Peak Evolution

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article41724.html
A very interesting if I suspect extremely controversial article.

I am sure most people here will reject his arguments on the premise that it clashes with their politically correct liberal soft-left viewpoints. Saying that, I think he is onto something here, even if I don't agree with him on some of his points, in particular his conclusions.

I feel that we have always under-estimated our deep ancestors and in many ways they were far more impressive then modern man, physically far fitter, stronger and adaptable. How many modern people could cope if put in a time machine back 200 thousand years ago?

A long article so very difficult to summarise.

Halting the Process of Natural Selection - Are Human's Now De-Evolving?

As illustrated above, humans arrived into existence as a consequence of the process of evolution by means of natural selection where those within a population of hominids that were best adapted to survive in response to a changing environment were able to reproduce and thus able to pass their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers onto the next generation's whilst those less able to survive would see their populations die out and thus the process of natural selection coupled and genetic drift, mutation, has led to the transformation of an Ape of 6 million years ago into today's modern humans.

However humanity over the past 10,000 years has began gradually eroding the impact of the process of natural selection as HSS changed its behaviour from that of hunter gathers to settled farmers which means many more offspring would survive into adulthood to reproduce so less selection takes place resulting in increasing populations. This process for the erosion of natural selection has greatly intensified over the past 100 years the consequences of which can be seen in the population explosion as for the process of natural selection to occur, then usually only the strongest, healthiest most disease resistant offspring's should survive into adulthood to reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation, i.e. barely 300 hundred years ago only 1 in 3 babies would survive to adulthood, instead today 99% of babies survive into adulthood to reproduce, regardless of their health, so that effectively NO natural selection is taking place.

No Such Thing as De-Evolution?

Many may argue that there is no such thing as de-evolution because evolution is an ongoing process of adaptation in response to environmental changes . However, the point I am making is that evolution by means of natural selection for humans had already been slowing for many thousands of years as a greater percentage of humans successfully passed their genes onto the next generation, which has greatly accelerated with the advent of modern science, and its accelerating technological and medical advancements, and then the welfare states of the past 50 years have not only effectively brought natural selection to a halt but in fact put natural selection into reverse gear i.e. de-evolution, as in countries such as Britain we find that the least productive members of society tend to have many offspring, 4,5,6 or more children, whilst the most productive tend to have 2,1 or even none. This is natural selection in REVERSE, as the population of the least successful genes is far out reproducing that of the most successful genes which equates to evolution by means of natural selection in REVERSE - DE-EVOLUTION! This has only ever taken place outside of NATURE, by means of human intervention. However, I do recognise that De-evolution can only be a temporary state, for it is inherently unstable for any species to exist in i.e. to have NO other human species AND to be De-evolving as a consequence of the suspension of natural selection.

So, yes whilst evolution is an ongoing process, however putting natural selection into reverse also means evolution has been put into reverse, so that we are De-Evolving into a population of humans less adapted to survival than that which preceded us, on average getting weaker, more susceptible to disease, more obese, less mentally capable.

[BritDownUnder]

I think the article is right about De-evolution. Also IQ rates in the UK are thought to be dropping whereas in China and the rest of the far east they are rising. The Flynn effect.

There are of course other reasons why IQ is falling. Low attention spans, Googling problems rather than careful and time consuming research which would result in accidental learning of other targets, 100 channel TV, iPhones etc that occupy time of the younger generation and take time away from homework.

The welfare state is mankind's version of the cuckoo strategy, getting others to raise your offspring at their expense.

Back in the distant past when I studied German at secondary school and the Berlin wall was still intact I remember reading an article about African (mostly Ethiopian I believe) children being sent to Germany by their parents simply buying a one way ticket and giving them a note claiming asylum. The German language referred to these children as "Cuckoo Children" as they would be raised by the West German state.

Going back to your other point I doubt few people alive today except Royal Marine Commando Winter Weather experts would have survived the Ice Age in Europe so I think you are right. We are great big softies and are in for a rude awakening when TSHTF.

[UndercoverElephant]

The continual references to "welfare state" are misleading, though not entirely invalid.

What about the children of bankers and other parasites on modern society, such as lawyers? Are they "fitter", just because they earn lots of money and do not require the help of the welfare state? In the case of the bankers, they got their ill-gotten gains largely due to nepotism and the old-boys public school network. And the lawyers tend to be very clever, but anti-social, unethical money-grabbing arseholes, not an archetypal example of what natural selection would select.

The basic claim of the article is true, IMO. We have indeed suspended natural selection, and this we call "progress." However, this is not an entirely "un-natural" state of affairs. Our version of it is new, but many species go through repeated cycles of boom and bust. During the boom stage, natural selection is either suspended or seriously subdued. Take for example the "ladybird plague", which you are too young to remember. Conditions in 1975 and the first half of 1976 were so perfect for aphids that the ladybirds which feed on aphids had an absolute whale of a time. Any ladybird capable of walking and flying could find enough aphids to eat, and therefore was able to reproduce. The result by the end of the glorious summer of 1976 was so many ladybirds that in some places you were squashing a carpet of them everywhere you walked. But by that point even the aphids, which are born pregnant, could not reproduce fast enough to feed the ladybirds and then natural selection kicked in with a vengeance. Only the very fittest survived into 1977. The same will happen with HSS, eventually. Homo sapiens stupidus.

[Little John]

The continual references to "welfare state" are misleading, though not entirely invalid.

What about the children of bankers and other parasites on modern society, such as lawyers? Are they "fitter", just because they earn lots of money and do not require the help of the welfare state? In the case of the bankers, they got their ill-gotten gains largely due to nepotism and the old-boys public school network. And the lawyers tend to be very clever, but anti-social, unethical money-grabbing arseholes, not an archetypal example of what natural selection would select.

However, the basic claim of the article is true, IMO. We have indeed suspended natural selection, and this we call "progress." However, this is not an entirely "un-natural" state of affairs. Our version of it is new, but many species go through repeated cycles of boom and bust. During the boom stage, natural selection is either suspended or seriously subdued. Take for example the "ladybird plague", which you are too young to remember. Conditions in 1975 and the first half of 1976 were so perfect for aphids that the ladybirds which feed on aphids had an absolute whale of a time. Any ladybird capable of walking and flying could find enough aphids to eat, and therefore was able to reproduce. The result by the end of the glorious summer of 1976 was so many ladybirds that in some places you were squashing a carpet of them everywhere you walked. But by that point even the aphids, which are born pregnant, could not reproduce fast enough to feed the ladybirds and then natural selection kicked in with a vengeance. Only the very fittest survived into 1977. The same will happen with HSS, eventually. Homo sapiens stupidus.

Yes

[AndySir]

Humans aren't the only species to have escaped selection pressure, it's a fairly common topic of study for any species that undergoes rapid population and territory expansion. Quite a few species did after the last ice age as new habitats became available. Basically genetic drift becomes dominant and new species evolve without any particular genetic advantage. It's fairly reasonable to say that's what's happening to humans as well. Of course population expansion has it's limits and eventually selection pressure will reassert itself, but you already knew that.

[extractorfan]

The continual references to "welfare state" are misleading, though not entirely invalid.

What about the children of bankers and other parasites on modern society, such as lawyers? Are they "fitter", just because they earn lots of money and do not require the help of the welfare state? In the case of the bankers, they got their ill-gotten gains largely due to nepotism and the old-boys public school network. And the lawyers tend to be very clever, but anti-social, unethical money-grabbing arseholes, not an archetypal example of what natural selection would select.

However, the basic claim of the article is true, IMO. We have indeed suspended natural selection, and this we call "progress." However, this is not an entirely "un-natural" state of affairs. Our version of it is new, but many species go through repeated cycles of boom and bust. During the boom stage, natural selection is either suspended or seriously subdued. Take for example the "ladybird plague", which you are too young to remember. Conditions in 1975 and the first half of 1976 were so perfect for aphids that the ladybirds which feed on aphids had an absolute whale of a time. Any ladybird capable of walking and flying could find enough aphids to eat, and therefore was able to reproduce. The result by the end of the glorious summer of 1976 was so many ladybirds that in some places you were squashing a carpet of them everywhere you walked. But by that point even the aphids, which are born pregnant, could not reproduce fast enough to feed the ladybirds and then natural selection kicked in with a vengeance. Only the very fittest survived into 1977. The same will happen with HSS, eventually. Homo sapiens stupidus.

Yes

Yes x 2

It's amazing to think that every single one of our ancestors was stupendously successful, every single one. Were any of them not we wouldn't be here now.

In 1000 years, if there are any humans, they will also be related to the stupendously successful, although they'll probably be too busy eating mud and fighting to give it much thought.

