Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

First phrase of just the second sentence:

Despite the long-held view that natural selection has ceased to affect humans because almost everybody now lives long enough to have children

Uh, what? Do people actually think that?




Well, A 2006 report on global mortality rates [1] suggests that regardless of country, the average human does reach sexual maturity. It follows that fitness, amongst humans, isn't significantly affected by survival / longevity. After all, if we live to reproduce, then anything that sets in after that event is irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint.

I could see that reasoning giving rise to the phrasing used in the article.

[1]: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006_mortality.pdf


After all, if we live to reproduce, then anything that sets in after that event is irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint.

I imagine there are some people who reason that way, but they'd be ignoring the obvious survival benefits of having parents (and extended family) to help raise a child.


It doesn't follow that we aren't still evolving, only that there isn't sufficient selection pressure to push evolution in a particular direction. We're still evolving, just randomly in all directions. We're stocking up on mutations for the next round of selection pressure nature throws at us.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: