The confusion over Steve Jones

Posted on January 6, 2009 by Michael

Steve Jones has, according to media reports, made the claim that human evolution has stopped, or is at least slowing down in the West. At times we see conflicting statements from Jones himself over this.

I really just know about snails, and the beauty of evolution is that it gives biology a structure, so the rules that apply to snails or to fruit flies to some extent apply to ourselves. Obviously there’s much more that applies to us. But if you ask the simple Darwinian question about natural selection, inherited differences in the ability to pass on genes (which is only part of the evolutionary argument) it’s pretty clear to me that at least for the time being and at least in the developed world, natural selection has stopped or at least slowed down.

First, snail evolution is quite beautiful. Second, we see here that Jones is referring to natural selection, not evolution. Some sort of argument can be made that there is much less selection pressure on humans in Western nations than there was in the past. Of course, that wouldn’t be a very satisfying argument since natural selection is still ‘weeding out’ people with certain diseases and predispositions. It’s just that some of them, depending upon their economic situation as well as their particular affliction, happen to have reduced overall selection pressure on their alleles. But even then, there are people with diseases which will kill them before they get a chance to reproduce.

At any rate, this whole argument becomes rather moot because Jones also goes on to specifically speak of evolution rather than just one of its mechanisms. In fact, his talk is titled “Human Evolution is over”. He is wrong. Even if we were to ignore all the problems involved with making an argument that natural selection is over in humans (in the West), the evolution-is-over argument still does not fly because evolution is not simply selection. Genetic drift and mutation are two other major mechanisms. While he seems to ignore drift, Jones does, however, argue that there are fewer mutations in the population. His argument goes like this.

Men are fathering children at far younger ages than they did in the past. Given the fact that mutations accumulate in a person over time, these young men have fewer mutations than older men. Thus, subsequent generations are inheriting fewer and fewer mutations.

Okay, the first question which comes to mind is “So what?” The mutation rate of younger fathers is still, by far, substantial enough to maintain the continuing of human evolution. There is no shortage of mutations in each and every person at birth. Jones probably was born with around 100 mutations. You, too.

The second thing which comes to mind is to wonder why Jones would first make this age-mutation argument, but then go on to argue this.

Similarly, child survival rates, abysmal in antiquity, have dramatically improved in much of the world, cutting natural selection pressures.

In other words, more people live to reproductive age. This means there are more people reproducing, which means more mutations. His argument is dreadfully weak.

One wonders why such a quality scientist would make such a poor proposition.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Taking morality back

Posted on January 6, 2009 by Michael

There are far too many claims coming from atheists and humanists that the religious do not have the sole claim to morality. It’s true, of course, they don’t. But that argument is getting old. What’s more interesting is that the morality of the religious, if anything, is lesser than that of the secular.

As time marches forward, secular thought prevails more and more in public policy. The religious often claim credit for these things, but they’ve long been known as liars (see intelligent design). It’s merely a matter of time until a large roadblock to equal rights is quashed; homosexuals will have the right to marry in most parts of the country within the next two decades. It’s simply an inevitability. The religious zealots never win these arguments. Their basis is weak (i.e., belief in superstition). They have no good grounding for their bigotry. Interestingly, it will be discrimination on the basis of gender that actually falls. That is, the government does not make distinctions on the basis of gender in deciding who can enter into a contract. It’s clearly illegal. That is precisely what is happening with this “one man, one woman” bigotry that pervades the country, most notably the backward-thinking south.

It is with the secular that we see an increase in our morality as a nation. The secular progressiveness of Europe has shown itself with a strong repudiation of torturing. It has shown itself with its higher regard for animal rights. Perhaps most importantly of all, it has shown itself in the fact that the vast majority of the continent’s nations have outlawed the death penalty, a punishment based upon the desire for revenge, a petty and callous reasoning.

The argument atheists and humanists should be putting forth is not that the religious do not have the only say in morality. It’s that they have very little. They have a distorted view of reality. They are not interested in freedom, equality, and being good people. They wish to pursue their largely evil gods at the expense of everyone else. It is the religious who must present a case for why anyone should listen to their version of ‘morality’, not the atheists and humanists.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 38 Comments »