[Little John]

As well as an inevitable proliferation of unfit genes, there may also be a kind of advantage to the genetic drift that occurs during times of boom. This drift would never be "allowed" by natural selection during hard times. However, in that drift, is is entirely possible that new and innovative genetic combinations come into existence. Combinations that only become advantageous when 2 or more genes (each of which confers no advantage by itself) exist simultaneously. However, in a harsh environment, each of those genes would have been extinguished from the gene pool by themselves. It is only during times of plenty and genetic drift, that they both manage to survive long enough to be able to exist simultaneously and so have the opportunity act in concert.

In other words, genetic drift, during the good times, might even be viewed as a kind of "savings bank" of novel variation in "anticipation" of when the hard times hit.

[clv101]

It's amazing to think that every single one of our ancestors was stupendously successful, every single one. Were any of them not we wouldn't be here now.

Is managing to reproduce before one dies stupendously successful? It's a feat managed by around 75% of us based on the insignificant infant mortality rate of 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births and this statement "Latest estimates suggest that 25 per cent of women in Britain of childbearing age will never have a baby. link. Deaths between no longer being an infant and reaching childbearing age must be trivial.

Maybe things were very different hundreds or thousands of years ago. I expect today's 75% would have been closer to 100%, so it's death rates before childbearing age that would have dominated. Afganistan, Mail and Somalia have the highest infant mortality rates today at around 10%. So even in these very difficult environments, which can't be much easier than the average human environment for the last few thousand years, the vast majority of babies survive.

I wouldn't say every single one of our ancestors was stupendously successful, just that we are the result of a line of odd-on bets. The fact that humans only have a handfull of children means that a lot of them have to survive and reproduce. Humans aren't like salmon where each individual produces a few thousand eggs and only the stupendously successful one or two makes it back up the river the spawn a couple of years later.

[extractorfan]

It's amazing to think that every single one of our ancestors was stupendously successful, every single one. Were any of them not we wouldn't be here now.

Is managing to reproduce before one dies stupendously successful? It's a feat managed by around 75% of us based on the insignificant infant mortality rate of 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births and this statement "Latest estimates suggest that 25 per cent of women in Britain of childbearing age will never have a baby. link. Deaths between no longer being an infant and reaching childbearing age must be trivial.

Maybe things were very different hundreds or thousands of years ago. I expect today's 75% would have been closer to 100%, so it's death rates before childbearing age that would have dominated. Afganistan, Mail and Somalia have the highest infant mortality rates today at around 10%. So even in these very difficult environments, which can't be much easier than the average human environment for the last few thousand years, the vast majority of babies survive.

I wouldn't say every single one of our ancestors was stupendously successful, just that we are the result of a line of odd-on bets. The fact that humans only have a handfull of children means that a lot of them have to survive and reproduce. Humans aren't like salmon where each individual produces a few thousand eggs and only the stupendously successful one or two makes it back up the river the spawn a couple of years later.

Badly worded by me. What's stupefying is the numbers involved who had to be successful, not only in reproducing, but in creating an individual that was also successful in reproducing.

I see what you mean, as a one off it seems pretty unastounding, but over countless of generations it is incredible. This is of course not only going back to humans, but all the forms before that.

Looks to me that our ancestors have been collectively stupendously successful, as have the salmons.

[biffvernon]

Successful, but we should expect nothing less. If our ancestors had not been successful we would not be having this conversation. All the unsuccessful creatures are classed as 'extinct species'.

[RenewableCandy]

Being here is kind-of like asking 30,000 people (all my ancestors since ape times) to roll a die and NONE of them get a "1". It is a bit mind-blowing come to think of it.

Back to agriculture: Prof Hrdy reckons it's what first enabled the unloved child to eat, and that has had an interesting, and detrimental, effect on our average ability to socialise. It's possible our Dunbar number was bigger before. It is apparently true that the volume in a human brain as a proportion of body size has taken a downturn since agriculture started 10,000 years ago. The reason for that is apparently still unknown. Someone (linked-to by EnergyBullitin this week) has recently put up an all-but-illegible infographic on the subject.

[Little John]

Successful, but we should expect nothing less. If our ancestors had not been successful we would not be having this conversation. All the unsuccessful creatures are classed as 'extinct species'.

Yes, it's an example of the weak anthropic principle.

If our ancestors had not all survived, we would not be here to be able to marvel at how they all survived.

[woodburner]

Most of my ancestors didn't survive, they are dead.

[Little John]

Most of my ancestors didn't survive, they are dead.

Okay, survived long enough to reproduce.

[extractorfan]

Most of my ancestors didn't survive, they are dead.

Okay, survived long enough to reproduce.

And in most cases long enough to raise their offspring to a degree