Toolbox
Share on facebook Reddit del.icio.us Save to Yahoo! bookmarks Slashdot it Save to Windows live Save to MySpace science news feed Add to google
- size +

You say you want evolution? Geneticist says it may be near its end

By Laurie Goering, Medicine & Health / Genetics
Human evolution may be winding down as the forces that once drove it - older fathers, isolated populations and widespread child mortality - are disappearing, a geneticist at the University College London argues.
In a lecture this week titled "Human Evolution is Over," genetics professor Steve Jones said the rate of genetic mutations found in humans is falling dramatically, something he believes is largely the result of lifestyle changes.

Powerful men who once fathered dozens or hundreds of children, often into their 60s and 70s, have given way in most developed parts of the world to younger fathers who tend to sire just a few children in their 20s and 30s. Because older fathers are more likely to pass on genetic mutations, the rate of those mutations entering the population has declined, he argued.

Similarly, child survival rates, abysmal in antiquity, have dramatically improved in much of the world, cutting natural selection pressures. And the world's increasingly huge, mobile population has nearly eliminated the possibility of unusual genetic traits taking hold in isolated populations, he said.

That's good news for those who like the human race just as it is, though perhaps bad news if humans need to evolve to meet some unexpected challenge down the road, the science - as yet not backed up by other research - suggests.

The other good (or perhaps bad) news? Genetic mutations caused by growing chemical and radiation exposure may take over where older fathers left off, Jones said.

___

© 2008, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

» Next Article in Medicine & Health - Genetics: Researchers discover baldness gene: 1 in 7 men at risk

would you recommend this story?

 

User Rating

2.7 out of 5 after 18 total votes
  • not at all
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • highly

Leave a Comment or

Rank filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.
Posted by Modernmystic 10/13/08 16:41
Rank: 5/5 after 3 votes
So? In a few decades we'll be doing our own evolution.
Posted by aphemix 10/13/08 18:11
Rank: 4/5 after 3 votes
So? In a few decades we'll be doing our own evolution.
weren't we saying that a few decades ago?

I think some fundamental changes need to be made, first.
Posted by genesgalore 10/13/08 20:39
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
evolution will never end until there isn't a scrap of a functioning codon left. the driving force of evolution may change.
Posted by jeffsaunders 10/14/08 00:18
Not rated yet.
yes it is rubbish to say evolution is at an end. I think in future we will evolve people that can survive sitting all day in fronbt of a TV and eat fatty food without getting diabetes - at least until they have already had their kids.
Posted by ArtflDgr 10/14/08 09:22
Rank: 1.6/5 after 5 votes
See how much socialist ideology poisons things?

The process of evolution is not stoppable%u2026 but you can propagandize from our time frame that it is.

Socialists seek to stagnate a system%u2026 because processes scare them%u2026
They are not as smart as they pretend to be, and quite Confucian in their thoughts%u2026
[world sucks, full of traps, if we can stagnate and then learn the fixed system we can live in utopia %u2013 VERY Confucian %u2013 which is why the Chinese took to he system that has had most of them live in poverty and no freedom to change their lot in life]

this mantra is an OLD SAW of the socialists, because if you believe it, then you can discount and break the claim that their political actions have a genetic effect on the population in the long term.

in other words, if they don%u2019t deny Darwin is still operational, then someone can then say that their political maneuvering and manipulation will have a harmful effect on the human genome in the future!!!

For instance%u2026 they say that we are all the same intelligence, and that all differences are a result of environmental programming and not genetics (which makes genetics their enemy), and that darwinistic development has stopped for humans.

If accepted as science and then policed politically like global warming to then stake it permanently, then no one will be allowed (like Watson wasn%u2019t allowed), to make a claim as to genetic changed to the population based on demographic manipulations!!!!!!

So creating a situation where people mate less discriminately (meaning they don%u2019t choose the best partner they can get, but have accidents with short term partners over long term partners), that results in a change to the populations genes, will be denied as valid.

In other words, genetics would be removed from being a voice for policy determination!!!!!!

They would have neutralized the contribution that genetics can play in improving mans condition as a whole by showing that their socialist manipulations will result in a decline for those who are on the bottom and practice different mating habits than those on the top giving them advice.

You are then free to use long term demographic changes to mold and domesticate the population into a smarter top group of controlling elites (who don%u2019t believe this pap), and a lower caste group that are like horses and do all the work like interchangeable parts.

[Marxism is so stagnated that they still cant incorporate the productive gains from robotics, and all their efforts born out of the century before the last are still the same goals!!!! So creating a dysgenic population that can not take care of themselves, creates a population of domesticated humans that serve those that CAN take care of themselves]


Genetics as a means to better population health will be totally neutralized by this.

By the time it knows what and how things work, the consensus (socialist for mandate from ideology), will be that this information is wrong and cant be used for such. (and any one that disagrees will end up like WATSON at BEST, and like the people who went against Lysenko at worst).


There is also another hidden message in the thing below that also comes from the same old hack writing from the late 1800s. and that led to the exterminations in hitlers day..

