Live data from Hacker News

Humans haven't stopped evolving

harvardmagazine.com

61–70 of 145 posts

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#61
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>People aren't born not wanting to have kids, since all their ancestors did. What evidence do you have that all their ancestors wanted to have kids? I can think of a lot of reasons why people may have had kids without necessarily wanting them. They wanted to have sex in an era before birth control. They were pressured into it by the social norms of their local community. They were raped. Etc. I have a lot of criticis…

They may be honest when they express themselves initially, but their revealed preference later ends up being very tragic. I know several women, and others who are friends of my wife, that did the "I don't want kids" routine only to realize that this was a huge mistake and enter the dating market at 37 to find nothing but a wasteland. People can pretend that their own reason can override their biological reality, but only to a point. "I don't want to have kids" means you die alone. Eventually people realize this.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I would need to read more of what Gould wrote. For example, did he claim that evolution in other species also stopped?

I think the claim that humans stopped evolving is an uncharitable reading. Another would be, 50k years is such a narrow window that evolution cannot be observed across it.

It's not an uncharitable reading if Gould stated his claim unequivocably.

Your alternative claim is just factually wrong. The population frequency of an allele under selection pressure can change within a few generations.

For example the HbS allele, that confers both sickle cell trait and malaria resistance, became less common among Africans transported as slaves to regions where malaria was not endemic.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#63
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emphasis should be placed on "everything we call culture and civilization". There is a thought experiment that might help. Imagine we had a time machine, and no scruples, and we could go back and pluck babies from the past to experimentally raise them in modern American families. I'm pretty sure Gould would have argued that babies from 40k years ago would grow up to be behaviourally indistinguishable from modern huma…

Well, evaluating the nature of this thought experiment reveals what you actually believe about human evolution and development. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone from 40k years ago would be indistinguishable from humans today. Believing this requires you to imagine that there are no genetic selection pressures for things like intelligence, behavior, physical ability ... 40k years ago had Earth as an al…

All we know basically is that their skeletons are undistinguishable from ours, with a brain the same size as ours (slightly later on average iirc) and what they left, tools and paintings, look just like what we can do as well (behavioural modernity, thought to arise some time between -100 000 and -40 000).

You can find it hard to believe, but I think most people in that field agree that humans from the last 40 000 years would grow up as modern humans without problems.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#64
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my theory is that selection will remove memes (behavioral/thought/cultural patterns) that cause childlessness from the meme pool much faster. The sociologist Eric Kaufmann wrote a book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? , arguing that traditionalist religious groups (such as ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Amish) will become demographically dominant in the long-term (decades and centuries) due to their greater fert…

I think the possiblities that a minority can leave the group is an important escape valve for them. Now assume that in the future they are going to be not such a minority anymore like today, then what happens? Maybe some oscillation like for Lotka-Volterra situation, perhaps a bit different?

The possibility of defection to mainstream society actually increases the selective pressure against defection-promoting alleles/memes, compared to if that possibility didn’t exist; the mainstream acts as a genetic/memetic sink to absorb those alleles/memes, reducing their prevalence in the next generation.

I think the fact that in e.g. the United States there are multiple such high fertility traditionalist religious minority groups coexisting makes it unlikely any one of them will end up completely dominant in coming centuries. More likely, I think, conservative religious groups will ally together across confessional boundaries to attain shared policy objectives (e.g. government funding of private religious schools). As such, I don’t think the possibility of defection to secular society will disappear; secular people will still exist, just numerically and politically weakened compared to today.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the only mammals with genders at all. Are you confusing gender with sex?

Both are synonyms! Like when pretend "woman" sports are not for woman, but "female" only! Or woman should be in mans only prison, to get raped!

> Both are synonyms!

Not the way you're using them. Dogs and cats don't have genders, but they do have sexes.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#66

It is well established that evolution is driven not only by fitness in the trivial sense of "survival or death", but in large part by mate selection. (Disclaimer: The rest is a personal theory with zero scientific support.) This begs the question: selection based on what ? In many bird species it is the complexity of the male's song, or the colourful beauty of his feathers. There are "dances" and courtship rituals in…

> I can't prove, but strongly suspect that this is the case.

I think you can benefit from reading Franz de Waal works. He was a primatologist and he had a similar ideas. Though according to him intelligence was (is) not just a useless "peacock feather", he adds one more block in your feedback loop: hierarchy. Intelligence is used by males to play political games to raise their social status. Social status influences frequency of reproduction for males, so there is a natural (?) selection for political success which depends on good looks, physical fitness and intelligence.

It works for a lot of species but higher primates somehow got enough intelligence to make it dominate good looks and physical fitness and then the positive feedback loop led to evolution of Homo Sapience.

