TERB In Need of a Banner

Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

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. (I guess Ismail comes second to Fidel...lol)

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.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,971
2
0
64
way out in left field
It is only common sense: we have medical care, rescue workers, social assisstance to the dumb, so that while all those with faulty genes are allowed to survive, that only reduces the quality genes in the pool.

But whatever the case may be, I like this guy, he's basically saying all the young hotties have to mate with us old farts! Yippee for me lol
 

stinkynuts

Super
Jan 4, 2005
8,450
2,783
113
Not only is human evolution over, we are at a point where we are actually de-evolving.

There is no selective pressure being placed on the human population, anyone can reproduce, and poor quality genes are being passed on. This means a population with more biological, mental, and personality defects.

People who would not otherwise survive are becoming an increasingly large portion of our population. For example, people:

-with visual disorders (e.g. completely blind or need glasses to see).

-who are deaf or hard of hearing

-who do not have good sense of taste, touch, or smell. It was people whose senses were sharp and accurate that were able to survive.

-who cannot conceive (yet they pass on their genes through fertility treatments)

-with poor immune systems or severe allergies (e.g. allergies to wheat, nuts), asthma

-with poor teeth, bones

-who are mentally disabled (e.g. retardation, autism)

-who have personality disorders (e.g. selfishness, sociopaths, personality disorders etc....) In the past, these people were shunned and not allowed to be part of society because they were detrimental to it.

In the long run, as the human species becomes "weaker", more problems will arise.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
stinkynuts said:
Not only is human evolution over, we are at a point where we are actually de-evolving.

.
Who would want to smell your nuts??????????????



Better yet who has hired you as a teacher??????????

Not to be mean but why have you stalled in a job??
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
bout time
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
asn said:
i find the way the article is written amusing. it makes it sound like evolution only occurs in the west when most of the world lives in the asia and africa.
An interesting point. Asia and Africa in addition to having older fathers also have more significant selection pressures. So evolution will continue there but be stopped in the west. Perhaps we need to expose more young people to x-rays in order to catch up.
 

Prim0

Meh
Aug 12, 2008
791
0
16
As a biologist...

Evolution doesn't stop unless we all stay the same. The human species is changing, albeit for different reasons than in the past. There are always survival pressures, even if they don't come from lack of food, predators or anything else that kills us. I could accept the statement that evolultion is changing in humans but not that it stops (unless we all start cloning ourselves...and one of me is more than enough!)

Prim0
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,971
2
0
64
way out in left field
stinkynuts said:
Not only is human evolution over, we are at a point where we are actually de-evolving.

This isn't the first time I've heard this....

There is no selective pressure being placed on the human population, anyone can reproduce, and poor quality genes are being passed on. This means a population with more biological, mental, and personality defects.

As stated, more so in the west as opposed to asia and africa etc. If you noticed the number of severe birth defects occuring in third world countries their survival rate is small. Although, you often hear about how a certain child with severe birth defects is brought to the US or Canada for surgery.

People who would not otherwise survive are becoming an increasingly large portion of our population. For example, people:

-with visual disorders (e.g. completely blind or need glasses to see).

Could you use a larger type face please......

-who are deaf or hard of hearing

Eh? did you say something?

-who do not have good sense of taste, touch, or smell. It was people whose senses were sharp and accurate that were able to survive.

Yeah, have you SEEN the way some people dress? I mean, mixing a striped tie with a spotted shirt? OMG....I thought we actually evolved when we got rid of the leisure suit......

-who cannot conceive (yet they pass on their genes through fertility treatments)

-with poor immune systems or severe allergies (e.g. allergies to wheat, nuts), asthma

-with poor teeth, bones

-who are mentally disabled (e.g. retardation, autism)

-who have personality disorders (e.g. selfishness, sociopaths, personality disorders etc....) In the past, these people were shunned and not allowed to be part of society because they were detrimental to it.

In the long run, as the human species becomes "weaker", more problems will arise.
I think there's another thread on this topic around here somewhere. I saw a science now program on mapping the genome and how we could fall prey to a society something akin to Gattaca, where only the best of the best are allowed to reproduce and or excel.

I seem to recall someone posting a link to an article that stated something like in the last few years the really able and intelligent of our society are not having children yet the poor, dumb and less able are having children.....
 

eighthsamurai

New member
Feb 5, 2008
65
0
0
This is something I've put quite a bit of thought into over the years.

Originally, the argument that there is no natural selection anymore (everyone survives to a ripe old age despite bad genes, AND reproduces), and therefore no evolution, made a lot of sense to me. But now I think it's the fact that most ppl in the developed world have at most 3 children that no evolution will take place.

For example, a squirrel is born with webbing between his front and hind limbs. This allows him to glide, and not fall to his death. A survival advantage. He sires 3 offspring w/ a normal female squirrel. Odds are 1 of his offspring has the webbing, 1 does not, and 1 has slight webbing. Repeat this for several generations, and the mutation is goes away, or remains a very small percentage of the squirrel population.

Now if that same squirrel sires HUNDREDS, and each one with the mutation has a higher rate of survival, which in turn reproduce HUNDREDS of offspring, than you can see how a new "Flying" squirrel species arises.
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
tboy said:
But whatever the case may be, I like this guy, he's basically saying all the young hotties have to mate with us old farts! Yippee for me lol
Yippee for me too lol.

Ok hot 18 year olds, here's my address - show up for the good of future human evolution :D I'm happy to help out.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,971
2
0
64
way out in left field
eighthsamurai said:
This is something I've put quite a bit of thought into over the years.

Originally, the argument that there is no natural selection anymore (everyone survives to a ripe old age despite bad genes, AND reproduces), and therefore no evolution, made a lot of sense to me. But now I think it's the fact that most ppl in the developed world have at most 3 children that no evolution will take place.

For example, a squirrel is born with webbing between his front and hind limbs. This allows him to glide, and not fall to his death. A survival advantage. He sires 3 offspring w/ a normal female squirrel. Odds are 1 of his offspring has the webbing, 1 does not, and 1 has slight webbing. Repeat this for several generations, and the mutation is goes away, or remains a very small percentage of the squirrel population.

Now if that same squirrel sires HUNDREDS, and each one with the mutation has a higher rate of survival, which in turn reproduce HUNDREDS of offspring, than you can see how a new "Flying" squirrel species arises.
You're right, but the opposite is also true: if one human male has the gene that causes down's syndrome mates with a female that carries the gene, that means the offspring will more than likely have, or carry on that gene.

On TLC they did a story on a couple who (and I forget the condition but it was more severe than downs) KNEW they both carried the gene, they decided to have a baby, during prenatal testing they found out the baby had this condition, and against the advice of their doctor, had the baby.

I wish I could remember the condition but it was so severe that the baby would be in an incubator for the first 6 months, need 3 surgeries in it's first year, be bed ridden or close to it and need constant medical care 24/7.

I know people want to reproduce, but come ON FFS. How dumb do you have to be? I think it is pretty selfish to bring a life into this world that you know will be nothing but pain and suffering for it's entire life......
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
stinkynuts said:
There is no selective pressure being placed on the human population, anyone can reproduce, and poor quality genes are being passed on. This means a population with more biological, mental, and personality defects.

People who would not otherwise survive are becoming an increasingly large portion of our population. For example, people:

-with visual disorders (e.g. completely blind or need glasses to see).

-who are deaf or hard of hearing

-who do not have good sense of taste, touch, or smell. It was people whose senses were sharp and accurate that were able to survive.

-who cannot conceive (yet they pass on their genes through fertility treatments)

-with poor immune systems or severe allergies (e.g. allergies to wheat, nuts), asthma

-with poor teeth, bones

-who are mentally disabled (e.g. retardation, autism)

-who have personality disorders (e.g. selfishness, sociopaths, personality disorders etc....) In the past, these people were shunned and not allowed to be part of society because they were detrimental to it.

In the long run, as the human species becomes "weaker", more problems will arise.
I see your point.

The allergies to wheat etc that are on an astounding increase in the last 10 years I think are more to do with the GMO and modifications/additives made to food rather than poor breeding in humans.

But I agree that natural selection doesn't eliminate the bad genes as it used to, as we have medical means etc to keep most people alive past 21 years of age now. Higher childhood mortality would make for a stronger adult population of breeders that would in turn produce a stronger person.

In practice, it is difficult for any western government to say we're not going to use modern medicine to prevent childhood mortality for the future social good. "Excuse me Mrs Smith, but we're not going to treat little Jon becasue he is a weak, sickly child and it would be better for society if we let natural selection take its course with him...chin up, though - it is for the greater good...if he lived to adulthood he might breed and produce more sickly offspring. His passing is better for all of us". Eugenics makes a lot of sense on paper, but who is going to impliment it in practice?

In older days we didn't have the medical means to prolong life, so we could wash our hands and say we did what we could and feel sad while at the same time thinking on a macro scale it is for the best. Today though we can do so much more that we can seriously offset natural selection. Are we morally required to is a philosophical question.

