Economist suggests humans are still evolving

July 12, 2016 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

(Phys.org)—Harvard economist Jonathan Beauchamp has conducted a study of lifetime reproductive success (rLRS) of a small segment of the U.S. population and has concluded that there is evidence that humans are still evolving. In his paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he describes the study he conducted, his results and why he believes we are still evolving despite our control over our environment.

As Beauchamp notes, many in the have come to believe that humans stopped evolving approximately 40,000 years ago—shortly after the advent of agriculture. But he notes there is also evidence that refutes such claims, such as studies that have shown that people developed an ability to digest milk and to live at much more recently.

To learn more, he conducted an analysis of records on 20,000 people he obtained from the Health and Retirement Study, which has compiled data on people born between the years 1931 and 1953. He chose this group because the vast majority of them were past child-bearing age—thus he was able to calculate a rLRS for each of them. Besides counting how many children they had, he also looked at , schizophrenia, age of onset of menstruation and education level—all traits that have genetic roots.

After studying the data, Beauchamp found evidence of in two phenotypes—a slight uptick in the age of first menstruation and a trend toward a lower rLRS for people who had more education—conversely, people with less education had more kids and thus more opportunity to pass on their genes.

But, as Beauchamp acknowledges, his study was based on a very limited dataset, and it was constricted in that it left out the possible children that might have been born to the people in the database who died before growing old, for example. There is also an issue with the increased age of first menstruation, as recent studies have shown that it is actually going down, not up. And there is evidence that even if evolution is still at work, it appears that it is being overridden by our ability to control so many factors of our lives, such as saving people who would have died a natural death, or artificial fertility measures for educated people who have children later in life.

Explore further: Increased marrying, and mating, by education level not affecting genetic make-up

More information: Jonathan P. Beauchamp. Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2016). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1600398113

Abstract
Recent findings from molecular genetics now make it possible to test directly for natural selection by analyzing whether genetic variants associated with various phenotypes have been under selection. I leverage these findings to construct polygenic scores that use individuals' genotypes to predict their body mass index, educational attainment (EA), glucose concentration, height, schizophrenia, total cholesterol, and (in females) age at menarche. I then examine associations between these scores and fitness to test whether natural selection has been occurring. My study sample includes individuals of European ancestry born between 1931 and 1953 who participated in the Health and Retirement Study, a representative study of the US population. My results imply that natural selection has been slowly favoring lower EA in both females and males, and are suggestive that natural selection may have favored a higher age at menarche in females. For EA, my estimates imply a rate of selection of about −1.5 mo of education per generation (which pales in comparison with the increases in EA observed in contemporary times). Although they cannot be projected over more than one generation, my results provide additional evidence that humans are still evolving—albeit slowly, especially compared with the rapid changes that have occurred over the past few generations due to cultural and environmental factors.

Related Stories

Concussion can alter parent-child relationships

April 12, 2016

The incidence of concussion is particularly high in the preschool years - up to around 2% of children aged 0 to 5 years per year. A study by researchers at CHU Sainte-Justine mother-child research hospital (affiliated with ...

Philippines only country in Asia where teen pregnancy rising

July 7, 2016

The Philippines is the only Asia-Pacific country where the rate of teen pregnancies rose over the last two decades and the slow decline of its overall fertility rate may deprive the country of the faster economic growth expected ...

Premature babies may grow up to have weaker bones

May 30, 2016

Among the many important processes that happen during a woman's last few weeks of pregnancy is the transfer of calcium to the growing foetus to boost bone development. But what happens if this transfer is interrupted when ...

Recommended for you

Cells lacking nuclei struggle to move in 3-D environments

January 20, 2018

University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers have revealed new details of how the physical properties of the nucleus influence how cells can move around different environments - such as ...

Microbial communities demonstrate high turnover

January 19, 2018

When Mark Twain famously said "If you don't like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes," he probably didn't anticipate MIT researchers would apply his remark to their microbial research. But a new study does ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.2 / 5 (24) Jul 12, 2016
My results imply that natural selection has been slowly favoring lower EA in both females and males

So here we have the typical equivocation - "human beings are still evolving" - but just what is meant by that word? On the one hand it implies Darwinian evolution to another kind of organism and on the other it's what the author means when using the words "natural selection".

