PZ Myers. 2005 Aug 28. Or maybe it's an example of absurdist British humor...?. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/or_maybe_its_an_example_of_absurdist_british_humor/>. Accessed 2008 Sep 06.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Sunday, August 28, 2005
Or maybe it's an example of absurdist British humor...?
A pompous kook named Bryan Appleyard has a pro-ID piece in the London Times—may I be forgiven for briefly thinking maybe America isn't damning itself with this anti-scientific tripe if we manage to poison the rest of the world with it, too?—and I'm not going to spend much time on it. I've run into Appleyard's hackwork a few times before, and I can't say that I like the flavor it leaves in my mouth. Fortunately, Educated Insolence has already given it a good going over. I'll just pick up one error that just happens to annoy me a lot—it's an idea that isn't unique to creationists, but also too common among some people who favor evolution.
Furthermore, the claims of neo-Darwinism have been expanding. In the form of evolutionary psychology it now claims to be able to explain human behaviour in spite of the fact that a key aspect of human behaviour is that it has stopped the processes of evolution, by, for example, using contraception and keeping handicapped people alive.
I'm no fan of evolutionary psychology (or Evolutionary Psychology), but it's about historical influences on human behavior; that circumstances have now changed from our prior hunter-gather environment doesn't mean past evolutionary events don't affect us. But the main bit of nonsense here is the ridiculous idea that evolution has stopped for us. It hasn't, and in fact is probably accelerating, in the sense that we've removed many selective forces that would have culled back variants in the past—we're accumulating novelties in our genomes faster than before. It should also be self-evident that not everyone has children, and different people have different numbers of children, and people have different levels of success in raising healthy children to adulthood. The only way one could think evolution has stopped is if one has a very poor idea of what evolution is.
-
Appleyard pontificates:
The co-decipherer of DNA, Francis Crick, for example, once defined the “central dogma” of molecular biology as the one-way flow of information from gene to organism. This central “dogma” would stop evolution in its tracks — information has to flow back to the DNA from the organism, most obviously by its death, to tell the DNA it got something wrong.
All I can say to that is... Whaaaa??? This is why its so hard to debate these loons. Where the hell do you start with such a ridiculous pile of poop?#: Posted by on 08/28 at 03:05 PM -
The best I can describe the Appleyard piece is that it's confused. He seems to have swallowed ID propaganda whole without bothering to check the facts, or even the source of his information, repeating bollocks like
Meanwhile, intelligent design (ID) is being studied and developed in some respected universities.
as though it was an established truth.
Ach, bloody Times has been crap at science since Murdoch took over. Anyone remember the rubbish they used to print about HIV? Do they still do that?#: Posted by on 08/28 at 03:13 PM -
[PZ Writes]But the main bit of nonsense here is the ridiculous idea that evolution has stopped for us. It hasn't, and in fact is probably accelerating, in the sense that we've removed many selective forces that would have culled back variants in the past
<br>
At the risk of slipping into "social darwinism", aren't human behaviors and forces just specific and more recently emerging mechanisms that comprise the selection process? I have never understood the comment that is sometimes made that we are no longer evolving. That somehow, we have taken control of this natural process.
If, we somehow manage to extend life indefinitely, will we have halted the evolution of our species? Not so long as there are limited resources such as space, food, water, and breathable air.#: Posted by on 08/28 at 03:40 PM -
Undoubtably, the selection forces on our intelligence are as strong as they've ever been, if not stronger. We still lie to and cheat each other, and engage in sophisticated social games in order to gain advantage. (Of which this whole "ID vs the Evilutionists" thing might be regarded as being part.)
In fact, the sheer number of fellow humans we moderns have contact with each day compared to our prehistoric ancestors would seem to vastly increase the pressures on our intelligence. So many more opportunities to deceive, or be deceived.#: Posted by on 08/28 at 04:00 PM -
Hey, a great excuse to write a letter to the Sunday Times! I like the way he confuses evolutionary biologist with militant atheist.
"The BBC, for instance, presents anything but the strictest neo-Darwinian orthodoxy as clear evidence of insanity."