I especially like this theory because it explain why people lose all their pretense to be rational when it comes to politics: human mind is political first. Language, logic, rational discourse are later inventions on top of a political mind. They can work in a neutral environment but when it comes to politics Nature gets the upper hand, and the cultural intellectual sediments of rational thought are wiped instantly, and people's intelligence drops to levels of chimpanzee's: keep alliance with the strongest alpha if you can, rational discourse be damned. One needs a very strong mental discipline to resist it.

> Humans become more intelligent on the scale of mere millenia because more intelligence does improve the judgement of the females.

This idea doesn't explain how intelligence became so important for females. Your idea is like chicken-and-egg problem, you can explain how chickens and eggs let each other to exist, but not where did the first chicked (or egg) come from. And the idea relies on the assumption that female's opinion matters. It matters for some species and doesn't matter for others. It matters in some societies and doesn't matter in others.

> It is well established that evolution is driven not only by fitness in the trivial sense of "survival or death", but in large part by mate selection.

When I read this I thought you'd go about role of sexual dimorphism in evolution and Vigen Geodakyan evolutionary theory of sex[1], but no. Still you may be interested, though I want to note, I don't know if the theory is "scientific" or not. I'm not a biologist to judge, and I didn't have luck to find some kind of a scientific debate about it. Some objections to the theory, but not full-blown attempts to dismantle it. And I think the theory is not politically correct: it implies that roles of males and females in evolution are different. It is not bad per se, but you know how (most of) people think (with their political mind borrowed from chimpanzee): if roles are different in evolution, then you can argue for a society change that would mirror it and would give you some privileges and raise your social status against some others, and then you would get new kind of Nazis trying to genocide half the population of Homo Sapience.

[1] https://www.evolocus.com/textbooks/geodakian2011.pdf

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#67
post #21

As far as I was taught in college, evolution never stops, but we're just too short lived to notice that. We _may_ notice some very tiny blip on timescales of several hundred years, but last really noticeable traits happened many thousands years ago. However, cultural/society/educational evolution happens much-much faster (but is also much-much weaker, can disappear on just a few weeks).

also, technology largly exists to remove the discomfort of evolutionary pressure. This doesnt mean the mutations that give rise to evolutionary changes in the population, but it does mean we've removed or mititaged many of the mechanisms which would select for specific traits.

Again, we would naturally still change, but not in the the way or at the rate otger organisms continue to or at which we would sans technology.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#68
post #6

Genetic drift is not evolution. Every single birth brings about genetic drift. Evolution is gaining or losing specific traits. Individually, humans do gain and lose traits but from an macroscopic view, those traits are just a blip. An cheetah that lose it's ability to run fast many not survive. A human that loses a some useful trait does not die(government assistance. I'm talking about the West because I can't speak…

This is certainly not what I learned to be the definition of evolution in my biology classes. First, the article is not just proposing genetic drift, which is the change in allele frequency by chance . It is arguing that change in allele frequency is due to natural selection pressure, and that most certainly is evolution. Copied from the Wikipedia entry, because I think it's simple and clear: > Evolution is the chang…

[deleted]

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#69
post #6

Genetic drift is not evolution. Every single birth brings about genetic drift. Evolution is gaining or losing specific traits. Individually, humans do gain and lose traits but from an macroscopic view, those traits are just a blip. An cheetah that lose it's ability to run fast many not survive. A human that loses a some useful trait does not die(government assistance. I'm talking about the West because I can't speak…

Genetic drift is essentially random. Alleles at loci more than a few hundred thousand base pairs away are unaffected.

In contrast, an allele under selection pressure drags along large chunks of the chromosome on which it occurs. Statistically, the effect is different. You start to see long-range correlations across the chromosome.

The MHC region, which contains genes that govern many functions of the immune system, has been under continuous selection pressure resulting in extraordinary variability, but also very strong long range correlations spanning the region. It's unlike anywhere else in the human genome. This is a clear signature of evolution.

Re: Humans haven't stopped evolving

#70
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, evaluating the nature of this thought experiment reveals what you actually believe about human evolution and development. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone from 40k years ago would be indistinguishable from humans today. Believing this requires you to imagine that there are no genetic selection pressures for things like intelligence, behavior, physical ability ... 40k years ago had Earth as an al…

All we know basically is that their skeletons are undistinguishable from ours, with a brain the same size as ours (slightly later on average iirc) and what they left, tools and paintings, look just like what we can do as well (behavioural modernity, thought to arise some time between -100 000 and -40 000). You can find it hard to believe, but I think most people in that field agree that humans from the last 40 000 ye…

Sorry, you're claiming that people who lived in a desolate tundra 40k years ago are the same as you and me.

Can you be more specific? There's both a hardware and firmware element to this. Perhaps the hardware element is transferable.

Post reply on HN