Natural selection is not going to accomplish the Darwinian dream. Instead it's simply going to lead on a downward spiral as evidenced by the fact that human(and other) genomes are rapidly deteriorating at an unstoppable pace but the deleterious effects are not selected out because it's invisible and too fast. Right now as things stand, human beings cannot last another 10 000 years and will be extinct unless some extraordinary medical/biological event intervenes.
The pipe dream of Darwinian evolution still or EVER happening is exactly that - a wild pipe dream.
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2016
but the deleterious effects are not selected out because it's invisible and too fast.


What does that mean? Deletrious effects that are invisible

How do you know it's there if it has no effect?
LastDawnOfMan
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 12, 2016
"Natural selection is not going to accomplish the Darwinian dream."

Huh? What Darwinian dream? Natural selection is simply a very provable theory for the mechanism that explains the changes in species over time. There is no dream or goal to it, whatsoever. What did you think natural selection was, anyway? Have you ever read anything about it outside of desperate creationist websites?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka and LDM,
Fred is locked into a process that eliminates imagination in order to establish control.
It is a fear mechanism.
F111F
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2016
Sooo..."Idiocracy" is a documentary?

/joke
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
many in the scientific community have come to believe that humans stopped evolving
.

That is a fringe view, as far as I know. For the reasons Beuchamp notes, and the evidence of many selective drives toward fixation when looking at genetci evidence among the population.

@FJ:
what is meant
.

Evolution is here most basically a change of gene frequencies, mostly allele frequencies, and have nothing to do with speciation or a mechanism such as natural selection to do as such.

Most evolution happens by genetic drift by the way. Natural selection is what adapts new traits, and eventually becomes speciation. You can start read here: https://en.wikipe...volution .

PsyProf
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2016
This is actually pretty laughable, and it all comes from reifying evolution as a "force" or "thing." Evolution is simply differential reproduction. If there are more young produced than can survive (and reproduce viable young themselves) then "evolution" will occur, in the sense that later generations will resemble the ones that reproduced. A scientist can measure the different success rates of any human population and prove that evolution is still occurring. Let them tell us what it would look like if evolution was NOT occurring. Random change only, as in statistically random (all variations equally likely to survive)? Not "likely"! DNA standing still? Can't happen due to biparental recombination. So yes, evolution is still occurring. Every second.
NIPSZX
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2016
Really? Huh? No kidding? Just by reading this article I have evolved and I can pass the knowledge to my offspring... Something simple as reading this article is considered evolution. Who would question that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2016
Evolution is here most basically a change of gene frequencies, mostly allele frequencies, and have nothing to do with speciation or a mechanism such as natural selection
-And if these changes result in lower survival rates in a natural environment, they are selected out.

"In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859). Evolution by natural selection is a process demonstrated by the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive"

-Yeah I know you know. But

"Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which one group of organisms assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another group to secure a more predictable supply of resources from that second group."

-Human development has been shaped by the dynamics of tribal living which is distinctly unnatural.
bwmmiller
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2016
An economist?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2016
"a more predictable supply of resources from that second group" can refer to service and behaviors which would not normally develop in response to natural influences. The willful surrender of freedom and reproductive rights, the ability to ignore logic and reason to accept the existence of fantasy gods and dynastic rulers, the ability to obey orders and fight to the death against designated enemies... this is evidence of domestication, not evolution.

This includes forced breeding and culling of the non-compliant as well.

"Animal husbandry is the management and care of farm animals by humans, in which genetic qualities and behavior, considered to be advantageous to humans, are further developed. The term can refer to the practice of selectively breeding and raising livestock to promote desirable traits in animals for utility, sport, pleasure, or research."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2016
The bible describes human husbandry in detail.

27 Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died." exo32

-Wheat from chaff. The people are tempted, the weak stray and are culled, and the remnants are that much easier to herd.

And there is no reason to believe that the long-term selection of humans for mind-numbing and body-ruining activities such as cultivating crops and weaving and grinding grain and long haul trucking and working assembly lines and sitting at computer screens all day, isnt making the species weaker with each successive generation.
Zzzzzzzz
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka and LDM,
Fred is locked into a process that eliminates imagination in order to establish control.
It is a fear mechanism.

There is also a heavy dose of delusion involved.......
Tektrix
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2016
human(and other) genomes are rapidly deteriorating at an unstoppable pace


Genomes don't deteriorate, they evolve.
rimifoyi
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2016
Of course humans are still evolving. Better medicine only increases the variety in viable genes. New types of human which before were impossible can success at reproducing.

They are more dependent of technology, and that's just what made us. We lost survival traits like fur, force, speed, resistance to rain and cold, because we got technology. We were allowed to evolve into smarter beings.

Nothing has stopped evolution. That doesn't means that we are evolving into something better. Evolving into something worse is also evolution.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2016
We could wind up with two species. The stupids and the smarts.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2016
We could wind up with two species. The stupids and the smarts.

Aaannnddd - which will survive selection?
Stupid and smart are not always mutually exclusive. I've met some who suck at math, but can run a blackjack table. Or some that can't tie a shoe - but can garden most "smart" people right into the ground.
Who's to say what qualifies as "smart" or "dumb"?
just sayin'...
BartV
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2016
Judging from the comments above, the evolutionists believe in utopia and that we are only going to get better.

Genomes don't deteriorate....


Do you really believe that?
jlevyellow
2 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2016
BartV said, "Judging from the comments above, the evolutionists believe in utopia and that we are only going to get better."

The article actually indicates an evolutionary trend towards lower educational levels. No, there is no guarantee things will get better. Change is presumed by rational actors, but "better" is a value judgment.

Aside from that, it is fanatical Leftists who support programs that stifle evolutionary change. Anyone who opposes family life, marriage as an institution, success based upon individual efforts, academic excellence and economic competition has lent their support to the notion of the end of human evolutionary changes. Like farmers, ranchers, and gardeners we should await the appearance of desirable traits and then crossbreed with other desirable traits. This is what happened on college campuses. Colleges selected for excellence and the students again selected for excellence.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2016
Judging from the comments above, the evolutionists believe in utopia and that we are only going to get better.

Not better, not worse. Just different. The Utopia reference is more appropos of the religiously minded.
Genomes don't deteriorate....


Do you really believe that?

Bart, you "cherry-picked" that out of context by leaving out the "they evolve" part.
It just means they change.
Genomes make changes when under environmental pressure to do so. For better or worse is dependent on how nature selects that change - how they survive.
Evolve or evolution are just words used to descriptively encapsulate that process..
jlevyellow
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2016
When parents chose mates for their children through inter-family negotiation, that was a mechanism for evolutionary change. Support of "cousin" marriage is a very mixed blessing - mostly not a blessing, but things are complicated. Hypergamy is a natural process in which women choose the best among men for their mates, but in its most extreme form women remain without children or even a companion because there is no one good enough for them. That is dysgenic. The "best" women wind up contributing nothing to the gene pool and then they are gone.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2016
The article actually indicates an evolutionary trend towards lower educational levels.

You got that from one sentence that mentioned it?!?
No, there is no guarantee things will get better. Change is presumed by rational actors, but "better" is a value judgment.

Ok, this is correct.

Aside from that, it is fanatical Leftists who support programs that stifle evolutionary change. Anyone who opposes family life, marriage as an institution, success based upon individual efforts, academic excellence and economic competition has lent their support to the notion of the end of human evolutionary changes.

Your religious roots are showing. We're only at the beginning of real change...
Like farmers, ranchers, and gardeners we should await the appearance of desirable traits and then crossbreed with other desirable traits.

Takes too long...
Colleges selected for excellence and the students again selected for excellence.