Wow, where to start? The fact is that the BBC has had at least 2 articles in the last 3 months on its website covering this very subject. Both were fairly neutral. At least one allowed comments, which I am afraid to say were about equal in numbers on either side. I note he doesnt produce any examples.
And it wasnt even Darwin who showed the earth to not be 6,000 years old. That started with geology in the 18th century, and there were sugestions of it in the 17th. Idiot.
Hey, he brings in Steven Jay Gould as an opponent of gene centred orthodoxy. So what?
Some adherents to ID are driven by religiosity? I think you'll find its 99.9%.
"But neo-Darwinism has also in many cases abandoned proper scientific inquiry. Instead of testing the theory against the world, its most passionate advocates test the world against the theory."
Nope, I dont think so.
PZ might like this article:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/08/16/a-life-with-no-purpose/#: Posted by on 08/28 at 04:15 PM -
"The BBC, for instance, presents anything but the strictest neo-Darwinian orthodoxy as clear evidence of insanity."
Is the same Brian Appleyard I recall being interviewed by the BBC in 1991 or early 1992 where he was allowed to spout garbage like "Galileo robbed us of our place at the centre of the Universe, and Darwin robbed us of our birthright?"
He's not a newcomer to this sort of guff. Been doing it for years. Move on people - nothing to see here.#: Posted by on 08/28 at 04:27 PM - Yeah, every time I run across one of his articles, I start to suspect that Monty Python's Upper Class Twit of the Year skit was actually a documentary.
-
It is also important to remember that evolution is not goal oriented, but accumulates adaptations as a result of both differential reproduction and differential mortality. We've limited the extrinsic mortality aspect of the equation in modern western societies (it's getting harder even for dumb folks to kill themselves off), and we've pulled the reproduction aspect back closer to the rate of replacement, with more couples contibuting to less reproduction. My guess would also be that there is more assortative mating as people marry who meet at school and work than met in their village of origin in days of old...So, more diversity across the distribution.
All this said, ya can't go wrong assuming that the dominant factor in determining variance is regression to the mean, and that smarter generally means fewer offspring....We don't (and can't) know what evolution is "selecting," but for what it is worth my money remains on stupidity....#: Posted by on 08/28 at 06:36 PM -
The words "Brian Appleyard" have a tendency to make smoke come out of my ears so that it's hard to read anything that follows. He's been at this a while.
#: Posted by Matt McIrvin on 08/28 at 07:43 PM
-
Looks like the phenomenally high and rigorous standards of the British tabloid have wrapped another disturbingly antireason tendril around The Times' throat. It's somewhat creepy to hear any of this stuff this side of the pond, though; a friend recently whipped out the classic groaner that evolution is 'only' a theory. Absolutely chilling to have to clear up creationist rubbish with someone born, raised and educated in this country.
And it's always a pleasure to see a known crank (Appleyard's a UFO nut, too, among other things,) getting a free pass to flout their very special brand of logic in a national paper. The Times' high readership is a mixed blessing, though, and there's a good chance university profs and biologists will get a good stab at clearing up this nonsense (to the usual calls of censorship, naturally.) The Guardian will have good mocking fodder at the least.
-Schmitt.#: Posted by on 08/28 at 07:56 PM -
Schmitt, Published by The Times and mocked by The Guardian? Not only the cows are going mad in Britain.
#: Posted by on 08/28 at 11:25 PM
-
David Irving is a brit too, isn't he?
The lesson for today is that stupidity has never been confined to a single country. It abounds, throughout the world.
-jcr#: Posted by on 08/29 at 01:49 AM -
The Times should not be confused with the </i>Sunday Times</i>, for which Appleyiard writes. Both are Murdoch owned, and both are dreadful, but in different ways; and the _Sunday Times_ is much worse. Its record on science is particularly bad -- for years it ran with HIV denial theories.
But the Sunday Times is not the Sunday edition of the Times. They have separate editors and staff.#: Posted by Andrew Brown on 08/29 at 02:32 AM -
I've never heard of Bryan Appleyard, but that probably shows how much I read the newspapers. His article is pretty confused. There are some valid points about not knowing exactly how life originally got started (how did RNA/DNA form?), but the rest of it is mostly garbage. Talking about information "flow to DNA from the organism" is the kind of twaddle which reveals just how ignorant this chap is about evolution.
To be honest I think the majority of people have a view about evolution which is at least as confused as Appleyards. Stop someone in the street and ask them what they think evolution is and you will get a range of answers, some of them quite amusing. Allowing things such as ID to be taught seriously in schools will add to the general confusion.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the views of TV celebrities or newspaper hacks do eventually filter through and influence political decision making. It's really up to scientists to become more active in the public arena to counteract some of these false prophets.#: Posted by Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling on 08/29 at 03:14 AM -
stupidity has never been confined to a single country. It abounds, throughout the world.
It's not even confined to a single species. It's just particularly noticeable in humans because the high degree of variation between smart ones and stupid ones there has the most contrast.
However, there are some exceptionally stupid cats (for example) too. :-D#: Posted by on 08/29 at 03:25 AM -
Appleyard has been spouting this stuff for years. Ever since his book "Understanding the Present" - where he boo-hooed about Science destroying our 'soul' or something. He does however represent a strain of effete anti-science irrationalism that is not uncommon among some British cultural commentators and journalists - Melanie Philips is another one who comes to mind. On the other hand, Appleyard is a towering intellectual compared to Mail on Sunday’s ID cheerleader Peter Hitchens – now he does have PhD in advanced carpet chewing.
#: Posted by on 08/29 at 03:26 AM
-
I notice when Pharyngularians debate a British subject, the quality of their prose improves phenomenally. PZ should target more that island´s strain of Creationists. Evolved in an island, they may present some interesting features.
Bryan Appleyard maintains that scientific knowledge is not morally neutral, that new developments are mostly bad; that genetic screening and abortion are eugenics which will lead us to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
If knowledge of Nature is not neutral, Nature itself must be good or bad. If I comprehend his ideas, mostly evil. Too bad for him.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 04:29 AM -
"But the main bit of nonsense here is the ridiculous idea that evolution has stopped for us."
But if evolution works by selection, and selection requires variation and important differences between individuals, how can human evolution possibly still go on if everyone is essentially equal in the genetic level, as many people like to claim?#: Posted by on 08/29 at 06:01 AM -
if everyone is essentially equal in the genetic level, as many people like to claim?
You are badly mixing up so many things it's hard to know where to start to unravel your mistakes.
Firstly, it doesn't matter (scientifically) whether many people claim something. If it isn't true, their claims still don't make it true.
Secondly, I suspect you of conflating more than one version of "equal". If you mean equally evolved in terms of time-distance from an ancestral single cell, then yes but hardly relevant since it doesn't make all descendants identical or preclude further evolution. If you mean "all men born equal" in the declarative sense of having "rights", then those are an idealised social construct not a reality. If you try to take that literally instead, then again reality begs to differ - as evidenced by differing mathematical and athletic abilities etc.
Humans are clearly not all equal (in the sense of identical) at the genetic level either, since there is a wide variety of alternatives for parts of the genome - as is being documented in the human genome project. These differences in genotype are reflected in the phenotype, eg by the fact that you don't look identical to either your mother or your father.
In what way do you regard the differences which do so evidently exist as being unimportant? It might become critical one day that you can or can't outrun someone else when being pursued by a lion. It might become critical that you can remember the difference between the likely contents of bottles labelled H2O and H2SO4.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 06:40 AM -
SEF: "In what way do you regard the differences which do so evidently exist as being unimportant?"
I do not. However, quite a few people do, especially those on the "nurture" side of the nature vs. nurture debate.
"Humans are clearly not all equal (in the sense of identical) at the genetic level either, since there is a wide variety of alternatives for parts of the genome - as is being documented in the human genome project."
There is lots of genetic variety, sure. But if all those varieties are functionally equivalent so that the differences in the phenotype and reproductive success of individual humans essentially depend on nurture, how can human evolution by selection possibly still go on? Selection requires that genetic differences cause important phenotypic differences, a claim which many people vigorously deny today.
"It might become critical that you can remember the difference between the likely contents of bottles labelled H2O and H2SO4."
Surely you are not saying that genetic differences between humans have an effect on their cognitive abilities, which in turn have important consequences on how their lives will turn out? Because that is one very big and bad no-no to be saying these days.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 07:36 AM -
Surely you are not saying that
Yes, I am (among other things).
genetic differences between humans have an effect on their cognitive abilities, which in turn have important consequences on how their lives will turn out?
Yes, that's what research on identical twins, raised separately and unknowing of each other, by very different households shows. They ended up with almost identical IQs and preferences. From choice of clothing, qualifications, job and marital partner to some pretty weird coincidences over children produced.
Because that is one very big and bad no-no to be saying these days.
Again you mistake claims made by people for reality. Some people pretending that reality is wrong (for their own ideological reasons) doesn't alter that reality.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 08:16 AM -
One thing of interest in the question of current evolution of humans is the fact that we do make substantial efforts to ease selective pressure on the population. The medical field is largely based on relieving selective pressure on humans. The societal construct of monogamy has gone a long way towards easing sexual selective pressure. While we haven't stopped evolving, one could say the our evolution has lost its original direction as a result of our societal changes. As a result, the average genetic fitness of a human in the current population may well be lower than the genetic fitness of our ancestors, simply because the absence of strong selective pressure has allowed for the success of detrimental alleles. For example, while I am probably smarter than my average ancestor, I am blind as a bat when I don't have my glasses. Such blindness would make me very genetically unfit in the absence of technological remedies. As such, I think that you could argue that, while evolution is still occurring in humans, much of the directional evolution that drives changes in the mean of a quantitative trait has stopped, and what we are seeing is variation around the mean. Unfortunately, many more mutations are detrimental than are helpful (with most being neutral), this means that the population should tend towards less genetically fit offspring for all cases where selective pressure has been abated. This will keep the medical community employed forever, but is it a responsible strategy for the success of humanity? Or is my reasoning flawed?
#: Posted by on 08/29 at 08:42 AM
-
Shygetz,
You are right thatwe do make substantial efforts to ease selective pressure on the population
but you are wrong thinking that these efforts are effective. They are not.
In theory, everyone may have the number of children he or she wants (within physiological possibilities) and the children's survival is ensured. In reality, almost no one is exploiting this unprecedented opportunity. When 20 -30% of the people has zero success in reproduction, and when another 50% fails to achieve the 2.2 children required for self-replacement, we have to conclude that having children in our society is VERY difficult and therefore, the effective selective pressure is higher than experienced by former generations.
Why having children is so difficult? Many think it is a voluntary, personal decision, but of course, statistically it is not. If I knew the answer, I would sell it to the French, who for the last 100 years are trying to increase (French) natality, with no great success.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 09:29 AM -
Why having children is so difficult? Many think it is a voluntary, personal decision, but of course, statistically it is not.
Actually, it is, in a way. As women's rights progress, women stop considering themselves children-producing automatons and start thinking about their own needs and desires; as economic conditions progress, people no longer have children solely as working hands or old age insurance. -
Surely you are not saying that genetic differences between humans have an effect on their cognitive abilities, which in turn have important consequences on how their lives will turn out? Because that is one very big and bad no-no to be saying these days.
Genetic differences are bound to effect all organs of the body, including the brain, and mental abilities will be influenced to some extent. We don't really know the details of this yet, but as time goes on it will become better understood.
I think you are confusing some notions of equality between people. There is one type of equality, where all people are supposed to be treated with equal fairness under the law, and there is the other kind of equality where people have the same genes (identical twins).
Of course people aren't only products of their genes, they're also products of society which is a sort of secondary inherritance. I know people who live in very poor areas, and you can see that their children are born with immediate tangible dissadvantages relative to their peers - regardless of how good or bad their genes are.#: Posted by Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling on 08/29 at 10:22 AM -
jaimito:
you are wrong thinking that these efforts are effective. They are not.
