. Given what I know of the history of civilizations, I am extremely sceptical of all transhumanist fantasies. What would it mean to be a super-being, anyway? And for the rest of us humans, if current problems related to the environment, weapons of mass destruction, and inequities of wealth distribution aren't effectively confronted, what future at all, if any, do we have?

Other Comments by dvespertilio

22. Comment #261565 by notsobad on October 7, 2008 at 3:57 am

It's not. And genetic engineering will make up for natural selection.

Other Comments by notsobad

23. Comment #261574 by Cairnarvon on October 7, 2008 at 4:16 am

The suggestion that there's a significant reduction in selection pressure is just wrong. The strongest selective pressures are sexual and disease-driven. Sexual selection is as alive as ever, and arguably stronger now than before (at least in the West) since people aren't limited to their own villages for potential mates. Pressure from certain specific diseases and other parasites may have been reduced in at least some parts of the world, but pressure from disease in general certainly isn't gone or even vastly reduced.

The only part of his argument that may have merit is the fact that younger parents mean a lower mutation rate, but are parents really that much younger than they were in the past?
The hugely increased population, which he mentions, would certainly make up for any decrease in individual variety.

Other Comments by Cairnarvon

24. Comment #261580 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 4:50 am

My guess is that the vast human population would mean that it would now take many thousands of years for an advantageous gene to spread throughout, if it ever did. We would need bottlenecks to permit anything radical to happen.

I don't buy Jones' claim about older fathers. If anything that's easier now. (A 33-year-old female friend of mine has a 75-year-old boyfriend.) Siring children on hundreds of women is a perk of dictatorship and aristocracy that (Ridley argues in The Red Queen) was a recent historical aberration. 'Loose' monogamy has always been the norm, even in societies where polygamy is permitted.

Vaal said:

Who knows what our ancestors will be like when they are living as Alpha Centaurians or Vegans?

Some of us are already living as vegans. Among our number, we observe reduced rates of cancer, heart disease, arthritis, eczema, gallstones, bowel disorders, high blood pressure, asthma, obesity and 50-odd diseases associated with free-radicals in the bloodstream. We also note an increase in general smugness. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

25. Comment #261595 by Azven on October 7, 2008 at 5:34 am

BarelyEvolved

I was just about to make that comment.

Buddha

Mutation/variation may or may not be greater in the past, but the point is that without selection pressure all live, whereas in the past many wouldn't.

Other Comments by Azven

26. Comment #261601 by Ygern on October 7, 2008 at 5:48 am

Interesting but I have two queries:

1. With regard to the 'In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children' line - this sounds rather like anecdote than evidence. Is their any real data to support this?

2. Didn't our ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years have a life expectancy of about 25 years? But humans evolved anyway?

Other Comments by Ygern

27. Comment #261605 by V'Ger on October 7, 2008 at 5:57 am

Where I live... the low IQ families knock out 4 times as many kids as those with higher IQs... so aren't we heading for a society full of idiots?

Other Comments by V'Ger

28. Comment #261615 by Vinelectric on October 7, 2008 at 6:28 am

V'Ger

Where I live... the low IQ families knock out 4 times as many kids as those with higher IQs

That makes the "low IQs" smarter than the "high IQs". Intelligence is one of the risk factors weeding out the human race.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

29. Comment #261627 by zeroangel on October 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years.

Geeeezzz... and here I am thinking that I had fun in the Army while overseas.

Other Comments by zeroangel

30. Comment #261628 by SteveN on October 7, 2008 at 6:57 am

Ygern wrote:

Didn't our ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years have a life expectancy of about 25 years? But humans evolved anyway?

This was precisely the point I wanted to make and almost got to the end of the thread before finding it made by someone else. It is my understanding that the life-expectancy for most of human history has been in the 20-30 year range. However, having just checked Wikipedia to confirm this (it does) I realise that these calculations include all those who died before puberty: the life-expectancy for those who survive childhood was certainly higher. However, I would be surprised if the majority of fathers for most of human history were not in their teens or twenties. Is there any data to confirm or refute this?

SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

31. Comment #261629 by Henri Bergson on October 7, 2008 at 7:00 am

I think the time for a revaluation of eugenics is at hand.

The Nazis gave it a bad name, but China has had a eugenics program in place since 1993 as they never shared our military history.

We should learn from Europe's mistakes. Eugenics needn't lead to the Holocaust just as socialism needn't lead to the Gulag prison camps.

I'm sure Steve Jones would disagree with me as he's a leaf on the tree of the prevailing ideology of our time: political correctness/neo-Marxism. Once we have uprooted this delusion, based on false premises, the human species can take a step forward once again.

Neo-eugenics is not Nazism.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

32. Comment #261639 by Swordmaiden on October 7, 2008 at 7:18 am

"We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown"

>> is this the coffee coloured people scenario as prophecised by 'Blue Mink'?

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

33. Comment #261644 by un-united on October 7, 2008 at 7:28 am

with the rise of socialism and government dependency there is no wonder. the weak and useless survive by acting as ticks and leeches on the productive.

Other Comments by un-united

34. Comment #261646 by Tj Green on October 7, 2008 at 7:29 am

Our genome can be sequenced for $10,000 now, $5,000 in six months , and the price will continue to fall. Evolution might be over, but controlled evolution is about to begin.

Other Comments by Tj Green

35. Comment #261647 by Tezcatlipoca on October 7, 2008 at 7:31 am

Could we be experiencing punctuated equalibrium?

