Every so often it is important to update your opinions. Yesterday, I began to write a post about how Human evolution was very near to non-existent when I realized how wrong I was. I developed that opinion a long time ago when I realized that humans had pretty much cut out one of the most important components of evolution, natural selection. Human technology has ensured than most of us live to pass on our genes.
As I was writing that article I realized that that opinion was formed years ago and since then I've learned a lot more about the processes of evolution. So when I got all fired up to write after a reading an article where scientists expressed their "discovery" that human brains were evolving very slowly, I set off down the wrong path. Quite recently some scientist or other announced how we were actively in the process of bifurcating the human family tree into beautiful people and troglodytes. This is occurring through preferential selection. That is to say, beautiful people seek other beautiful people to be their mates and the rest are, well, the rest. This is similar to what happens when populations become split by geography and what was one becomes two over time.
That was just for completeness. The real story, here, is that there were two complete and contradictory opinions sitting in my little brain and only through happenstance did I discover that on my own. In other situations, I'd always have to have someone else point out how wrong I was. So the question I have now, is, how many more of these examples of cognitive dissonance lie undiscovered. It would be so nice to be able to press a button and automatically have all your opinions updated to reflect the best knowledge you have or, at least, flag your opinions for review.
I set about re-writing the post, but I ran out of time and the original premise turned out to be not so interesting after I figured out it was wrong. So I missed a day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is occurring through preferential selection.
Technically, sexual selection.
Not just beautiful people. Smart people tend to couple more preferentially, as do artistic people, as do athletic people...
The thing that screws that whole theory however is the curious fact that sometimes two wrongs do make a right. Two very ugly people can have their genes mix to produce very attractive offspring. Likewise, two beautiful people can have quite hideous progeny, two jocks can yield a fat kid, two intellectuals can have an idiot, and two artists can end up with a lawyer... which only goes to show that not all evolutionary branches are for the good of the species.
I don't think we have to worry about waves in the gene pool just yet. However, your original premise is still wrong... evolution is an unstoppable force. It is also an unpredictable force. We are unable to observe the selective pressures that will ultimately affect future generations millions of years from now... assuming we are allowed by nature to procreate for that long...
After I finally went to bed I thought of a few more reasons why your new theory of sexual selection in humans is just as flawed as your old theory of no selection.
(1) Atttractiveness is only in small part attributable to genetics. It's more a factor of lifestyle.
(2) Beauty is not a vector. The attributes that people find attractive today don't follow from those attributes that were desirable a few centuries ago. If they did, then the beautiful class would evolve into plastic stick people.
(3) Consider ten people that you find attractive right now. What attributes do they have in common? Do they have the same hair color? Eye color? Do they all have the same build? I suspect not and ask 10 people about their 10 people and the answers will vary wildly. Even though we may all agree (today) what is generally attractive, the variance for the optimum is still quite wide.
(4) Finally, consider the Peacock. Often held up as the poster child for sexual selection. But I ask you is it the male that is selected for his bright plumage or the female that is selected for her predeliction for bright plumage?
ANSWER: It necessarily is both. Similarly if we are to buy in to your theory of sexual selection we would need to agree that people are genetically predispositioned to select beautiful mates, but in reality that's probably more a cultural bias. In the words of Dawkins memetics not genetics.
It is not my theory. I am not, by any means sure that it is correct. In fact, I find it suspicious.
What I am sure of is that there are more mechanisms to evolution than simple "survival of the fittest" and that invalidated my original opinion. These mechanisms could easily lead to human evolution.
Sorry, I thought you agreed with the theory. I get your point now and agree completely. There are undoubtedly many selection criteria in addition to fitness & aesthetics.
In addition, there is the concept of random genetic drift. Without any selection mechanism at all, evolution still occurs.
Post a Comment