I enjoyed the movie Gattica - very interesting. We are in fact moving from not being able to do anything to prevent natural selection through being able to stop it, to being able, in future, to offer designer babies where parents can look at their sperm/egg and check a list of attributes they want the future child to have, such as blue eyes, tall height, etc. Off course diseases and genetic problems can be removed also through DNA modification. The result will be a super race of genetically engineered people who are indeed 'alphas'. This will be the moral philosophical debate decades from now after stem cell research - just becasue we can interfere with nature and create supermen free from disease, does that mean we should do it? A lot of people will fall on both sides of this debate.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,971
2
0
64
way out in left field
Good points alex and I too enjoyed the movie Gattaca (once I learned what the letters G A T T A C A meant).

The problem is, not whether we should allow for designer babies, but as to whether we should manipulate the system now. But the thing is: we already are screwing with the system via the means you stated: by using technology to help those that normally would not survive.

I look at it this way: you are driving down the highway and the rad hose blows on your car. You stop, wrap it in duct tape, and go on your way. You're ok for a while but eventually you have to make the repair permanant. Kind of like: a baby is born with a heart defect. You fix it now, the child matures and has a baby of their own, with another heart defect. So, did you fix the problem? Not IMO.

I look at it this way: We have enough babies being born and our population is growing exponentially. Do we really need to have more and more of our population with known health defects that will prevent them from contributing to society?

This kind of falls along the lines of why I disagree with providing food to places like ethopia. Food is only a temporary fix. WHat needs to be done is a) limit the number of children a couple can have to 6 or less and b) provide the people with the technology to grow their own food.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
2
0
In the laboratory.
tboy said:
I look at it this way: We have enough babies being born and our population is growing exponentially. Do we really need to have more and more of our population with known health defects that will prevent them from contributing to society?
Sorry Mr. Hawking, but you've got to go. Oh, and let me introduce you to your replacement for the Lucasian professorship in mathematics. He's a fit young fellow by the name of tboy.

jwm
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
tboy said:
II seem to recall someone posting a link to an article that stated something like in the last few years the really able and intelligent of our society are not having children yet the poor, dumb and less able are having children.....
A few years ago there was a book entitled 'Report From Iron Mountain' which was a satirical think tank analysis of the Vietnam war. They were quite positive about the affects of the war and were particularly high on the draft. It seems that smart people could figure out ways of draft avoidance but the less intelligent were unable to do so or were susceptible to patriotic jingoism. Since over 50000 were killed the Report viewed this as an excellent technigue for raising the overall IQ. They pointed out that this selective culling was far superior to nuclear weapons which tended to kill smart and dumb alike.
 

themexi

Eat the Weak
Jun 12, 2006
1,275
32
48
Make passing phys-ed Mandatory for graduation with no exceptions.

Make the best genetic screening available to all wannabe parents free of charge & make them 100% financially responsible for paying the medical bills for preexisting defects. Really want that kid Knowing there's a good chance it'll be defective? Hope you saved up.

First time offenders will be thoroughly assessed. They will be given any & all help required to "fix" their malfunction. If they re offend, they then enter the system. Instead of prison sentences for most crimes sentence them to unpaid military/civil service. YOA bastards get military service across the board on the second minor offense & the first major one. Parents of YOA bstards are responsible for child support payments to the state.

Instead of giving baby bonus.to everyone, give generous tax cuts for children to encourage the wealthier to have more kids. Inheritances would be split amongst more siblings & help limit the concentration of wealth. In fact, have a sliding inheritance tax to encourage larger families.

Parents that cannot afford to raise their children should surrender them to state school/workhouses until they can afford them. Feed & educate the kids well & make sure they know how to avoid the mistakes their parents made. If they perform well, free post secondary with job placement help. If they do poorly, army or stay in workhouse.

Pay good bonuses to those on welfare & disability that forgo breeding. Make them do anything they are deemed capable of doing for the $$. Anything... like sweeping or computer work.... All but the vegetables can do SOMEthing.

Unwed mothers that cannot afford to raise the child surrender it to the system immediately upon birth. A hearing will be held to determine if the mother & father will be liable to the state for upkeep. Both will pay equal amounts.

Men who father illegitimate kids with more than one woman are given the choice of sterilization or military service.

Pay "good parenting bonuses" that increase with both the health & the child & their physical/academic achievement. The better the child performs, the higher the reward for the parent.
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
themexi said:
.


Men who father illegitimate kids with more than one woman are given the choice of sterilization or military service.

.
Wow,you really want to build up the military. What if they are bright intelligent kids? Perhaps a quiz for the kids to see if we should emasculate daddy.
 
Toronto Escorts