That because mortality is not allowed to work, dysgenic additions are to be made%u2026 so the last line is there to imply that if changes do occur, they come from negative things.. and so eventually use abortion, and euthanasia will be needed to control populations of those on the bottom%u2026

All the left has never let go on the idea that through manipulating population dynamics that one can breed a docile non competitive worker that the elite can use (as they are not dumb enough to listen to their own poison).
Posted by zevkirsh 10/14/08 09:55
Rank: 4.6/5 after 5 votes
this reflects an utter lack of understanding. there is a massive explosion of genetic diversity in the human species precisely because of the lack of so called 'selective pressure' which usually drives forward the progression of traits which favor reproductive success. rigtht now...many more people with many more traits are having kids than at any time before making the gene pool far larger than it has ever been in human genetic history. so this is evolution too, it's just not the part we recognize as the culling process.
Posted by Modernmystic 10/14/08 10:10
Not rated yet.
Really good point zev...never thought about it like that.
Posted by OdinsAcolyte 10/14/08 12:11
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
Evolution will stop when life stops...meaning not so long as the earth is here! The deeper we look the more life we find. Human evolution shall not stop either. This stage of our culture shall pass away and a new climb will begin. Nothing lasts forever. We ain't nothing....
Posted by bobwinners 10/14/08 18:03
Not rated yet.
Evolution, described as random change, exists on all levels of our biological makeup. I suspect it is continuing in many unobserved ways. Do we all 'think' in the same manner?
Then too, our societies promote, or at least allow, genetic differences that were once, by their existence, a ticket to an early death.
So, I think we become more diverse with each generation, not more alike.
Posted by barakn 10/14/08 23:56
Not rated yet.
What about ethnic cleansing? Would that not be a current form of selective pressure?
Posted by ArtflDgr 10/15/08 10:33
Rank: 1/5 after 2 votes
yes, and that was its purpose.. as such practices came out of the era of agriculture where people knew the results for their animals and themselves if they didnt select mates carefully...

hitler and others seek to create new socialist man (homo sapiens domesticus), to be led by the elite (homo sapiens sapiens). thats because they are still follwoing an agricultural track and cant envision things like robotics or real progress (not regression made to look like progress as both are distances from the current, but one is the distance back)

if you want to breed a lower class permanently mentally deficient, then you just ahve to establish the programs and ideals of the socialists. procrustean schools, indiscriminate mating, no families so that those that succeed are better fit for segregated barracks, no inventiveness, no drive to improve, willingness to accept overlords.

pretty much what happened to the russian population...

Posted by Velanarris 10/17/08 14:30
Not rated yet.
zev is correct. Perhaps we're not "seeing" evolution because fundamentally our form is not changing to any great extent, but, our physical and mental capabilities change greatly from generation to generation.

At the moment we're evolving out a lower iq due to social dynamics, but I don't want to start a political war in an unfit topic.
Posted by jeffsaunders 10/23/08 18:22
Rank: 1/5 after 1 vote
sure the Gene pool is lot wider now than it has been in the past. And to take a leaf out of the book of agriculture, There is a lot more cross-fertilization.

By this I mean that there is a greater mixing of different traits than ever before. This is not an end to evolution - far from it. However with such a wide variety of traits existing within the population - many containing traits that would not survive in more hazardous environments from the past - we have a pool that should circumstances change and suddenly life becomes a lot more challenging then there will be plenty of individuals up for the challenge.

This is how evolution works through the ages.

A population of whatever beast you like has a sudden application of heavy survival pressure applied and some individuals survive - these are the ones that, moving forward, are the foundation for how that species will look and survive in the future.

The massive number of fossils found of various species come from those periods where there is plenty of individuals around (as a rule). Then something happens and most of them don't make it but some do.

Perhaps because of geography or perhaps because of some internal trait that better suites the new circumstances. You cannot plan for it, it just happens.

So here we are in our big numbers stage, whilst we are decimating all other species. There is probably a limit to the total biomass that can survive on the planet at one time and if it is all used by people then there is not much left for any other species.

How close are we to occupying the total available biomass?

Can we exceed this number for a few generations before running into a deficit that will cause a massive backlash?

These are worthwhile study parameters.
Posted by Modernmystic 10/23/08 19:04
Not rated yet.
So here we are in our big numbers stage, whilst we are decimating all other species.


Patently false. What about grain, corn, dogs, cats, cows....

Careful, your obvious bias is bleeding through here.

There is probably a limit to the total biomass that can survive on the planet at one time and if it is all used by people then there is not much left for any other species.


False premise. Our population is a function of our technology. If we had fully developed nanotechnology we could live entirely underground with nothing but fusion reactors to power all our industry, including food manufacture. We would not effect the "natural" bio mass on the surface AT ALL.

We could in fact have a population of thousands of trillions and have a "healthier" environment than we have now. It's merely a bias against technology (as opposed to a true concern for the environment) that blinds people to the real and near limitless possibilities the future holds in this regard.

How close are we to occupying the total available biomass?


How many Angles can dance on the head of a pin?

Can we exceed this number for a few generations before running into a deficit that will cause a massive backlash?


I had to snicker at this one in spite of myself. I got an image from the Porky's movie of the guy going through the grave yard going "oogie wooogie boogie". You at least have your flair for the dramatic down pat as do most "concerned citizens of the planet"

These are worthwhile study parameters.


They are largely scare mongering and politically motivated meaningless projections. It's like a group of hunter gatherers worrying about how many more hundreds they can support while being totally ignorant of the future agricultural revolution which makes the hundreds they're worrying about seem completely trivial.