Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   changes in modern man
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 1 of 69 (272963)
12-26-2005 6:51 PM


in this post over here i suggested we start a thread documenting the changes in modern humans since the beginning of recorded history.
so here we go.
give me population details. heights, weights, brain size, intellectual capabilities. whatever. i want the yecish to prove that we're precisely the same as we were in 1500bc and the non yecish to show me how we aren't. i'm not necessarily talking about massive shifts, just small shifts that could be enough to eventually lead to speciation. geographic, environmental, sex-selection, whatever.
once again, i'm going to be acting as a facilitator and not an participant. i'm too tired for this.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-26-2005 06:53 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 12-26-2005 11:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 12 by Speel-yi, posted 02-08-2006 11:50 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 13 by MissCurious, posted 03-22-2007 12:48 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2007 6:11 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 29 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:06 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 69 (272985)
12-26-2005 7:15 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 69 (273066)
12-26-2005 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
12-26-2005 6:51 PM


Yeah this should be good. I've heard that there are transitional fossils that are without controversy.
Of course, I can easily say that they may just be climate/geography adapted, not necessarily inhuman.

"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-26-2005 6:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2005 1:06 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 69 (273229)
12-27-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
12-26-2005 11:24 PM


no no. i mean specifically modern humans within the range of recorded history. this isn't about pre-human transition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 12-26-2005 11:24 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-27-2005 1:50 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 5 of 69 (273236)
12-27-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by macaroniandcheese
12-27-2005 1:06 PM


I edited this to include more relevant information:
"In the late 1700s, for example, American-born colonialists made good use of their sparsely populated, protein-rich environment to become taller than their European contemporaries: average height was five foot eight for American men, judging from military and prison records. That was nearly two inches taller than the average British soldier. Just decades later, however, a strange stunting started to occur that researchers don't fully understand. American incomes rose from the early to mid-1800s, but that didn't equate to better living conditions. As Americans became richer -- as a group anyway -- they also shrank.
By the early 1900s, Americans were again among the world's tallest people. But now measurers are starting to detect another mysterious levelling off. At an average of five foot ten, American-born men from the 1970s are not much taller than their great-grandfathers. So much for the modern diet.
Canada, however, is still shooting upward. At just over five foot eleven, the average Canadian-born male from the 1970s stands nearly an inch taller than his American counterpart. And while it's nice to be taller than our well-fed neighbours, we still trail the Netherlands, whose citizens are now considered the tallest in the world. Starting in the 1840s, the Dutch began growing from generation to generation, to the point where just over six feet is average for men in their 20s and 30s."
Macleans.ca - Canada's magazine since 1905
It seems that heights are continuing to change, but we can't pin it down to just one factor.. Nutrition, medicine, health and genetics may all play a role.
Another interesting passage:
"A low point in human stature, notes Komlos, was during a very cold period in the 17th century. It was also a century of political crisis, marked by the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants, which ravaged much of Western Europe. "I think a lot of that political upheaval had to do with the bad climate," speculates Komlos. "It meant agricultural productivity was down, and it was more difficult for people to feed themselves." Frenchmen, for example, averaged five foot three during that period, while women were about three inches shorter. When that data is compared with Steckel's findings from late-Medieval Europe, a remarkable trend emerges. Komlos's growth-stunted French were much shorter than Europeans who lived before the so-called little ice age of the 17th century and before cities -- efficient incubators of disease -- began to appear. Northern Europeans, in fact, shrank from a peak average height of just over five foot eight in the 11th century to five foot five and change in the 17th. It took generations before they would grow again.
One intriguing new finding is that the elites of Europe, Asia and Africa now actually all stand about the same height, roughly five foot ten to six foot, according to Steckel. What's different are the paths through history those groups took to achieve that stature. And what the experts don't know, of course, is how tall humans can or should be."
This message has been edited by Mini_Ditka, 12-27-2005 02:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2005 1:06 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2005 1:51 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 6 of 69 (273239)
12-27-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-27-2005 1:50 PM


don't just put the links in. quote the relevant information. it's part of the forum rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-27-2005 1:50 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-27-2005 2:02 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 7 of 69 (273242)
12-27-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by macaroniandcheese
12-27-2005 1:51 PM


