Yeah no – I don’t buy it.

Evolution happens to populations and not individuals – they’re just mutants. The term species describes two populations that are distinct and don’t breed – even if individuals can. Ligers anyone? Evolution as a process also supposes a selective pressure – so the sexy geeks example is possible as that involves selection (mate choice) within a population (geeks).

The other examples of pressures (chemicals, fast food etc..) would be better termed mutagens that create mutants ready for selective pressures to be applied to them. In humans selective pressure are basically mate choice as most other selective pressures have been eliminated (predation, starvation, parasites, disease (at least up until procreation)).

So his argument is pretty muddled to my mind.

The final point, that humans can be thought of as Homo Evolutis (beings conscious of their own genetic nature and able to affect it) is more interesting. It is certainly reality now that with technology we can affect our genes, and it may be that some will allow their germ line to be mutated as well – and that might be seen simplistically as a form of evolution – but I would think that a better term would be forking.

Forking describes a process whereby one line of code is forked and becomes incompatible with another – and this being a non-natural process applied to individuals I don’t really think the term evolution really applies – precisely because the forking process applies to individuals rather than populations. It won’t be until large groups fork their genome in the same manner and form a cohesive population that we can say that evolution has taken place. Otherwise it really is just another form of cosmetic surgery.

Still they’re interesting ideas – and ones that I consider in my own writing – which is why I have an opinion about it.

As a yes/no question, defining “different” and “species” should give you the answer. But I think that’s up to future generations.