Man still evolves

By Razib Khan | September 12, 2013 8:02 pm

Still a great book!

Sir David Attenborough is the latest public intellectual who should know better than to opine that evolution has ended for human beings. Here are the quotes from The Telgraph: “Because if natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, is the main mechanism of evolution – there may be other things, but it does look as though that’s the case – then we’ve stopped natural selection. We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 95–99 per cent of our babies that are born.

John Hawks does a good job hitting back the balls hanging just over the plate. There are still many parts of the world where 95-99 percent of babies being born do not reach adult. Second, there is still a great deal of variation in fertility. Some people choose not to have any children, while others are quite prolific. For adaptation by natural selection to occur what you need is heritable variation of some sort to correlate with this fertility variation. It seems highly plausible that indeed heritable variation does correlate with fertility variation. As John notes the advancement of genome sequencing over the population will probably answer these questions definitively within the next 10 years (e.g., I am willing to bet that siblings who score higher on impulsiveness and lower on IQ tests will be more reproductively fit than their less impulsive and more intelligent brothers and sisters).

But there are at least two further issues which also are important to keep in mind. First, it is not definitely established that selection is the primary motive engine behind evolutionary processes. This aspect is philosophically subtle, and overall I am probably a ‘selectionist’ of some sort at the end of the day, but on the molecular scale there are many partisans of the model that evolutionary change is driven by neutral random-walk forces. And there are those who would defend this position even for phenotypic characteristics.

A bigger issue that comes to mind is that there is a great deal of prenatal selection in the womb due to mutation. The spontaneous abortion rate is difficult to ascertain because many women are never aware they are pregnant if the zygote does not implant, but somewhere on the order of 50% of fertilizations never make it to term*. A great fraction of this is due to abnormalities such as an aneuploidy, but certainly there must be more subtle mutations which increase the odds of miscarriage, even if they do not guarantee it**. A simple model where selection does not operate upon individuals once they are born is that burden of deleterious genetic load will simply be carried over to prenatal stage of development in the next generation. The only way to avoid this recurrent injection of deleterious alleles into the germ line and mutational abnormality is to engage in some proactive intervention during meiosis, or sift through the gametes prior to in vitro fertilization.

One of the implications of this model is that if genetic load is increasing in developed populations then the frequency of chronic illnesses that elevate morbidity is going to go up. But a more clear effect might be increased fertility issues across the population, as people with higher mutational load have to pay the bill of deleterious alleles finally coming due. Humans may be able to abolish some of the less palatable aspects of natural laws, but they can not overturn nature itself.

And yet in this case natural selection prevents populations from changing through constraint, and change is a common sense understanding of evolution. Perhaps I’ve actually made Attenborough’s point for him? If selection did not operate upon pregnancies, then mutations would continue to build up in the population. That would certainly result in phenotypic change! The take home lesson is that though the fact of evolution, most commonly thought of as phenotypic change within populations and ultimately speciation, is clear and easy to understand, the mechanistic details of the process of evolution is more difficult to grok. That explains why Attenborough, and Steve Jones, continue to fall into these elemental errors of inference.

* I am a bit cagey because another variable are elective abortions, which vary nation to nation as a fraction of pregnancies.

** Aneuploidy is known from fetuses retrieved from miscarriages.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution, Genetics
  • http://jaymans.wordpress.com/ JayMan

    It seems highly plausible that indeed heritable variation does correlate with fertility variation.

    It’s not just plausible. It is in fact the case. Indeed, IQ, personality, religiosity, and political orientation – traits all known to be significantly heritable – are all predictive of fertility, and have been for at least the better part of the past century, at least in the U.S.

    Who’s Having the Babies? | JayMan’s Blog

    and

    Expectations and reality: a window into the liberal-conservative baby gap | JayMan’s Blog

  • marcel proust

    Man still evolves and the dude abides

  • AG

    Sexual selection (girl’s preference) also contributes evolution beside natural selection (savages).
    Certainly brutal savage death still happens.
    http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/

    • razibkhan

      name a concrete example of sexual selection in humans which is scientifically not in dispute (i’m curious).

      • AG

        Gold diggers? Certainly not very scientific. Guess no scientists interested in such sexual selection.

  • razibkhan

    not a very intelligent comment. two of the biggest reasons for recent are due to environmental control by humans

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria#Genetic_resistance

  • http://rturpin.wordpress.com/ Russell Turpin

    Don’t underestimate the extent to which cultural factors determine which population segments have higher or less fertility:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2013/09/demography

  • RogerSweeny

    As a high school teacher, I sadly think you may be right “that siblings who score higher on impulsiveness and lower on IQ tests
    will be more reproductively fit than their less impulsive and more
    intelligent brothers and sisters.” They are the ones who contribute their DNA to the pregnancies of our students.

  • MrJones

    evolving backwards is still evolution

  • andrew oh-willeke

    “deleterious alleles” is, of course, context specific. An allele that might have been seriously fitness reducing in one era, may be only slightly relevant in another.

    Also, we are very near the point where gene therapy and “test tube baby” type selection against specific conditions could be an important evolutionary factor in humans.

    • razibkhan

      not always context specific. probably many mutants wreck biochemical pathways which are essential for cellular processes. these are likely ones subject to really strong selective constraint.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »