It seems to me that social class could be important, since wealth can provide a lifestyle which leads to somewhat reduced infant and childhood mortality. If selected factors lead to wealth, as Gregory Clark hypothesizes, then that could work. Another trait that might be selected for is a sheer desire to have kids — at least, in times when this was often a matter of choice.

Maybe I’m just thinking too much of sexual selection in terms of “the right tail of the funny/smart/sexy bell curve has great reproductive success,” rather than “the left tail gets cut off,” where the most inept/unattractive people don’t find mates even among each other. Over time, though, I suppose the effect would be the same.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration/accel_story_2007.html

True, but the study doesn’t say there has merely been faster evolution (in the sense of genetic change over time), but faster positive adaptation, meaning the emergence and spread of traits that enhance survival and reproduction.

“but it seems as if pretty much anyone in this day and age can find a mate and reproduce–the number of people being “weeded out” has got to be very low, relatively, and mostly represents pruning.”

The study shows that positive adaptation has accelerated in the last 5000 years. The last 200 or so years, which is the period during which capitalist wealth plus welfare statism might possibly have made it possible for “pretty much anyone” to breed, is just a blip at the end of that 5000-year time period.

One thing that bothers me about the race/IQ story is the way we measure IQ. I remember an article about five years ago being published that claimed the way we test IQ creates results that fall along racial lines, the same way standardized tests do. It’s not that people of different races have different levels of intelligence. Instead, they have different attitudes based on their upbringing and neighborhood culture, regarding tests and whether actually trying to puruse scholarly things like IQ tests will ever do them any good. I wonder if they were to compare children of different races, but raised in the same neighborhood/culture, and then see if there were disparate results. My guess is that there would be insignificant differences.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-next-paradi.html

2. Daniel — what? Within the scientifically literate community, ‘evolution’ just means ramdon genetic mutation plus selection by virtue of death or reproductive failure — movement away from specific failures, but not towards any specific success or goal. I don’t think anyone here interprets ‘evolution’ to mean ‘progress,’ which seems to be what you’re concerned about. Outside the scientifically literate community, I think most people who don’t actively reject evolution regard it as a neat device invented by God. This raises an interesting question, though — if evolution is working faster, do ‘intelligent design’ theorists believe we are being pushed closer and closer to the ultimate state of humanity God has in mind? In other words, is this a sign of the apocalypse?

3. One of the geneticists commenting in the BBC article espouses exactly the ‘cruder view’ of evolution you mention, noting that since survival-selection pressures have eased, we should expect to see that evolution is now slowing down dramatically, at least until the arms race with the microbes starts. I am probably not qualified to comment on whether your mate-selection theory is plausible, but it’s worth noting that one of the recent and widespread changes the article mentions is fair skin and blue eyes in Northern Europe, traits that are believed to be linked to mate-selection (rather than survival-selection) in cold climates.

4. ‘The Supermodel Peacocks’ = good name for an ironic post-punk band?

I’m not anywhere near as pessimistic as Mike Judge (the movie Idiocracy really NEEDED to be referenced in this discussion. I was just here to make it happen.) but it seems as if pretty much anyone in this day and age can find a mate and reproduce–the number of people being “weeded out” has got to be very low, relatively, and mostly represents pruning.

But then, I’m talking about something else… I once read Christopher Hitchens say that he had hope for evolution to be an advancing force in the world; this struck me as actually kind of poignantly naive for such a truculent firebrand. In other words, it seems wrong to think that the force that brought us from just another ape to sentient human will continue its trajectory.

When the researchers in that story talk about evolution what they are really commenting on is the growing variety and changing nature of our genes–which, seems to me, probably has more to do with, I don’t know, the population than anything else.