Skip to content

evolution

November 9, 2012

***********************************************

In yesterday’s Evening Standard (I do read other papers sometimes, see?), in a review by Alex Renton of Bee Wilson’s book Consider the Fork: A History of Invention in the Kitchen, I came across the following: ‘There’s the startling theory that cutlery has changed the shape of the human face, the deep overbite of the Chinese having evolved to help chopsticks into the mouth. Our overbites are smaller, because it wasn’t until 1,000 years later that we deployed knives and forks. And in some primitive societies, front teeth still meet edge to edge.’

If true, this theory certainly would be startling. It would blow Darwinian evolution out of the water. In the first place, the timescale of a thousand years doesn’t seem long enough for such a change in a human population, though of course evolutionary changes can occur rapidly with fast-breeding species like moths or bacteria. But leaving that aside, the more important problem with this theory is that there doesn’t seem to be any mechanism by which evolution could have taken place. Natural selection is not a candidate for the job here: Bee Wilson surely isn’t suggesting that Chinese people with insufficient overbite were unable to get any food into their mouths with chopsticks, and rather than use their hands the old-fashioned way simply starved to death, before they could have any offspring and pass on the no-overbite gene?

No alternative mechanism is proposed, but the theory seems to presuppose a teleological notion of evolution: an evolution with purpose, that wants to help us out. The giveaway word is to: ‘the deep overbite of the Chinese having evolved to help chopsticks into the mouth.’ Thus evolution kindly, magically arranges for the shape of the Chinese skull to change, just to make their mealtimes easier. It’s a sweet idea. But it’s a fantasy that has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

I haven’t read Bee Wilson’s book, only the review, so it’s possible that Renton didn’t report her views accurately. But whoever’s mistake it was, it shows the danger of using scientific terms without properly understanding them.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. Albert Sterenborg permalink

    In this case I would like to bring my theory about the development of the human brains. I is not that the brains did grow because of the increasing skills of the human. It was because there was room for it. Thanks to the necessary growth of the skull. The first law of nature, filling a nice market. I can explain it if you like but my English is not so very good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: