Professor Steve Jones, a genetics expert at the University College of London, has a theory that says humans – or at least humans in the more affluent countries – have stopped evolving. And why does he say this? Well, simplistically, it’s because today’s combination of science, technology and lifestyles insulates us from the very forces – like environment and nature – that precipitated and shaped our evolution as a species.
How does ‘survival of the fittest’ work when you don’t really have to be ‘fit’ to survive, when science and the development of technology have led to advances in health, medicine, nutrition and agriculture that have led to lower mortality rates, more sedentary lifestyles, better nutrition and higher life expectancies? When we are hardly ‘challenged’, in the Darwinian sense, anymore? Could one credibly argue that the push for survival is consequently weaker today? That today’s civilization (at least in most places) allows the ‘unfit’ (speaking again from a Darwinian standpoint) to survive and thrive?
There is another interesting aspect to Prof. Jones’ argument. According to him, as we have fewer older fathers, the chances of a mutation (a cell division that goes wrong and so creates a sperm different from his father’s) decrease – since younger men have undergone fewer cell divisions. And as we have fewer mutations, the chances of a beneficial mutation that could benefit the species are also reduced. This, coupled with a weakening of the natural selection process, implies that not only are the chances of an advantageous mutation lowered, but the chances of a disadvantageous mutation surviving, and more importantly, being propagated, remain high.
Logically, one could counter this train of thought by pointing out that for most of history – including less than 100 years ago – parenthood came very early, and most people did not live to cross 50. Going by Jones’ theory, therefore, evolution should have died out much earlier in our history, since there would have been very few mutations in an average man’s life. Also, considering the millions of years it took us to evolve, isn’t one being presumptuous in basing one’s judgments on 50 years of relative prosperity in a small section of our planet?
But his larger argument throws up some very interesting questions. For instance, is evolution a one-way street? In other words, do species only ‘progress’, or can they regress as well? In which case, if Homo Sapiens has stopped evolving, does that mean we have hit a steady-state evolutionary plateau, or does that mean that we could also head down the slope? Do we see another branching off of the species? Was HG Wells eerily prescient?
So, in a sense, what I am asking is this: do we, someday, go back to being primates? Sounds ridiculous? Well, The Intelligent Designer knows we in India are two small steps away from being full-blown Neanderthals. So perhaps it’s not all that ridiculous.
October 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm
We might have to wait for couple of 100 years if not 1000’s to check whether we are evolving or if some other species(that hasn’t yet stopped evolving) is going to take over us.
October 10, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I seriously doubt the Evolution Theory.
October 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Pick up any newspaper any day. Regression kicked in long time back.
October 10, 2008 at 9:53 pm
” it’s because today’s combination of science, technology and lifestyles insulates us from the very forces – like environment and nature – that precipitated and shaped our evolution as a species.”
*Add culture and religion. Aka morality.
Instinct in not bad, is it?
October 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm
oh yeah regression kicked in a long time ago, we are living in the age of idiocracy.
October 11, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Yay! The age of the advanced caucasian ends. The age of the ‘brownie’ begins 🙂
October 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Of course his theory is wrong. The reverse evolution is happening in developing countries (such as India) instead of developed nations…
October 11, 2008 at 9:27 pm
On a serious note, I, too, agree that looking at a couple of generations is far too small of a sample to draw such broad conclusions as a regression of the species. But then again I’m no scientist. Further, it seems that our technological advances are the direct result of our evolution, and will continue to be,i.e., there will always be threats that require further evolution, just different threats.
While we may no longer be threatened by bears when we walk out the door, we are threatened with not having a door to walk out of b/c of the financial crisis. In other words, our threats will probably become more and more of a mental kind in which we must constantly evolve to deal with them. On paper, I don’t know if that makes sense. It made sense in my head.
On a cynical note, I agree with the scientist. In fact, 8 years ago, we in the U.S. not only witnessed one of these regressed species, we elected him to the presidency…..twice. And now we’re teetering on the brink of electing another one to serve as vice-president.