Please clarify.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2016
Hypergamy is a natural process in which women choose the best among men for their mates, but in its most extreme form women remain without children or even a companion because there is no one good enough for them. That is dysgenic. The "best" women wind up contributing nothing to the gene pool and then they are gone.

That kinda stuff happens in the natural selection game...
FainAvis
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
I can imagine that as we learn more about genetics some folk will use new found information genetics to influence their choice of mates.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2016
I can imagine that as we learn more about genetics some folk will use new found information genetics to influence their choice of mates.

For me, it's all in the hips...
rrrander
1 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2016
The nanny state is turning people into vegetables. That is not evolution, it's devolution.
dudester
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2016
"humans stopped evolving approximately 40,000 years ago—shortly after the advent of agriculture"

The advent of agriculture was closer to 10,000 years ago, not 40,000. This mutation seriously endangered the survival of this article.
BurnsTrollsAlive
Jul 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2016
Genomes don't deteriorate, they evolve
-unless they are the product of breeding, husbandry, and domestication. These things are not evolution.
I agree with Otto
Thats nice.
It started with religion
I dont think it actually started with religion. Religions just made it a whole lot nastier.

Tribes were the result of chronic overpopulation and the continuous struggle for resources.

Somewhere along the way someone figured out that people would be more willing to suffer and fight and die if the boogieman was fighting on their side. If he liked you he would grant all your wishes and let you live forever. But if he didnt he would treat you just like you treat those members of other tribes who happened to stumble into an ambush of yours.
https://www.newsc...plinter/
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
So here we have the typical equivocation - "human beings are still evolving" - but just what is meant by that word? On the one hand it implies Darwinian evolution to another kind of organism and on the other it's what the author means when using the words "natural selection".


This thing I don't understand is clearly wrong. Now I'm going to write an essay proving just how much I don't understand it.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2016
We could wind up with two species. The stupids and the smarts.

Aaannnddd - which will survive selection?
Both.

Morlocks and Eloi. Though that's oversimplistic.

Stupid and smart are not always mutually exclusive. I've met some who suck at math, but can run a blackjack table. Or some that can't tie a shoe - but can garden most "smart" people right into the ground.
Who's to say what qualifies as "smart" or "dumb"?
just sayin'...
Technology is going to be the selecting criterion. Those who can't do math and can't follow logic won't be able to make technology, though it can be dolled up so they can use it. They won't be able to fix it if it breaks, though. For that they'd need a smart.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2016
it is fanatical Leftists who support programs that stifle evolutionary change. Anyone who opposes family life, marriage as an institution, success based upon individual efforts, academic excellence and economic competition
Errr, got any evidence for any of those?

Especially "opposes family life." That looks like a gross misrepresentation if not an outright lie. And a typical right wingnut lie at that.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2016
Ah yes, us leftists who "oppose family life" by insisting our gay family members are as much a part of our family as anybody else, who "oppose marriage as an institution" by wanting more people to enter into it, who "oppose success" by trying to ensure more people are giving the tools they need to achieve it, who "oppose academic excellence" by trying to fully fund it and who oppose "economic competition" by ensuring that large corporations are subject to it.

Don't you hate us?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2016
It's one of those listening evenings.

And I find it kinda funny
And I find it kinda sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had
And I find it hard to tell you
'Cause I find it hard to take
When people run in circles
It's a very, very mad world, mad world

-1983, Michael Andrews, Tears For Fears, The Hurting, Mad World
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
It's one of those listening evenings.

And I find it kinda funny
And I find it kinda sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had
And I find it hard to tell you
'Cause I find it hard to take
When people run in circles
It's a very, very mad world, mad world

-1983, Michael Andrews, Tears For Fears, The Hurting, Mad World

One of the best songs ever...
I have (and listen to) that album still...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
BTW, He just covered it. Written and composed by Roland Orzabal of Tears 4 Fears...
YOu walked into the room...
I just had to laugh...
Change.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
Hopefully, that's not the Start of the Breakdown...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
Bah, you're correct @Whyde. I "found" Tears for Fears after Andrews and Gary Jules covered "Mad World" and have been slowly digging into their stuff. I knew it was pretty good at the time, but I was more into metal. I didn't even know he wasn't a member of Tears; he apparently was the one who scored it for Jules. You'll think me a compleat philistine I suppose. ;)

