Looks like that claim that `evolution has ceased' was a science fraud - maybe meant to please the rich. It's countered by the research results above, and some logical examples:-
i) - Humans continue to adapt to an environmental change: increasing day length. *01
Young and elderly humans have primitive `short day' sleep patterns. Even average adults struggle to synchronize with our ever-lengthening day. *02 Evolutionary processes are slow. We've only recently adapted to the day-length of perhaps a million years ago. *03
[the `perfect' period-ratio for modern humans, adult and infant, is about 7 - 9 hours of activity, followed by 3 - 4 hours of sleep. This can be observed in warm and hot countries today.
However, since the onset of farming-slavery & warfare, many humans in cooler places have been forcing themselves to miss a period of rest so as to use the daylight which has become available.
If tested without cues (ie. no daylight) people will revert to the `perfect' ratio if physically active, or up to double that if sedentary]
That particular environmental change - of day length - is continuing, *02 therefore that evolutionary process must also continue.
ii) - Humans' mating and reproduction cycle has kept in synch with the Moon: whereas most other mammals of similar size and habits have lost synch (ceased cycle evolution) way back when the `moon' was only 21 days long. See our examination of `estrus' and `rut'. *04
iii) - Other changes are continually happening in our societies. Noticeably, our different languages - always changing and adapting to society's needs - seem to be differently affecting ongoing mutations in our brains - here's the Wiki refs for Chinese (tonal), and EuroAsian (non-tonal), and here's a recent summary.
We can see that other social changes are similarly going to be affecting our genes. I.e. would our great-great-great-grandparents find today's social environment comfortable? Or even bearable?
No organism can choose whether or not change will affect it. *05
So humans still evolve and will do so long as there's any environmental change, social or otherwise: that is, so long as life exists. That's because, like in physics (thermodynamics), evolution cannot cease until humans are in equilibrium with all of their environment, and the total environment had ceased to change - which would require complete stasis.
Complete stasis is impossible in a universe containing matter and life. *06
Theses of fake `academics'
Academics, currying favour with elites, said `Survival of the Fittest' gives advantage to - and therefore justifies - the greedy and ruthless elites of this world. This concept is often called `Neo-Darwinism' or `Social Darwinism'.*07
So the academics had to forecast humanity becoming greedier and more ruthless - like the elites.
But that doesn't happen. So now fake academics try to save face by claiming that `evolution has ceased'.
From Stephen Jay Gould's `Chance Riches' - Natural History Magazine -
"Techniques for measuring the amount of genetic variation in natural populations have been available only for the past fifteen years. Their first and primary result came as a surpise to many geneticists: most populations maintain too much variation to support the ususal claim that all genes are scutinized by natural selection"
I.e. Darwinian `natural selection' wasn't the sole agent or arbiter of past and future evolution. So what is? - Check `Altruist Survivor' pages: genes1.html to genes8b; or the overview & forecasts at genes8a; and maybe the RETRIBUTION series for consequences of arrogance in `scientists'.
Here's an example of how evolution _must_ continue, even in an apparently static environment:
"Can a Creature Ever be 'Perfect'? Bacteria Mutating Since 1988 Still Improving in Simple Environment" - video version - [text version]
You can see the fake academics' ignore facts. For instance, car drivers kill ordinary children 500% more often in Britain, while the elite are protected. That is, the offspring of rich people are five times more sheltered than the rest of the population's children - at 29 February 2000.
That's a direct evolutionary pressure. An example of indirect or secondary evolutionary pressures is the invention of the bicycle (and later air travel) affecting not `survival to mating' but the geographical location, and therefore the genetic diversity, of potential mates - a vitally important factor described by H.G Wells, and coincidentally, recently by a Professor Jones.
Such factors impact fully on working populations and the poor - while affluent / elite are shielded or unaffected. You can search for `mobility / poverty / deathrate' etc - there's a typical example at evol2. These are evolutionary pressures, and there's many more of them, some not even identified yet.
Long-term evolutionary consequences are outlined in the `Altruist Survivor' principle *08 and should be obvious by now, even to learned professors.
The elite's academics are now in a quandary. They could stick with the neo-darwinist interpretation of "Survival of the Fittest", necessarily admitting that selfish elites cause poverty, malnutrition and death of ordinary people while ensuring protection and privilege to the elite - as happens even in the West.
The academics would then have to forecast that all humanity was becoming more greedy, selfish and ruthless. For that would be the expected outcome of the simplistic `Survival of the Fittest' thesis of social Darwinists. *07
However, it can be seen that - due to those evolutionary pressures - humanity is continuing to evolve towards co-operation and even altruism. More evidence is at Violence page]
Now the academics' latest ploy is to say that `Evolution has ceased' - claiming that the affluent West gives equal survival to mating - although, from all above, that claim is clearly untrue.
(`Survival to mating' is now claimed by some academics to be the sole evolutionary mechanism.)
Both these claims are rubbish, shown by all above and by Altruist Survvivor pages and links.
Ongoing evolution shapes our reactions to life's problems: situations.
We know, if only instinctively, that life's results - evolution - depend on many outcomes of the ways we choose to live our lives.
1) mating choices - which themselves derive from many factors: what part of society we live in and feel at home in; what groups we move in and feel at home with; what levels of income we feel we need or can abandon;
2) life opportunities, interwoven with mating choices - which derive from family wealth, privilege, education and any traits of greed or ruthlessness;
3) genetic inheritance - again interwoven with 1) and 2); a descendant of an earlier elite is more likely to have negative genetic traits - seen as physical or intellectual `ugliness' (see below);
4) serendipities - chance mutations, chance adaptations [as we saw above, most actual evolutionary changes are due to chance ("contingency" - Gould) or to social pressures].
Horace - "Wisely, God hides future outcomes in a mist of night" - Odes
Reasons why 'life-situations' produce similar outcomes - tending towards the evolution of Altruist Survivors:-
In more corrupt, less evolved societies elites separate themselves from the rest of us by barriers that they call 'class', 'caste', 'race' - all equally false distinctions generated by selfish elitism (since all humans belong to the same species); *9 & *10
the children of the elite go to elite schools and only meet other elite children on equal grounds. Thus elite mating tends to be within that elite;
[Nb. At one time or another, in many/most elite groups it has been the habit to marry within the extended family - to preserve property and wealth. The genetic penalty is even more obvious, and damage is seen earlier.]
the education system gives high (unearned) grades to the elite *11 while marking down the more intelligent non-elite;
the elite then unfairly steal - by market rigging and by pollution of our environments *12 - from the rest of humanity, who are also much more heavily taxed; *13 - so honest, intelligent *14 humans never get to compete on equal terms with corrupt elites;
elites are then more protected - from infection and accident - by preferential medical and policing services; *15
elites will therefore tend to become incompetent, cold, greedy, and ruthless - see evidence & genes2 & authority & mail ref - all of which are non-survival traits.
Elites' choices in breeding means that elites tend to mate within smaller - more privileged - gene pools. This produces unattractive and negative genetic traits in their descendants. (see all above).
Elites' choices of financial, physical and medical privilege means that elites tend not to face adversity on equal terms with the rest of us. This also produces unattractive and negative traits in their descendants. *16
In adversity - the general human gene pool evolves towards sharing, bravery and wisdom.
In privilege - elite's gene pools degenerates into greed, cowardliness and incompetence, producing intellectual and physical ugliness in offspring.
[*Later - see `adversity v. privilege' in Britain today. - *17]
From philosopher George Carlin:
"You never see a 'SHIT HAPPENS' bumper sticker on a Rolls Royce"
So that a few can have privilege - a billion are starved and billions more are oppressed; even though the world has food enough and space enough for all.
This is needful. We must be perpetually reminded of the greed and brutality of the selfish few - to know them for what they are.
Real humans do not then choose to live with them or mate with them.
So the greedy (and brutal) tend always to mate within their elites, becoming colder and uglier, on the road to extinction.
Links - see
Self & World War & Altruist Survivor & Pauline Heresy
Also Professor Lynn Margulis' hypotheses.