Have humans evolved (biologically) in the last 5000 years?

[her209]

Just curious...

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

On a micro scale, sure. On a macro scale, no.

 

[isekii]

women got thinner and bigger tittays ?

 

[Looney]

I'm sure on average we're a couple of inches taller today than we were 5000 years ago. That may be more due to nutrition than genetics though.

 

[Wahsapa]

i think we got smarter...? or dumber.... no really knows...

i acutally think the taller thing is true... can't remember where i heard that tho...

we sure as hell got more organized.

 

[Schadenfroh]

not really, any thing that has improved has come because of medicine, better nutrition, advanced learning methods and civilization in general.

 

[PingSpike]

The taller thing isn't really true. It mostly based on nutrition...or rather, the fact that we eat vast quantities of food all the time which allows us to reach a higher potential. Also, much of the meat we eat is full of hormones which likely plays a role as well.

This isn't evolution though, its just the results of new influences.

In order to evolve...the weak must die, preferably early before they can reproduce. Everything we do as a society usually helps keep the weak alive. So if anything, we're devolving.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
In order to evolve...the weak must die, preferably early before they can reproduce. Everything we do as a society usually helps keep the weak alive. So if anything, we're devolving.

Not only that, but around here at least, the less favorable candidates seem to start breeding earlier and have more children that some of the more favorable candidates for the species. so yes, were fvking our species up in terms of evolution.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Hardcore
I'm sure on average we're a couple of inches taller today than we were 5000 years ago. That may be more due to nutrition than genetics though.

I don't think you understand how 'evolution' is supposed to work.

Evolution is about mating. Did you know that if you push a cow over, it can't get up on it's own power? This was not always true. We have been selectively breeding cows for so long, that all that matters is milk/meat production. We breed the best milkers with the best milkers to get a cow that provides the most milk.

Did you know that if you take a bunch of dogs and breed the ones with the smallest tails, then from the bunch of pups, you breed those with the shortest tail, and you do this over and over, eventually you will have a dog with no tail?

This is evolution.

To answer your question, yes we have evolved in the last 5000 years, but not much to our advantage. Right now, we are actually de-evolving a bit because we no longer breed the best with the best. We randomly breed, which introduces randomness to the whole mix. Bottom line, we aren't going to be evolving anytime soon.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Hardcore
I'm sure on average we're a couple of inches taller today than we were 5000 years ago. That may be more due to nutrition than genetics though.

I don't think you understand how 'evolution' is supposed to work.

Evolution is about mating. Did you know that if you push a cow over, it can't get up on it's own power? This was not always true. We have been selectively breeding cows for so long, that all that matters is milk/meat production. We breed the best milkers with the best milkers to get a cow that provides the most milk.

Did you know that if you take a bunch of dogs and breed the ones with the smallest tails, then from the bunch of pups, you breed those with the shortest tail, and you do this over and over, eventually you will have a dog with no tail?

This is evolution.

To answer your question, yes we have evolved in the last 5000 years, but not much to our advantage. Right now, we are actually de-evolving a bit because we no longer breed the best with the best. We randomly breed, which introduces randomness to the whole mix. Bottom line, we aren't going to be evolving anytime soon.

You're an idiot. That's why i said it MIGHT be more due to nutrition than genetics. But genetics could play a role. Bigger men have had it easier in life than smaller men, so they could have the better picks of mates, and could conceivably raise them easier/better. And what about inter-racial breeding?

And i suppose you've never heard of polygenetics and genetic predispositions, where certain genetic traits are only expressed/activated when other genetics and ENVIRONMENT activates them. Like some obese people would not be obese in a diet that was normal 500 years ago, but in today's diet they are.