I, by the way, have not voted for the regressed species to govern my country and screw everything up, but I’m just one vote, and the regressed species, while regressed, still had enough sense to go to the polls.
October 12, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hmmm neanderthals ain’t all that bad – metrosexuals leave me cold. I dont need the competition in the grooming department
October 13, 2008 at 3:09 pm
@India are two small steps away from being full-blown Neanderthals
Dude this is so true 🙂 the absolute truth 😉
@affluent countries
Have fuc*d up long ago and now there in no turning back.
Devolution sounds way better 😀
October 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm
@Anshul – True. That’s why I mentioned the inadequacy of assumptions based on 50 years of data.
@Dan Relojo – welcome, and thanks for the comment. Well, to each his own – but do you have any scientific reason to doubt evolution, or do your doubts have a religious basis?
@Che – yes indeed, dude. We are Neanderthals already. 🙂
@Kartikey – haven’t understood what you meant; could you please explain?
@Tazeen – tru dat!
@Smitajain – Ummm….I think we’re heading in the other direction….not sure if it’s reason to celebrate! 😉
@Vaibhav – bang on!
@Supercynic – that’s a very insightful comment; a number of people are talking in terms of ‘cultural’ evolution, for example. So, one could say that the stress caused by the financial crisis which leads to heart attacks is nature’s way of weeding out the weak! As for regression, the more I read the news, the more I’m convinced it’s a global phenomenon….Prof. Jones is right. 🙂
@Phoenixritu – 🙂
@Chirax – like I said, the apeman cometh! Except we’ll have no trees to swing from! 🙂
October 13, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Although evolution is merely a theory and not a law, if you look at the bigger picture, a gradual return to a neanderthal or ape-like form is still evolution. To state it simply, there is no such thing as devolution in nature. If monkeys outlive humans in the battle for survival of the fittest, that should still count as evolution for the ape-kind. Also this ‘devolution’ seems to be the most likely outcome in India where people displaying neanderthal behavior seem to thrive real well and rule the social and political environment.
October 14, 2008 at 5:04 am
One thing Prof. Steve Jones has forgotten to consider is mutation because of all the radiation / unnatural stuff we are exposed to. We may no longer have older fathers, but our younger ones are more prone to mutation thanks to the zillion gadgets we attach to our hip.
But with regards to other aspects, I have noticed that people from still developing countries think fast on their feet and improvise, where as citizens of developed countries look lost and scared without their procedures.
October 14, 2008 at 8:44 am
Well IMHO, The only way we would evolve backwards to an ape-like creature would be if ALL technology was lost to us, ie; atomic warfare, asteroid strike etc. and larger muscles become more advantageous
than brains as the criteria for survival. And as for evolution coming to a halt, just isn’t going to happen as long as environments change. If (when) man finally makes it into space and to habitable planets, evolution will adapt man to these environments. The Doomster
October 14, 2008 at 11:05 am
I’m sure professor steve jones is a large hairy creature who grunts often…
October 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Well we have “super” malls to play in and do all the monkey business.
October 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm
..good read!..puts my brain to some work..but..traits re-appear but technology wont disappear right? or is it “technology destructs technology and we go back to phase 1” situation!
October 15, 2008 at 9:32 pm
The post is interesting!
See there are animals in very harsh kinda conditions like deep sea and volcanoes. At some point these harsh conditions caused them to change so our “harsh” conditions will cause evolution … only different from what it would have been if we were more akin to nature.
And in my understanding the latter evolution would be more desired than the one that will and is happening now….
🙂
October 15, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Very interesting. Regression kind of ties back with the whole theory of the world starting over very soon. I wonder what we’d do differently if evolution was to happen all over again.
October 16, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Why does the title remind me of an awful MIB song?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xsAPUHK6gJI
October 17, 2008 at 9:31 am
I always wonder if us as a species would even have survived if we had not started making miraculous antibiotics, vaccinations, and all. Small Pox, Dengue, cholera, floods and cyclones would have finished us. I think the humans have survived against nature, and will continue unhealthily, ‘devolving’ as Chirax put it, like this.