Meanwhile, that led me into Wind and Wuthering, and I just now picked up my 12 string and figured out Your Own Special Way in about 2 minutes. I still have to get the rhythm change down but I have all the chords. Rutherford is a genius on the 12 string; see also Entangled from Trick Of the Tail. The trick to it is to capo on the third fret.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2016
Bah, you're correct @Whyde. I "found" Tears for Fears after Andrews and Gary Jules covered "Mad World" and have been slowly digging into their stuff. I knew it was pretty good at the time, but I was more into metal. I didn't even know he wasn't a member of Tears; he apparently was the one who scored it for Jules. You'll think me a compleat philistine I suppose. ;)

Meanwhile, that led me into Wind and Wuthering, and I just now picked up my 12 string and figured out Your Own Special Way in about 2 minutes. I still have to get the rhythm change down but I have all the chords. Rutherford is a genius on the 12 string; see also Entangled from Trick Of the Tail. The trick to it is to capo on the third fret.

Ahh.... another brilliant musical entre...
Ha! You're evolving!
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
One of these days I might get a double-neck and put a guitar synth pickup on the 6 string; I've got a synth/synth pickup decoder, and a pickup on my Strat. I do a pretty good Desperado with it.

Listening to Entangled now.

When you're asleep they may show you
Aerial views of the ground
Freudian slumber empty of sound
Ohhh, ohhh
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
One of these days I might get a double-neck and put a guitar synth pickup on the 6 string; I've got a synth/synth pickup decoder, and a pickup on my Strat.

Sounds way too complicated for me...:-)
I do a pretty good Desperado with it.

I'll bet you do!
Listening to Entangled now.

When you're asleep they may show you
Aerial views of the ground
Freudian slumber empty of sound
Ohhh, ohhh

What?!? Experiencing rapture?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2016
Oh man, now I gotta listen to Squonk. The end of the Moog solo in Entangled and the segue into Squonk is one of my favorite things evar.

Like father like son
Not flesh nor fish nor bone
A red rag hangs from an open mouth...
Alive at both ends but a little dead in the middle
A'stumblin' and a'bumblin' he will go

Now that's rapture. If you don't stand up you don't stand a chance.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2016
I suppose, given the nature of this comments section, a random musical interlude is not the worst example of being off topic we've seen...
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2016
:D Gotta have a little fun now and again.

Lou Reed Live Rock'n'Roll.

You know, there's nothin' happenin' at all. Not at all.
john berry_hobbes
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923 5 /5 (3) 7 hours ago

Somewhere along the way someone figured out


that it was a helluva lot easier to treat the populace as livestock than to have an army keep them in line. No control works better than voluntary brain washing, which FredJose demonstrates on here so well.

I nominate Zarathustra. I think he was the smart ol' priest king that said, "Hey...why am I managing my livestock and citizens differently?"

jlevyellow
2 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2016
To Whydening Gyre

You seem to be highly rated on this board. Does that make you more or less likely to add to the gene pool?

Like hypergamy, one of the only things that can screw us up here on Earth is impatience. My children are all smarter than I am and my grandchildren are all smarter than my children. So, even though hips don't mean much to me anymore, I have done my part for humanity. It wasn't too painful. Good luck to you!

You asked for a clarification on colleges selecting for excellence. I got my undergrad degree at CCNY free of charge because my HS GPA was above the 87 cutoff for the year in which I applied. We don't do that much anymore, but Ivy League it still pretty selective. If two people marry within that milieu, that is a second level of selection. I hope I was clearer here.
john berry_hobbes
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2016
Gawd, does gkam have a sister???
LastDawnOfMan
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2016
"Human development has been shaped by the dynamics of tribal living which is distinctly unnatural. "

Unnatural? Lots and lots and lots of animal species live in communities and practice strategies that shape their evolution. Your definition of "natural" must be something to hear.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2016
jbhobbes must have no experience at all. It is interesting to see how the nobodies sling offensive comments at those who have done what they have not.