Evolution is NOT only about mating. Mating is just one way of evolution, but it's not the only way. Survival of the fittest is another way of evolution, which includes adaptability to the environment. Food is part of our environment, and it reasons that as we eat a certain nutritional types more often, our body will adapt to it on the genetic level. For instance, Asians are generally a lot less tolerant of milk and lactate products because Asians generally don't drink milk, at least not as often as Europeans do. Over thousands of years, this has made Asians not as tolerant of milk products and made Europeans more. Same thing with alcohol. Europeans have enzymes in their liver that deal with alcohol better because at one time, alcohol was very prevalent in Europe... people drank alcohol inplace of water infact, because it was more clean. In Asia, alcohol never became as widespread, and so Asians don't have the same enzymes to deal with alcohol as Europeans do.

So if we eat a certain diet that just happens to favors growth, it stands to reason our body will adapt itself to favor that type of diet. The more we adapt to it, the more we respond well to it. And in time, the same level of nutrition will benefit the adapted genetic person a lot better than the person without the adapted genetics.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: isekii
women got thinner and bigger tittays ?

Oh, thank you God.......

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: jadinolf

Originally posted by: isekii
women got thinner and bigger tittays ?

Oh, thank you God.......

...for the invention of silicone impants and bulemia!

 

[rocadelpunk]

we don't have a use for an appendix.

 

[Eli]

Tough call. I'm going to go with "Certainly".

Evolution doesen't have to be some major physical change. I am sure some biological process is at least a little different than 5,000 years ago. That's kinda the name of the game.

Of course I don't really know though, I bet nobody does, since we don't have live humans from 5,000 years ago to study.

 

[Gurck]

In a purely physical sense, perhaps some minute changes, but nothing more. Any differences in size/health are due to nutritional changes.

 

[AFB]

Actually, from reading my history book today( ) humans have not evolved since homo sapiens first came around. The last evolution was from homo erectus to homo sapiens and was mainly a larger brain. They didn't give a reason for the lack of evolution(How the fvck would they know why), but also noted how much modern humans rely on technological answers for natures problems. So, we have simply avoided any natural selection that normally would have taken place.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Eli
Tough call. I'm going to go with "Certainly".

Evolution doesen't have to be some major physical change. I am sure some biological process is at least a little different than 5,000 years ago. That's kinda the name of the game.

Of course I don't really know though, I bet nobody does, since we don't have live humans from 5,000 years ago to study.

We're also more resilient to more viruses and diseases than we were 5000 years ago.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Right now, we are actually de-evolving a bit because we no longer breed the best with the best. We randomly breed, which introduces randomness to the whole mix. Bottom line, we aren't going to be evolving anytime soon.

Of course you are assuming that you know what "best" means in this context. You might believe that we're weakening our society by the way we "breed" these days, but neither you nor anyone else can be sure that the process we humans now follow for picking mates and having children isn't better (from a long-term evolutionary standpoint) than a best-with-best method based on someone's judgement. It all depends on what the next evolutionary challenge turns out to be. It might well turn out that a charateristic you might choose to breed out of the human race (perhaps because it is tied to alcoholism or male pattern baldness) might also provide protection against the next great pandemic.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Eli
Tough call. I'm going to go with "Certainly".

Evolution doesen't have to be some major physical change. I am sure some biological process is at least a little different than 5,000 years ago. That's kinda the name of the game.

Of course I don't really know though, I bet nobody does, since we don't have live humans from 5,000 years ago to study.

We're also more resilient to more viruses and diseases than we were 5000 years ago.

But is that a biological change or a technological change? I bet if you spent winter naked outside you wouldn't be to well. Medical technology & housing != evolution.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Eli
Tough call. I'm going to go with "Certainly".

Evolution doesen't have to be some major physical change. I am sure some biological process is at least a little different than 5,000 years ago. That's kinda the name of the game.

Of course I don't really know though, I bet nobody does, since we don't have live humans from 5,000 years ago to study.

We're also more resilient to more viruses and diseases than we were 5000 years ago.

But is that a biological change or a technological change? I bet if you spent winter naked outside you wouldn't be to well. Medical technology & housing != evolution.