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

36. Comment #261670 by Sciros on October 7, 2008 at 7:50 am

There's still genetic drift... we're getting taller. Our eyes are probably getting worse on average, too, since with glasses/contacts no-one cares anymore.

Our descendants, you mean :-P And I'll tell you what vegans are like right now -- they eat 100% cardboard every day and think they're awesome. If I could feel awesome by eating cardboard I'd feel sorry for myself.

Other Comments by Sciros

37. Comment #261679 by Ulixes Lactanis on October 7, 2008 at 7:59 am

1) If increasing the mutation rate is really desirable, maybe we could increase it by exposing ourselves to radiation. Of course almost every mutation would be bad, but you can't have evolution without bad mutations.

2) I thought that a large population means that there are better chances for random mutations.

Other Comments by Ulixes Lactanis

38. Comment #261682 by Ultraviolet G on October 7, 2008 at 8:07 am

If "the end of evolution" means more Halle Berrys, Jessica Albas, and Rosario Dawsons, bring it on.

@ Un-united: Go and live in China for a few years, then shut up.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

39. Comment #261694 by notsobad on October 7, 2008 at 8:22 am

Can some vegan explain to me what is wrong with honey?
Veganism sounds like dogma to me.

Other Comments by notsobad

40. Comment #261697 by Sciros on October 7, 2008 at 8:28 am

Honey is an animal product since bees are animals. Therefore it is not cardboard.

Other Comments by Sciros

41. Comment #261714 by blitz442 on October 7, 2008 at 8:56 am

The article points to "a shortage of older fathers in the West" as the main cause of this so-called slowing down of evolution. So is the effect confined only to first and maybe second world countries?

The total population and the population growth of third world countries far exceeds that of Western nations. Isn't it a bit presumptious to assume that all of human evolution is slowing down just because older fathers in lightly populated Western nations are not siring as many children?

Other Comments by blitz442

42. Comment #261718 by Mango on October 7, 2008 at 9:07 am

"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."

What "rules" are these? Humans are animals, animals with symbolic communication (i.e. "culture").

Having billions of people increases the chances of mutations (for natural selection to act upon --> evolution).

Other Comments by Mango

43. Comment #261727 by 43alley on October 7, 2008 at 9:15 am

Here's an article in direct contradiction:

Humans Evolving More Rapidly Than Ever, Say Scientists

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving.html

Other Comments by 43alley

44. Comment #261734 by Sciros on October 7, 2008 at 9:29 am

Yeah for now I've just been making jokes but for real this article is the biggest joke on this thread. Is this guy for real with his explanations of "not as many older fathers as before"? Get a clue d00d life expectancy wasn't exactly 120 a century ago, let alone before then. Blah he even says that when he mentions 1/2 of children would die before the age of 20. Noobery.

Other Comments by Sciros

45. Comment #261740 by Gmork on October 7, 2008 at 9:39 am

"Mankind is a creature that no longer evolves, is it not?--One theory says that man is a neoteny and is no longer able to evolve. If this is true, then what an absurd creature mankind has evolved into. Not knowing what it is that drives them, they keep their bodies merely to satisfy the desires of the flesh.--They're worthless, don't you think? That's all mankind is."

- Masami Eiri (fictional character in this context)

Steve Jones probably meant slowed down, not stopped--not that anyone on closer examination would need to point that out..

Our outer shell may not need any drastic change, if we currently are the most general, biological machine adapted to this environment, though at heavy cost to said environment. We don't have the running speed of the cheetah, and "Look. They [humans] need machines to fly."--But we can achieve great speed and fly by using a bone to hit someone else with, for starters.

Other Comments by Gmork

46. Comment #261767 by Paul42 on October 7, 2008 at 10:41 am

"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's a shortage of older fathers now?

Um...

Maybe I just don't get it because I'm a Glaswegian...

Love.

Other Comments by Paul42

47. Comment #261768 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 10:47 am

notsobad said:

Can some vegan explain to me what is wrong with honey?
Veganism sounds like dogma to me.

Not so much dogma as doing the best we can, "as far as is possible and practical". People are vegan for many reasons (environment, health, weight, money), but mostly because of a concern to prevent unnecessary suffering and deaths. The simpler the organism, the less obvious it is that it's capable of suffering; but since eliminating honey from one's diet is trivially easy, why not give 'em the benefit of the doubt?

Follow the link if interested:

http://www.vegansociety.com/images/Honey.pdf

Other Comments by j.mills

48. Comment #261770 by Sciros on October 7, 2008 at 10:51 am

Because honey owns. It's a natural antiseptic, never goes bad, and is exceptionally healthy. I bet WAY MORE insects die from pest control (even non-chemical) used to grow produce than from harvesting honey nowadays, especially if you know who you're getting your honey from.

I can understand certain diets from a health-minded perspective. But the bleeding-heart nonsense is just that.

Other Comments by Sciros

49. Comment #261773 by TIKI AL on October 7, 2008 at 10:57 am

Did Dr William Shockley(transistor) get into trouble when he applied his theory of genetic discourse to the intelligence of blacks?

It seems to me 59 million Bush voters proved the theory without race being a factor.

At least if we keep walking upright to the poles our backs should get stronger, no?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

50. Comment #261776 by Sciros on October 7, 2008 at 11:00 am

to the polls, yah?

"Intellectual capacity" is really hard to measure in the first place, and taking into account socioeconomic factors is nontrivial to say the least. Trying to claim any intelligence corresponds to race alone is pretty ridiculous.

Other Comments by Sciros

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last