I wondered if this could be called a proper expression of evolution. I have read and been informed that until around about the mid 1700's the average height of people in the west was around 4ft 8 inches. With better nutrition and healthcare people now average somewhere just under 6ft tall I believe or around 6 ft anyway So can that be called an evolutionary step? is it just physical attributes that count as evolutionary?
I am not really sure that this could be called evolution. Evolution involves a change in the gene frequencies in a population which in turn relys upon natural selection. Based on what you have said, it doesn't sound like tall people are actually having any differential reproductive success. It sound more like the environment is playing a role in phenotype expression, but I could be wrong.
I've read that changes in height within a society over time are usually a result of nutrition and a pollution free environment. The worldwide average of height has gone up and down throughout the years; it hasn't been a steady progression. I also don't believe we were ever that short on average. I think about 5'6" or 5'7" is more accurate for mid 1700's.
well there are and have been in the past isolated groups that are very short, such as the pygmie tribes in africa and the negrito people in SE asia. one could make an argument that their isolation from other groups to breed with and the better mobility of being small in the jungle could be evidence of evolution, or a lack of evolution because it is not needed.
Dont think we have to worry about that, Gardener. You've heard about all the storys of college basketball players play for colleges for 4 year. Get their degree and go NBA, and still cant read....
I think it's a little bit of evolution mixed in with a lot of growth hormones and preservatives in our food. There is a lot of junk added to food - unless you buy organic. They add dye to everything from meat to oranges to make it more "appealing" to folks who don't want to realize that pack of ground beef comes from a cow. That and we realize that eating a well-rounded diet helps us grow to our full potential.
You have totally misunderstood what evolution is dude, evolution produces neither advancem,ent nor regression, but merely adapts to its environment. So height is actually an evolutionary indicator because there was a time when no horse measured higher than a modern day fox, their height increased over time to suit their environment. It wasnt a progression just a factor of environmental provision. Infact during the 15th and 16th centuries in Britain the average height was about 5ft 3inches its the reason why on old cottages and other buildings the doors seem so small compared to todays doors
The size of organisms can vary tremendously based on environmental factors. With better nutrition and better health care, our bodies are not as constrained to growth. For instance, two plants, grown from the same seed packet, can vary in size based solely on, say, fertilizer.
Piney, well said. But at first, I thought your screenname said Pliny, and I was about to ask "The Elder or the Younger".
that doesnt make sense to me...i figure with the worlds population booming we'd all be shorter to better suit our environment, but whatever, i never liked science anyway
Changes in stature aren't made to suit ecosystems, but rather to improve evolutionary fitness. That would be great though, if we could release safe-ish chemicals into the environment to make humans smaller and thus decrease their resource consumption, but without having adverse effects on the rest of the biosphere.
I have read that the human brain is getting larger. I dont remember, but since then I have been interested in evolution so...its definitely something going on