Thanks for the tip! I'm new here and I certainly appreciate any pointers and advice...
Is there a section that explains how to quote references and previous messages using some type of standard "good form"?
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2005 1:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminNWR, posted 12-27-2005 2:07 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2005 2:10 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 10 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-27-2005 2:14 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 69 (273243)
12-27-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-27-2005 2:02 PM


Quoting
You can quote with
[qs]text to be quoted[/qs]
which shows up as
text to be quoted
For various other options, click on "dBCodes On (help)" which appears next to the edit box. You can also use the "Peek" button to see the raw text of another message (to see how somebody got the effect you are seeing).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-27-2005 2:02 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 69 (273245)
12-27-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-27-2005 2:02 PM


the rules are here
clickie
or at the rules link at the top of this page.
also, check out the practice makes perfect forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-27-2005 2:02 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 10 of 69 (273246)
12-27-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-27-2005 2:02 PM


Posting tips (yes anothe off-topic moderator message)
When you open a new message creation window, there are HTML and dBCode help links to the left. You may also wish to check out some of the links in the various admin's "signatures".
Probably the best and easiest way to learn "how it's done" is to use "Peek" at the bottom of messages in which you see some "trick" being used. This brings up a new window (or tab if your browser permits and you choose) that contains the raw text of the message, including the coding "tricks".
For example, use "Peek" to see the following:
quote:
Moose says
Moose says
Moose writes:
Moose says
Bold
Italics
Smaller text size
Larger text size
Small bold text
etc.
Please use formatting tastefully. Too much is also a bad thing. Use the "Preview" button to see the results before posting. Bad dBCode will be highlighted in red.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-27-2005 2:02 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2005 7:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 11 of 69 (273334)
12-27-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Adminnemooseus
12-27-2005 2:14 PM


Re: Posting tips (yes anothe off-topic moderator message)
i tried.
call me mini-moose the underground mod.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-27-2005 2:14 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Speel-yi
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 69 (285110)
02-08-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
12-26-2005 6:51 PM


The smoking guns here are diseases associated with agriculture. Most notable would be sickle-cell aneamia and G6PD deficiency (favaism). Both conditions are protection against malaria, which is increased by agricultural practices.
Next most notable would be cystic fibrosis which in a heterzygous condition will protect against cholera.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-26-2005 6:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-22-2007 1:08 PM Speel-yi has not replied

  
MissCurious
Junior Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 03-22-2007


Message 13 of 69 (390876)
03-22-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
12-26-2005 6:51 PM


I have to say we have changed sence the earlier times... I cannot possibly give you dates, and graphs without years of studying just this question, but think about it. In the beginning of time, people were really just like animals, then they began to wear clothes, eat with a fork, and "evolve". Today we drive cars, attend school, and are "domesticated". We have definitely evolved from the time of driving horse drawn wagons, to today...but be it better or worse would need another discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-26-2005 6:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-22-2007 1:12 PM MissCurious has not replied
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2007 1:30 PM MissCurious has not replied
 Message 22 by Northern20, posted 04-19-2007 6:32 PM MissCurious has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 14 of 69 (390881)
03-22-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Speel-yi
02-08-2006 11:50 PM


wow. someone resurrected this thread.
very good points.
i'd like to also bring up the massive size change within modern man. this is partly attributable to agricultural influences, from what i understand, but may or may not be an actual 'mutation' but razther sexual selection due to preference for bigger, stronger men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Speel-yi, posted 02-08-2006 11:50 PM Speel-yi has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 69 (390883)
03-22-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MissCurious
03-22-2007 12:48 PM


this thread is not intended for "social evolution". this is to discuss real, documented physiological and morphological changes in modern man. driving a car is not a genetic trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MissCurious, posted 03-22-2007 12:48 PM MissCurious has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024