Biological. Europeans were more resilient to a lot of diseases than Native Americans were, like smallpox and measles. Even today when people discover lost tribes in the Amazon jungle, they need to worry about killing the tribe off by exposure of viruses and diseases they have never been exposed to before.

 

[Sid59]

does technological and other advances in science and such count?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Eli
Tough call. I'm going to go with "Certainly".

Evolution doesen't have to be some major physical change. I am sure some biological process is at least a little different than 5,000 years ago. That's kinda the name of the game.

Of course I don't really know though, I bet nobody does, since we don't have live humans from 5,000 years ago to study.

7

We're also more resilient to more viruses and diseases than we were 5000 years ago.

But is that a biological change or a technological change? I bet if you spent winter naked outside you wouldn't be to well. Medical technology & housing != evolution.

Biological. Europeans were more resilient to a lot of diseases than Native Americans were, like smallpox and measles. Even today when people discover lost tribes in the Amazon jungle, they need to worry about killing the tribe off by exposure of viruses and diseases they have never been exposed to before.

Yep.

You guys are thinking WAY too large scale here. Obviously there hasn't been any new species of Homo Sapien evolve in the last 5,000 years.

New generations being able to fight off a certain pathogen better than others is a form of evolution. Bacteria and viri are constantly evolving. We are too, it's just in ways that we can't see.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Sid59
does technological and other advances in science and such count?

It depends on your definition of biological change .

 

[PowderBB3D]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Hardcore
I'm sure on average we're a couple of inches taller today than we were 5000 years ago. That may be more due to nutrition than genetics though.

I don't think you understand how 'evolution' is supposed to work.

Evolution is about mating. Did you know that if you push a cow over, it can't get up on it's own power? This was not always true. We have been selectively breeding cows for so long, that all that matters is milk/meat production. We breed the best milkers with the best milkers to get a cow that provides the most milk.

Did you know that if you take a bunch of dogs and breed the ones with the smallest tails, then from the bunch of pups, you breed those with the shortest tail, and you do this over and over, eventually you will have a dog with no tail?

This is evolution.

To answer your question, yes we have evolved in the last 5000 years, but not much to our advantage. Right now, we are actually de-evolving a bit because we no longer breed the best with the best. We randomly breed, which introduces randomness to the whole mix. Bottom line, we aren't going to be evolving anytime soon.

You're an idiot. That's why i said it MIGHT be more due to nutrition than genetics. But genetics could play a role. Bigger men have had it easier in life than smaller men, so they could have the better picks of mates, and could conceivably raise them easier/better. And what about inter-racial breeding?

And i suppose you've never heard of polygenetics and genetic predispositions, where certain genetic traits are only expressed/activated when other genetics and ENVIRONMENT activates them. Like some obese people would not be obese in a diet that was normal 500 years ago, but in today's diet they are.

Evolution is NOT only about mating. Mating is just one way of evolution, but it's not the only way. Survival of the fittest is another way of evolution, which includes adaptability to the environment. Food is part of our environment, and it reasons that as we eat a certain nutritional types more often, our body will adapt to it on the genetic level. For instance, Asians are generally a lot less tolerant of milk and lactate products because Asians generally don't drink milk, at least not as often as Europeans do. Over thousands of years, this has made Asians not as tolerant of milk products and made Europeans more. Same thing with alcohol. Europeans have enzymes in their liver that deal with alcohol better because at one time, alcohol was very prevalent in Europe... people drank alcohol inplace of water infact, because it was more clean. In Asia, alcohol never became as widespread, and so Asians don't have the same enzymes to deal with alcohol as Europeans do.

So if we eat a certain diet that just happens to favors growth, it stands to reason our body will adapt itself to favor that type of diet. The more we adapt to it, the more we respond well to it. And in time, the same level of nutrition will benefit the adapted genetic person a lot better than the person without the adapted genetics.

Bingo.

 

[Risiko]

Well, some of us have slightly evolved physically (to combat things like smallpox, the black death, etc....again, it depends on what part of the world your ancestors lived though) but no brain changes of any significance whatsoever.