uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20081 … 23e80.html
Gotta love scientists. Paragons of virtue, guardians of knowledge.
Talkers of absolute bullshit.
I would have to agree with you. Not that I am a genetic scientist but, it seems to me he is leving out some things in his musings. He is only working with one section, that is all he sees.
I hate fucking idiots, literally.
Screw him, somebody fire his ass and give me the job.
So fuck clever people instead.
Woot woot! I’ve even managed to get Tab on the bandwagon.
Thank you, SIATD.
This is what I mean by no ‘progress’. Scientists are complete hypocrites. If there is no course to evolution, then why the fuck do they shout “we’re progressing”, or “we’ve come to our final stage of evolution- we’re perfect beings!”
Living matter always adapts to environment. When civilization collapses we don’t become ‘unevolved’; we simply change.
Modern civilization is not a better form of evolution; it’s merely a form and is subject to rise and fall.
Ancient Romans thought they were the shit too.
Perhaps if anybody on this thread had any credentials in the field of genetics, I’d be more apt to trust in their criticisms.
I’m not saying the article is right, but the hubris in this thread as people spout their own opinions over that of a genetics expert is laughable.
Stop taking other people’s authority for granted and maybe you’ll attain some yourself.
One doesn’t attain authority by criticising an expert, when one has no expertise himself.
Prof Jones, from the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London, believes the mechanisms of evolution are winding down in the human race.
K: UMM, in some parts yes, in some parts no.
Prof Jones said there were three components to evolution - natural selection, mutation and random change.
K: yes, those are the three parts of evolution.
Prof:In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of twenty. Now, in the Western world, 98% of them are surviving to the age of 21. Our life expectancy is now so good that eliminating all accidents and infectious diseases would only raise it by a further two years. Natural selection no longer has death as a handy tool."
K: which is not to say, natural selection doesn’t work anymore, it does work, just differently.
Prof: Mutation rate was also slowing down, he said. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could cause genetic changes, one of the most important mutation triggers was advanced age in men. “Perhaps surprisingly, the age of reproduction has gone down - the mean age of male reproduction means that most conceive no children after the age of 35,” said Prof Jones. “Fewer older fathers means that if anything, mutation is going down.”
K: don’t know about this one, if anything, I would think mutation rate is increasing. We have a greater rate of autism and of having twins
more than ever before.
Prof: Random alterations to the human genetic blueprint were also less likely in a world that had become an ethnic melting pot, according to Prof Jones.
K: Don’t see that one either. Random alterations is still random alterations regardless of the mix.
PRof: He said: "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now - about the size of the population of Glasgow.
K: Doubt that one too. We have millions of birds, and millions of other animals on the planet earth which suggest we should have more then a half a million.
Prof: “Small populations which are isolated can change - evolve - at random as genes are accidentally lost. Worldwide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. Almost everywhere, inbreeding is becoming less common. In Britain, one marriage in fifty or so is between members of a different ethnic group, and the country is one of the most sexually open in the world. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown.”
K: Not sure how the bottom statements jive with the top statements. Evolution is truly made within the bed. It is just random change in the genes
that occur during the mixing of the male genes and females genes, meiosis, I believed its called.
Prof: He added: “So, if you are worried about what utopia is going to be like, don’t; at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you are living in it now.”
K: The problem is the word, Utopia, it can mean nothing or everything.
Kropotkin
Expertise is gobshite. Nothing more than letters after your name. Experts are deceived all the time, get things wrong all the time, make mistakes all the time.
Fact is, this expert disagrees with what most other comparable experts say on the same topic.
Which means being an expert per se does not add weight to what you’re claiming.
But by all means, keep those fallacious arguments coming. After all, you’re the one claiming to have reason on your side.
Who would argue that experts aren’t wrong sometimes? People make mistakes, and experts are people; therefore, experts make mistakes. Capice?
Why is it, in the same breath, you discredit experts, and then justify your position by appealing to authority? Why lord, WHY?!
As I’ve said plainly in my first post, I’m not saying this genetic scientist is wrong or right, but at least have the humility to say, “I don’t know,” instead of simply dismissing his claims based on…well, based on nothing, because I don’t think you’re a genetic expert.
Will a degree in Human Biology and a shelf-full of books on evolution and genetics do…? I think Xunzian is similarly if not more qualified than myself. Prof. Jones was soundbyting for the press in the worst fashion.
Hell, even a consensus amongst experts would do. But if you, and a slew of other experts in the field disagreed with him, then yes, I’d have to go with the expert consensus.
I’d prefer to hear more specific explanations with empirical evidence that dispute the claims made in the article, as opposed to the early responses to the thread.
Thank you, Peter, for your thoughtful breakdown.
Well, you can go and read the last few posts of “Sexual amorality” in essays if you like, or google epigenetics and behavioural evolution or niche creation. That should start you off.
There’s more to inheritance than just DNA, and certainly more to evolution than ‘random mutation’.
Actually on second thoughts, I think SIATD is actually making this shit up just to piss me off.
Tabula Rasa: There’s more to inheritance than just DNA, and certainly more to evolution than ‘random mutation’.
K: well, duh.
Tab: Actually on second thoughts, I think SIATD is actually making this shit up just to piss me off."
K: Then don’t ever say SIATD doesn’t have a successful post. It seems to be working here. 
Kropotkin
You know, it’s not nice to kick a man in the gonads after he’s already fallen flat on his face. 
SIATD rules I suck.
There I said it.
I don’t see what the deal is. We’ve known that humans have been approaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for quite some time. I doubt we’ll ever fully reach it since there are still some selective pressures even in the first world. Why that should be a bad thing is another question, and one that the good Professor doesn’t really get into. Sure, things like eyesight will probably keep getting worse, but so what? We have plenty of ways to correct for that.
Weiner burger sour krotch can say what e’wants, civilization isn’t necessarily permanent and subject to change, as with science and technology, which could be dead arts in 1,000 years.
It’s the fucking nazis who are the pro technocrats, and they just come in with their bull propaganda to make themselves look smart.