In theory, everyone may have the number of children he or she wants (within physiological possibilities) and the children's survival is ensured. In reality, almost no one is exploiting this unprecedented opportunity. When 20 -30% of the people has zero success in reproduction, and when another 50% fails to achieve the 2.2 children required for self-replacement, we have to conclude that having children in our society is VERY difficult and therefore, the effective selective pressure is higher than experienced by former generations.
Why having children is so difficult? Many think it is a voluntary, personal decision, but of course, statistically it is not. If I knew the answer, I would sell it to the French, who for the last 100 years are trying to increase (French) natality, with no great success.
Actually, research suggests that the drop in birth rates in developed countries is almost solely cultural. For instance, in the US, the rate of birth correlates inversely with socioeconomic status. The lower your SES, the more children you are likely to have. This is contrary to normal genetic factors, which would suggest that the subpopulation with greater resources would be more successful in reproduction. Infertility is part of the equation, but the medical success for infertility treatment is quite high, especialy for people of higher SES. As such, the logical conclusion is that a culturally-based decision is behind the lagging birth rates in educated and wealthy countries is behind the drop.
My point was that genetic selection has been largely abrogated by societal effects. Evidence for the success in this abrogation is widespread. I don't know the actual statistics, but a large percentage of the population has vision impairment, moderate to severe allergies, asthma, diabetes, etc. Most of these diseases would be debilitating or fatal in a non-technological society. The fact that someone in our modern society can successfully reproduce at approximately the same rate as a completely healthy individual of the same culture demonstrates that genetic selection has eased.
As such, the largest part of the selection we see is the effects of social selection, not genetic selection. Some cultures that represent sub-populations have more reproductive success, but members of this culture are not greatly limited by their genetic fitness (which is largely alleviated by technology) but by their cultural adherence. My question/concern is that the lack of selection for people more fit genetically should be reducing the genetic fitness of the population.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 10:36 AM -
Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: "I think you are confusing some notions of equality between people."
No, I am asking how the notions of (1) ongoing human evolution and (2) genetic equivalence of all humans (not identical equality or moral equality, but functional equivalence in the sense that it doesn't really matter what genes you get, since the effect of genes to your phenotype is pretty much irrelevant when compared to nurture and environment) can possibly be combined, since evolution by selection seems to require that there are important genetic differences between individuals.
I am asking this because a highly nontrivial number of people currently seem to believe both (1) and (2). In many places around the blogosphere, saying something like "Genetic differences are bound to effect all organs of the body, including the brain, and mental abilities will be influenced to some extent. We don't really know the details of this yet, but as time goes on it will become better understood" would be met with a very negative response.
"Of course people aren't only products of their genes, "
Which is why I wrote that genes have an effect, not that they fully determine how one turns out. But this effect has got to be at least relevant for the natural selection to work on it.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 10:48 AM -
Appleyard is essentially a print-media troll. His stock-in-trade is factually-deficient 'common-sense' contrarianism. One highlight from 2001: "Nobody, twenty years ago, predicted the Internet." Apart from those using it at the time, one presumes.
#: Posted by on 08/29 at 01:20 PM
-
Shygetz,
".. medical success for infertility treatment is quite high.." Actually, after 30, is very low.
Very low SES people rarely reproduce.
Regarding the reduction of genetic fitness you find worrying, I think humanity will never live again in the environment where evolved, the African savanna. Therefore, genetic fitness to succeed in the savanna is meaningless.#: Posted by on 08/29 at 01:27 PM -
My question/concern is that the lack of selection for people more fit genetically should be reducing the genetic fitness of the population.
"Genetic fitness" is not a universal. It depends on the environment(s) in which a population lives. Environments change unpredictably. The closest thing to a generic "genetic fitness" would be genetic diversity. Regardless, in my opinion it should not be the business of society to engineer genetic fitness excepting the obvious cases where specific harm is likely, such as incest.Cheers,
Craig
#: Posted by on 08/29 at 02:10 PM -
Very low SES people rarely reproduce.
Who are these very low SES people and how many of them are there? For instance, I presume someone who's homeless isn't likely to reproduce, but there aren't many homeless people, and the bulk of low SES people seem to be reproducing just fine.