October 19, 2008 at 9:06 am
Yikes. I should have eaten my Wheaties before coming here, Quirky Indian! Time to try to smarten up…and FAST!
I do remember my childhood ophthalmologist telling me that if I’d lived 200 years ago, I’d be dead. My eyesight was so poor that I would’ve walked off a cliff or into a bear den or something equally stupid and deadly. Kind of rough information for an eight-year old (and by ‘genes’ I thought he meant pants), BUT does make you wonder what kind of DNA we’re NOT eliminating out of the species?
Thankfully – at least in the public eye – we have offspring (Larry King, Paul McCartney, even Pavarotti had a kid in his 70s!). Thanks to these elderly lover boys, there’s still hope for a race of X-Men. Yippee! http://wideawakeinwonderland.wordpress.com
October 21, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Biologically, there is a hint of truth in the argument. The natural immune system of the human body is a living example of “survival of the fittest”. When we have some some ailments or the other, it is our immune system that fights it and in the process becomes stronger. However, if one starts taking pills at the drop of the hat, then the body does not get to actually evolve. It in fact regresses. As a result, the frequency of ailments increase and the person becomes dependent on medicines (as his body does not have the immune system to tackle it).
Biological regressing can be validated with the growing number of so called lifestyle diseases which have now become genetic – high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, lung related diseases caused by smoking or pollution, etc.
October 22, 2008 at 12:01 pm
But by that logic, shouldn’t our brains be evovling super-fast?
I mean, it isn’t easy keeping up with technology now, is it?
Think of the amount of academics involved in the avergae person’s life today. Would that compare to, say, 200 years back?
October 23, 2008 at 3:26 pm
That whole idea of regression is very interesting. Although in my mind the argument is a bit of a waste of time; evolution takes a very long time. Before anything significant is going to happen to the human race, we would’ve killed the planet and become extinct anyway probably…
October 24, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Interesting , but like you said evolution took place over long periods of time. . .And although , the newspaper proves the devolvment(if there is such a word) of our species everyday , I am still waiting for the day when humans will be evolved enough to fly 😛 . . .
November 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm
@Cleverdoll –Welcome to my blog and thanks for visiting. I am not sure I agree with you when you say ‘there is no such thing as devolution’……if one goes back to being primates – and that is coming full circle – that cannot be termed evolution. The term evolution presupposes – rightly or wrongly – newer traits and newer characteristics, not going back. As for your point about the apes – if they survive as they are, that’s still not evolution. If they change – evolve – over time to incorporate newer traits and characteristics, that’s evolution. IMHO.
@Cluelesschick – Welcome and thanks for commenting. You’re right, one forgot to factor in mutation because of pollution/radiation etc. Good point!
@Wavemaker – Doomster seems right!
@Nikhil – 🙂
@Chirax – 🙂
@verbivorehere – Welcome and thanks for commenting……could be either way…..the stimulus could also be the destruction of technology.
@Priyanka – I guess we’ll know in a couple of billion years…. 🙂
@Shivya – I would wager we’d make the same stupid mistakes. 🙂
@Shefaly – it is an awful song, isn’t it? 🙂
@Indianhomemaker – like I said…a couple of billion years and the truth will out. Wait and see!
@Wideawakeinwonderland – now, you didn’t walk off a cliff did you? You’re doing fine. As, hopefully, all should. And yes, let’s hear it for the geriatric lover boys!
@Annanya – very interesting observation…….you’re right, one could argue that this is indeed a validation of Prof. Jones’ argument.
@Hades – one might credibly argue that a lot of technology makes us ‘dumber’…..negating the effect of increased academics…..
@Hedonist – well said!
@Priya – humans have taken the help of technology here too……lots of people fly with the help of certain pills and other strange chemicals! 😉
December 18, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Hi!
If you’re interested in the genuinely socio-biological aspects of this, you could read my comments here:
http://saying-private-yarn.blogspot.com/2009/11/isnt-arranged-marriage-against.html
Many of the professor’s generalizations are untrue.
TC.