Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#11

Post by azakai »

unoti wrote: post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

> Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago.

Selection is always active.

First, there is sexual selection, not just natural selection, and there is no reason to assume that is not important today.

Second, as the article says, there is more genetic variety than before - we accumulated a lot of variation in recent millenia. That's the necessary foundation for selection.

Finally, a quick look around shows that some people have more children than others. You mention "Intelligence and other positive characteristics", but the fact is, it isn't clear intelligence was ever more important than say brute strength/social skills/etc. in our evolutionary history, so the fact it isn't the main factor now says little. But there definitely are factors that do contribute to having more (thriving) children today, and we are selecting heavily for them, for better or for worse.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#12

Post by baddox »

unoti wrote: post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

Why would natural selection be dead? I don't see why humans would be any more immune from natural selection than any other species. At the bare minimum, people still choose their mates (and some die without reproducing), so unless these choices are completely unaffected by genes they should be causing a gradual change in heritable traits among the human population.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#13

Post by busyant »

wwwtyro wrote: post #3

I hate to sound unimpressed, but does biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? I doubt we will be held hostage by these mortal coils for much longer.

> biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now?

Depends. I can envision a lot of scenarios where infectious disease wreaks havoc on our species. Random mutation might have a significant impact on who would survive such a scenario and I don't think we (as a species) are anywhere near being able to circumvent natural selection of a sufficiently dire infectious disease. jmho

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#14

Post by potatolicious »

pyre wrote: post #7
unoti wrote: post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.

"Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case.

Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#15

Post by innguest »

hnriot wrote: post #6
wwwtyro wrote: post #3

I hate to sound unimpressed, but does biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? I doubt we will be held hostage by these mortal coils for much longer.

Anyone that thinks their smartphone and self driving car will in any way impact the evolutionary pressures is very self deluded. Evolution will act on our species' population for many hundreds of centuries before any significant impact from technology is seen. Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_coil

> Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means:

I did not know that - I really thought "mortal coil" meant the human body. Now that I know I'm wrong, nevertheless I must point out that qualifying "coil" with the word "mortal" is not only misleading but empty of meaning.

The Wikipedia article says that "mortal coil" = "the bustle and turmoil of this mortal life" but I do not believe that "mortal" fits well as an adjective for "coil" just because it refers to a "mortal life".

It seems like a very tenuous connection. Not one of Shakespeare's best poetic terms by far.

EDIT: Thanks for teaching me something interesting today, hnriot.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#16

Post by wwwtyro »

busyant wrote: post #13
wwwtyro wrote: post #3

I hate to sound unimpressed, but does biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? I doubt we will be held hostage by these mortal coils for much longer.

> biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? Depends. I can envision a lot of scenarios where infectious disease wreaks havoc on our species. Random mutation might have a significant impact on who would survive such a scenario and I don't think we (as a species) are anywhere near being able to circumvent natural selection of a sufficiently dire infectious disease. jmho

Fair and fairly scary point.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#17

Post by pyre »

potatolicious wrote: post #14
pyre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.

"Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding . I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.

  > Natural selection only works if unfit individuals
  > are killed off prior to breeding.

  > since nearly everyone survives to breed.
No one needs to be killed off for natural selection to work. If they have some attribute that prevents them from finding a mate, that is also natural selection at work.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#18

Post by Scriptor »

maratd wrote: post #10
unoti wrote: post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed . There are two forces at work in evolution. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sexual selection (reproduction of the sexiest). Out of the two, natural selection is by far the weaker force. > Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to ge…

It's rather odd when someone says natural selection is completely 'dead'. Do they think everyone in the world has an equal chance of finding a partner and has the same number of children? Of course not. Even to this day there are factors that determine whose genes are passed down more frequently than others.

I can't stress this enough, but there is simply no goal for evolution. Up until relatively recently, it just so happened that larger brains and other features we consider 'human' have been beneficial. Even if it may not be a big factor now, don't decry it as evolution being 'dead', or even worse, that people are devolving.

If certain genetic traits allow certain people to pass their genes down to more offspring then you have all you need. It's a very simple concept with major consequences.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#19

Post by Scriptor »

potatolicious wrote: post #14
pyre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.

"Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding . I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.

Even if everyone survives long enough to have children, that doesn't mean they all have equal numbers of children.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#20

Post by lotharbot »

potatolicious wrote: post #14
pyre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.

"Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding . I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.

Natural selection doesn't require death, it just requires different reproduction rates based on genetics.

Natural selection works strongly when group A dies before reproducing and group B does not. It still works, though more weakly, when group A has an average of 2.0 offspring and group B has an average of 2.1 offspring.

In some parts of the world, natural selection is still significant (the common example: sickle cell anemia drastically increases malaria survival). In many parts of the world, though, differential reproduction appears to be a result of culture / religion / personal choice; it's not well understood how much this relates to genetics, and therefore not clear how much it deserves to be called "natural selection".

Post reply on HN