My question/concern is that the lack of selection for people more fit genetically should be reducing the genetic fitness of the population.
If you look at what actually happens, you'll see that this is not the case. In particular, look at IQ, eugenicists' favorite heritable trait. IQ is extremely heritable - for people from the middle class up, its heritability is 0.72 and as far as I know there are no widespread environmental factors affecting it. For low SES people the heritability drops to 0.1 because of environmental problems such as racism and lack of linguistic stimulation, but still there is an underlying genetic capacity with heritability of 0.72 because acquired traits are not genetically inherited. If indeed there was dysgenics occurring because of the lack of selection pressure, we'd see IQ stay constant, or at best rise a few points from its WW2 level and then level off. In fact, in the last six decades IQ has constantly risen by about 3% per decade in the USA and Sweden, the only two countries people have published researches I know of about. -
Alon,
Who are these very low SES people?
The village idiot? Madonna's Kabbala water consumers? Buyers of Russian tzarist bonds? BTW, how can SES's IQ heritability drop to 0.1 in certain environments? I see. SES are so careless, once myself almost saw a SES dropping an antique heritability porcelain figurine.#: Posted by on 08/30 at 03:27 AM -
The village idiot? Madonna's Kabbala water consumers? Buyers of Russian tzarist bonds?
Are they really low SES, or just low IQ and high gullibility?
BTW, how can SES's IQ heritability drop to 0.1 in certain environments?
Go to my Lewontin article on UTI Annex; toward the end there's a link to a study that concludes that IQ's genetic heritability is 0.72 for people of medium or high SES but only 0.1 for people of low SES. The obvious explanation is that IQ is very strongly genetically inheritable, but certain environmental effects associated with poverty can reduce it. -
You may be reassured to learn that the BBC is working on a series intended to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species in 2009 as reported here: http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article308891.ece
...and we still have Darwin on our money.#: Posted by on 08/30 at 07:11 AM -
IQ is a terrible quantitative trait to base a conclusion on, because even the psychologists can't agree on what it means. Also, IQ is known to be easily changed by education (not much, but a statistical amount), and the current tests are thought by some to be biased by SES. Believe me, my wife is a researcher that helps develop those kinds of tests, and we talk about it often. While I never said that directional evolution of all heritable traits was being abrogated, I suggest that many are not being selected strongly if at all. I am also suggesting that many of the mutations that are accumulating in the population are detrimental even in the current environment (visual impairment, haemophilia, diabetes, etc.), but that society has done such an excellent job in eliminating selective pressure that the detrimental mutations propogate at about the same rate as the non-detrimental mutations. One thing I did not mention is that, in low SES cultures, many of these phenotypes are strongly selected against, while in high SES cultures they are not.
Regarding the reduction of genetic fitness you find worrying, I think humanity will never live again in the environment where evolved, the African savanna. Therefore, genetic fitness to succeed in the savanna is meaningless.
"Genetic fitness" is not a universal. It depends on the environment(s) in which a population lives. Environments change unpredictably. The closest thing to a generic "genetic fitness" would be genetic diversity. Regardless, in my opinion it should not be the business of society to engineer genetic fitness excepting the obvious cases where specific harm is likely, such as incest.
Ridiculous. Many of the examples I am giving are not for fitness in the savannah, they are for general fitness in almost all environments, including the current one. Blindness is not an adaptive trait in a species that can close its eyes. If you cannot imagine a situation where humanity would be without the benefit of advanced technology, then I suggest you read more speculative fiction, or just look at geological history. Global catastrophes are almost a given even from natural causes, and now we have new and different ways of causing global catastrophes ourselves. And if you have a population that is not fit and it undergoes a severe increase in selective pressure, you can observe enormous population crashes and extinctions. I don't want to put on the tin-foil hat here, but shouldn't we at least be asking if the constant abrogation of selective pressure for many traits is in the best long term interest of humanity? And if not, should some measures be taken to replace this selection in clear-cut cases of deleterious mutation (i.e. germ line gene therapy)?#: Posted by on 08/30 at 07:30 AM -
I don't want to put on the tin-foil hat here, but shouldn't we at least be asking if the constant abrogation of selective pressure for many traits is in the best long term interest of humanity?
First you need to show that these traits are becoming more common. Just claiming that logically they should isn't enough, because logically despite increased levels of education, the average IQ should be going down or at least remaining constant (presumably differences in education levels of 7-year-old middle class kids are small enough to have entirely skipped the study I'm referring to). -
presumably differences in education levels of 7-year-old middle class kids are small enough to have entirely skipped the study I'm referring to
Terrible presumption. The early years of development are thought (and to some extent, known) to be highly important for cognitive development. 7 years old is after a large bulk of this cognitive development. In addition, as I said earlier, it is not known what IQ tests measure (other than the ability to take IQ tests), so trying to decide how and if IQ is subject to selective pressure is an exercise in futility until the ability to take IQ tests becomes a survival factor.
First you need to show that these traits are becoming more common. Just claiming that logically they should isn't enough
Ridiculous. Given that you acknowledge evolution, then all I need to show is that the reproductive success of people with these traits has increased over time; it can then be inferred that the frequency of the allele(s) involved will increase in the population.
While I don't have the reproduction or allelic/phenotypic frequencies at hand (I am currently at home, not work), I can give statistics for hemophilia that strongly suggest that their reproductive success has increased as a function of time. From http://www.accredohealth.net/hhs/bleeding_disorders/hemophilia_stats.html
Average Life Expectancy For People With Hemophilia
Prior to World War II 11 years old
Prior to 1968 20 years old
1968 less than 40 years old
1983 64 years
1988 40 years (decrease due to impact of AIDS on community)
1999 normal life span
Now, given that in the course of about 60-70 years, the average life expectency has increased from pre-pubescent to a normal life-span, it is not a stretch to assume that the reproductive success of hemophiliacs has increased dramatically due to societal factors. From such an assumption, one can infer that the allelic frequency of hemophilia has increased very substantially over the last 70 years. As such, the selective pressure against hemophilia has been abrogated to a large extent. There are numerous other examples of similar diseases/disorders with genetic factors that are no longer selected against as strongly. So, my question stands.#: Posted by on 08/30 at 08:58 AM -
Ridiculous. Given that you acknowledge evolution, then all I need to show is that the reproductive success of people with these traits has increased over time; it can then be inferred that the frequency of the allele(s) involved will increase in the population.
It's not so clear. Stephen J. Gould railed against precisely this attitude of presuming that something is adaptive without evidence, and he wasn't exactly a creationist. For the hemophilia example, it's possible that although the life expectancy of hemophiliacs has increased, women's willingness to abort hemophiliac fetuses has countered that. Alternatively, we can use the fact that hemophiliacs' life expectancy is increasing to argue that hemophilia is no longer maladaptive because of medical treatment, and therefore there's no reason to get up about a possible increase in the frequency of the hemophilia-causing allele. -
To quote Shygetz, Ridiculous!
The obvious explanation is that IQ is very strongly genetically inheritable, but certain environmental effects associated with poverty can reduce it.
My parents were very very poor. During the war, my father was a slave in the Bor copper mines and later worked as laborer in a construction block factory. Little to eat for many years. My mother still lives from social security. They didn't finish high school. Should I worry about DNA damage?#: Posted by on 08/30 at 11:45 AM -
For the hemophilia example, it's possible that although the life expectancy of hemophiliacs has increased, women's willingness to abort hemophiliac fetuses has countered that.
In order to believe that, you must believe that the frequency of a woman carrying a hemophiliac fetus who elects to have an abortion is equal to the frequency of hemophiliacs having children prior to WW2. As a large majority of women do not have an amniocentesis or other fetal genetic testing, this is impossible. The allelic frequency of hemophilia (and a large number of other disorders) is increasing.
And the fact that hemophilia (and other diseases) are not maladaptive in the current environment is completely my point! The lack of selective pressure on hemophiliacs is due to our manipulation of the environment. Even in the current environment, it is a maladaptive trait that requires significant resources to treat; it is just not maladaptive enough (given our abundance of resources) to eliminate the allele. My point is that, given the probability of a catastrophe that will disrupt society occuring at some point, is it a wise decision to allow the accumulation of so many maladaptive alleles that require significant resources to alleviate, given that these resources will not always be available?#: Posted by on 08/30 at 12:52 PM -
For low SES people the heritability drops to 0.1 because of environmental problems such as racism and lack of linguistic stimulation, but still there is an underlying genetic capacity with heritability of 0.72 because acquired traits are not genetically inherited.
The underlying genetic capacity is completely unrelated to environmental effects. The environmental effects associated with poverty reduce the actual IQ, not the genetic capacity.
By the way, Down Syndrome is a good counterexample for Shygetz's argument, because although the life expectancy of people suffering from it has dramatically increased, prenatal diagnosis has led to a very high rate of abortion of fetuses with trisomy, so the prevalence of the disorder in the population is lower than it was in the past. -
My point is that, given the probability of a catastrophe that will disrupt society occuring at some point, is it a wise decision to allow the accumulation of so many maladaptive alleles that require significant resources to alleviate, given that these resources will not always be available?
That probability is so vanishingly low that we need not worry about it. In any case, if suddenly some trait becomes maladaptive again, it will disappear on its own because of Darwinian evolution. For example, if HIV mutates to a virus that combines AIDS's difficulty of treatment with the virulence of the bubonic plague, then we'll naturally see the frequency of the allele conferring immunity to both HIV and the bubonic plague skyrocket. -
By the way, Down Syndrome is a good counterexample for Shygetz's argument, because although the life expectancy of people suffering from it has dramatically increased, prenatal diagnosis has led to a very high rate of abortion of fetuses with trisomy, so the prevalence of the disorder in the population is lower than it was in the past.
This in no way invalidates my point. I did not say that we can treat every genetic malady. Only that the fact that we can treat many of them has led to their increasing frequency in the population, to the detriment of our genetic fitness. And the reproductive success of Down's syndrome victims has neither risen nor fallen; it remains about zero.
That probability global catastrophe is so vanishingly low that we need not worry about it.
Given enough time, the probability approaches one, as with any possible event. What should be done about it? Should we allow maladaptations to accumulate just because we presently have the resources to deal with them?
The underlying genetic capacity is completely unrelated to environmental effects. The environmental effects associated with poverty reduce the actual IQ, not the genetic capacity.
Pointless argument. Of course, by definition, the genetic component of any trait is unaffected by environment. But the heritability of a trait as heavily affected by environment and as amorphous as IQ cannot be reliably determined. The fact is, no one can quantitate how much IQ is affected by environment. IQ measurements cannot be reproduced, as you cannot give the same subject the same test and get the same result (known as the practice effect in cognitive testing). The community cannot agree on the presence of bias in the test towards different cultures. The genetic components of IQ are unknown, as are the environemntal components. The actual adaptive effect of IQ is not known. IQ is a terrible quantitative trait for genetic analysis. One would be better measuring height or blood pH or something more readily quantitated.#: Posted by on 08/30 at 02:48 PM -
given the probability of a catastrophe that will disrupt society occuring at some point, is it a wise decision to allow the accumulation of so many maladaptive alleles?
There are no old questions, only young people. For a newborn, all questions are new. So, are we going to start debating eugenics?Or maybe it's an example of absurdist British humor...? (The title of this thread).#: Posted by on 08/30 at 10:23 PM -
<blockquote>So, are we going to start debating eugenics?(/blockquote>
I think that would be a bad idea for many reasons. First of all, as you (perhaps unintentionally) pointed out, human eugenics has a bad history and terrible PR. But, it is also a terribly inefficient and, historically, amoral way to do things.
I am thinking about germ line gene therapy, not eugenics. And I think that it is a topic that should be debated (although perhaps not in this thread). My original point in the context of this thread is that, while evolution for humans has not stopped, it has been drastically effected by our ubiquitous alteration of our environment, making us highly dependent on an artificial environment that requires abundant resources to maintain.#: Posted by on 08/31 at 05:27 AM