PDA

View Full Version : Leading Geneticist Steve Jones Says Human Evolution is Over



Nachtengel
Thursday, November 6th, 2008, 02:28 PM
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.

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.

“Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

Agrippa
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Francis Fukuyama said "History is Over" - need I say more? Evolution always goes on, the question is just in which direction. The above mentioned arguments are all weak and have no prognostic value on the long run in any way.

If mankind will have a bright future, it will use Eugenic measures for the greater good, if going down the drain, mankind will just degenerate or abuse the technical means for one sided exploitation.

Morning Wolf
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 05:28 PM
I think that there are a variety of factors which are damaging the gene pool. As mentioned the high survival rates are a huge problem, I think that genetic screening before birth would be a good way to eliminate people with less than desirable qualities before they start wasting resources. I don't emotionally react well to abortion but I know it's the right option due to reason, but alas the masses and their preachers prefer to indulge themselves in whatever makes them feel like epicurean carebears over using stoic reason.

An interesting trend that I observe here in the States is that in the so called 'hood' (by hood I also mean the barrio and the trailer park) there are a large numbers of young parents with several children. Usually the dad leaves to do crack, gets shot, or incarcerated. It's obvious that such people lack social, financial, and genetic capital, and are in a state of reverse evolution, as they don't have the intellect, strength, or simple decency to control their reproduction.

But if the above article is true, then it's a double genetic devolution, as people of poor quality aren't just making more copies of their inferior genetics, but have little opportunity to exploit beneficial variance. I'm very glad for this article as it has finally explained to me why it is that hoodlums rarely are able to improve themselves as I would expect from genetic randomness and or existential free will in a manner that goes beyond 'whites are simply better'.

I've been to impoverished areas of LA, and I felt very much like I was in Lovecraft's 'Shadow over Innesmouth' - and I'm not a racist. If this trend continues, what will hoodlums be like in a hundred years? How many more of them will there be? How will my children and American Civilization deal with the issues that will be hoisted on them, as normal citizens seem to have become too soft to effectively deal with problems such as welfare and mass illegal immigration?

TheGreatest
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 03:14 AM
The thing I dislike about these articles is that these white men know the problem (multi-culturalism and interracial mixing) but won't dare say it. And those who do admit the real problem, such as James Watson are forced out of the industry.


Such a cruel world and dark world we live in...