Are human beings still evolving in response to any recognizable factors?

That’s the same piece that @AMWolfe linked above. I think it’s easy to see that the primatologists are trying to counter over-interpretation of their work. This is, IMO, different from claiming that the bonobo’s distinctness is a “myth.” The BBC piece doesn’t say that, because no primatologist says that. The upshot is that someone who points at chimp warfare as somehow more relevant to human evolution than bonobo genital-rubbing is someone cherry-picking data to tell a misleading story. At least that person will be way ahead of the hapless Jordan Peterson, who chose lobsters. :laughing:

5 Likes

Are human beings still evolving?

Yes, faster than ever. (though some stretching of what is meant by evolution is involved in arriving at this conclusion)

Genetically we are only seeing a great increase of genetic diversity as a result of the community protecting and supporting the survival of the individuals. But it is a mistake to think this represents an end or stalling out in the evolutionary process. The opposite is the case.

  1. The real driving force of evolution is not selection, but variation.
  2. In addition to the evolution of individuals there is also the evolution of communities. And while the first requires selection, the latter thrives on diversity because it serves the development of specialization, which in turn enables the development of production, transportation, and communication technologies. This has happened at least twice before, first with the development of eukaryotic cells and second with the development of multi-cellular organisms.
  3. But the greatest leaps forward in the evolutionary process is the advancement of information storage and transmission, such as when life on this planet learned to utilize DNA and RNA molecules. Human civilization has improved upon this with the development of language and other communication media. As a result we no longer suffer from the limitation of “no inheritance of acquired characteristics.” Now we learn things in the matter of years and radically transform the nature of our existence in mere decades.

What are the factors we are evolving in response to?

The environmental challenges are still there, including disease, disasters, waste management. In addition there are all kinds of internal challenges from social conflict and adjusting to the changes in life largely due to our own advances. But now our range of responses to these challenges are greatly increased to include legal and technological solutions. The DNA and biological solutions are much too slow to be of much value by comparison (not by its own learning/evolutionary methods anyway).

3 Likes

Thank your for your input, @sfmatheson . I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that you can’t trust everything you read on the internet.

4 Likes

The trend I am seeing is a greater dependence on technology for having children and that is only going increase because the selection against some of the incompatibilities has been removed.

But where we go from here is going to depend on a number of social factors. So far we are not much in favor of tinkering with the genome of the next generation. And I am not in favor of parents having that much control in this area – too many dangerous implications. But overcoming the inability to have children might be considered a case where tinkering is allowed, in which case the trend above could go even further. The result is that future generations may be less able to interbreed with each other without help than they are able breed with our generation. This is not even a pointless question because “frozen” eggs and sperms could become a resource for future generations.

My overall point/message here is that there really is no separation between biological evolution and technology. They really are part of one and the same process.

1 Like

So we are continuing to evolve in the general sense of the word but perhaps not in the Darwinian sense. I don’t disagree but it was really the biological sense of evolution I had in mind. Do you think that is still possible except under catastrophic conditions?

1 Like

Even in the biological sense, evolution continues. Even that hasn’t slowed down in the slightest. It is just harder to see, because pattern is a little different. The increase in variation is a part of biological evolutionary change which is happening, and I have shown how the interaction with technology changes the biology also. The point is that you cannot talk of biological evolution in isolation from the technology anymore.

Go back to the last time this happened with multi-cellular organisms. Did biological evolution stop because the communities were protecting the individuals? No. Quite the opposite. It frankly looks even faster. But except for the increase in diversity, the changes in the individuals, the cells, were not so dramatic. They simply were not the whole story anymore. The interactions between the cells became the more important changes. Think about the comparisons we have been making between humans and chimpanzees. Are the cells really different? Except for the genetic material, not at all. The real changes are frankly the analog of what we call technology found in the interaction between the cells and things made possible by the specialized roles they are playing.

2 Likes

I agree that medicine generally and especially better child bearing supports is a good example of technologically enhanced biological evolution. It just doesn’t seem to be the kind of evolution which would be capable of ‘dividing the herd’ toward new speciation. Of course most speciation seems to need isolation of populations as a catalyst anyway and our technology makes that increasingly unlikely. But I have to concede even with that difference, we are still evolving.