Human Beings are emotionally weak.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2016
Human Beings are emotionally weak
"... psychopaths have a distinct advantage over human beings with conscience and feelings because the psychopath does not have conscience and feelings."

"Psychopaths use words about emotions the same way people who are color blind use words about colors they cannot perceive. Psychopaths not only learn to use the words more or less appropriately, they learn to pantomime the feeling. But they never HAVE the feeling."

"And make no mistake about it: you can NOT hurt their feelings because they don't have any! They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want."

"In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less a different type of human."

"...evidence that "acting human" is very stressful to the psychopath..."

-Etc. What makes you think your debility is something to be proud of? I suppose lizards are proud of being lizards but this doesn't make them better than humans now does it?
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2016
People are not evolving but under appropriate conditions can develop their talents and this process will continue up to the ceiling of our intellectual and cognitive capabilities and capacity, originally set by our Creator and directly connected with the information embedded in us. This is manifestation of the information barrier. It our world things are organized top down. More intelligent being can create only less intelligent being and less compex than himself physical systems. The oposite is not passible because of information barrier - the information originaly embedded in him is directly connected with his abilities - conginive and observational.

So the evolutionary ideas are not consistent with the scientific principles and physical and informational laws.
epoxy
Jul 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2016
Seeing as how it has been shown that viruses make mutations to our genetics all the time, it is entirely possible that these further bits of Evolving are a matter of adapting to certain lifestyles and niches. I would have to say that one of the major differences is we are still evolving to fit the artificial ecology we have instituted with our Cities. We have whole huge groups of humans that never actually interact with the food chain except in the most superficial of ways. Cities would die if they were not constantly maintained, constantly fed, watered and and sewage disposed of, garbage too, so that nobody aside from those few that work for these groups know much about what goes on there, and even then it is Man Combating Nature still.

Evolution is one thing, as a Society we need to grow up, and it is obvious that both of those mechanisms are still working. No species is ever in stasis unless cut off from other avenues, they are always evolving as the world changes around them.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2016
from this link:

"...and why he believes we are still evolving despite our control over our environment. ..."

The word "despite" inserted there implies he thinks it is a valid inference that "our control over our environment" logically implies we might stop evolving because of that. How does one locally imply the other? It clearly doesn't. That would be an invalid inference.
And the fact he found evidence that we are still evolving couldn't be less surprising for there is no reason to think we would stop evolving because of "our control over our environment" as that would be irrelevant to the issue.
HeloMenelo
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2016
O monkey gorrraclleeeee, you know you have to post here in your original sock, there's is something i'd like to say to yyyouuuu... where are you hiding ? ?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2016
Funny how science denialists think it suffice to claim the exact opposite of the observations ('humans don't evolve, 'genomes deterioriate') without any evidence whatsoever.

Genomes don't deteriorate, they evolve
-unless they are the product of breeding, husbandry, and domestication. These things are not evolution.


I hope this is an attempt to describe how the fringe thinks, because already Darwin used artificial selection as examples of selection that drives evolution and the result as evidence for evolution (obviously).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2016
Zephyr opines
The followers of discussion forums like this one aren't so convinced though...
"Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying "The definition of insanity isdoing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results""

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!" -Burns
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2016

"Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results""


If he said that, it is a real pity Albert Einstein didn't know about chaos theory when he said that for we have proof that doing apparently the same thing (note my cautious insertion of the word "apparently" there ) over and over again really CAN lead to different results!
-not his fault; chaos theory wasn't developed until a few decades after his death and I don't think even a great genius like himself could have readily predicted that.
taka
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2016
Not just evolution, but splitting is going on. Therefore it is impossible to tell what the direction is.
One direction go: fast sexual maturity, many children, low education, short, more body fat , simple jobs if any, low income.
Second direction go: few children and later, high education, tall, skinny, demanding jobs, high income.
Both are evolutionarily successful. And normally they do not crossbreed. The second rule in society and enable high technology use, but the first is much more numerous.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.