1 Like

Sorry that I’m late answering the bell, @AMWolfe, but I have the same impression as Stephen. The blogger’s previous post on bonobos actually was more in line with Stephen’s take, as the post included a quote from a primatologist that shed some light:

Data sets from the wild clearly show that over the course of a year female bonobos do not copulate any more than female chimpanzees. So let’s put that myth to bed right now. Females are not dominant over males in the sense that all male chimpanzees are dominant over all female chimpanzees. This is a very poorly understood area and we predict that future results will show that their dominance system is more to do with mother/son coalitions.

Bonobos are violent. Granted they are not as violent as chimps but then what animal is? They fight and aggress each other just like any other group living species that have intragroup competition. Males sometimes rip infants from their mothers arms and bully the mothers. It happens, it’s a reality and an adaptive function of normal bonobo society.

Copulating face to face – again, guess where this idea came from – captivity. Where they don’t have trees to climb in. I’ve recorded hundreds of copulations in wild bonobos. Want to know what percentage was ventral-ventral? 5%. All ventral-ventral copulations were when they were on the ground. It’s not about being face to face, it’s about what position is most convenient.

Bonobos – not sex crazed, not peace loving, not female dominated. But easily the most intriguing and wonderful species to ever see and study in the wild. We don’t need to cling on to this anti-chimp image we are so desperate to give them. Their real behaviour is far more interesting.

Absolutely, both are relevant. Lord, spare us from Peterson!

1 Like

I don’t know much about Peterson but someday would appreciate a summary and critique in regard to his perception of science. I know he is popular among some, and your and @sfmatheson’s perspectives would be helpful as he seems relevant to young people in some ways.

Peterson wrote things so scientifically ridiculous that his writings now should be compared to creationism, anti-vax propaganda, and climate change denial. Same genre. Note that I make this judgment based on what seems to be a choice to mislead, and based on the failure (refusal) to correct huge errors.

The specific claims here are about lobster behavior and its relevance to human behavior. Peterson invites his readers to link the behavior of lobsters and humans, making an evolutionary “argument” so laughable that it reflects on the author’s credibility. For me, the lobster comparison in Peterson’s writing is bad enough to disqualify him as a voice worthy of attention.

Below is a very nice explanation. But before you read it, consider a thought experiment. Suppose you hear someone say “grasshoppers do X, and humans are related to grasshoppers, so I recommend you do X the next time Y happens to you.” What would you conclude about this person’s knowledge of the natural world?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/

4 Likes

Glad to hear that. My favorite take on Peterson:

3 Likes

Wild bonobos: adult female has sex with infant male.

Rated xxx. You watched it anyway.

Not sure what you’re trying to prove, but if you’re attempting to shock my sensibilities, you got the wrong guy. I worked with incarcerated sex offenders. Bonobos are tame compared to humans.

1 Like

I’m trying to show that bonobo sex in the wild is kinkier than chimpanzee sex. Female chimps are promiscuous but they aren’t like bonobos.

1 Like

I really admire you for your work, especially with the article I read.https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2004/november/school-of-hard-knocks/

it must be very hard for them to break out of that sort of mold, especially if they (as seems often the case) were exposed to that sort of behavior as children. Did you find that there was a particular approach that they responded to better? Were some of them religious, and did that help? Kindness? Firmness? Thanks.

1 Like

We’re getting pretty far afield, but I’ll try to reply briefly. Almost all of the sex offenders whom I knew were abused themselves, even the girls arrested for prostitution or other sex crimes. Yes, it is hard to change behavior that was ingrained in childhood.

If you ask a probation officer, sex offenders are the easiest to deal with. They are used to leading double lives and are masters of deception and manipulation. That is how they find their victims and hide their crimes for many years. Yes, many of them are religious, but the “religious self” is the face they present to the public. So, as it turns out, hiding behind Jesus-speak and God-talk is quite an effective means of disguising one’s true identity.

6 Likes

Thanks. That’s good insight.

You’re welcome. It’s why most churches are ill-equipped to deal with abuse, especially when they try to deal with situations in-house. Suspicions or allegations of abuse should be reported to the police, without exception. All professionals who work with children are required to do this by law. The church should do at least as much.

4 Likes

My wife just worked on the protocol for our church. In Michigan, mandated reporters are required to phone everything to CPS immediately. Good insight on that double identity. I sometimes see borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder in myself; :slight_smile: I wonder if the duplicity is a characteristic of all of us–and we can fool not just others, but ourselves.

I should’ve said “proper authorities” or something more vague, since laws can vary by state. Mandated reporters know whom to call. For the average person, either one is acceptable, although I would suggest going directly to police when time is of the essence or a serious crime is alleged. CPS isn’t always the quickest to respond.

1 Like