Oh yeah?
Posted on 10/05/2011 4:18:19 AM PDT by 1010RD
Even in relatively modern societies, humans are still changing and evolving in response to their environment, new research indicates.
The study was published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers found a genetic push toward younger age at first reproduction and larger families while studying an island population in Quebec. The study used data from 30 families who settled on île aux Coudres, located in the St. Lawrence River outside of Quebec City, between 1720 and 1773.
The researchers analyzed the data from women who married between 1799 and 1940, comparing their family relationships, any social, cultural or economic differences, and the age at which they had their first child. Researchers found that over 140 years, the age at first reproduction dropped from 26 to 22.
The University of Quebec geneticist Emmanuel Milot and colleagues who did the study have reported that though "it is often claimed that modern humans have stopped evolving because cultural and technological advancements have annihilated natural selection, this study supports the idea that humans are still evolving.”
Like us on Facebook
"What we learn from that population is that evolution is possible in relatively modern times in modern humans," Milot said. "Where it is going to occur and in what ways is a different question."
The study has noted that results show that microevolution can be detectable over relatively few generations in humans and underscore the need for studies of human demography and reproductive ecology to consider the role of evolutionary processes.
yes, women keep telling me that I am top of the evolutionary scale.
Remember too, that evolution is not always onward and upward. Because of government subsidies to broken familes and triple-generation unemployables, we are now experienceing a reverse evolution, or devolution, in the mind of at least one Nobel Prize winner. This is because the lower classes are breeding at a faster rate than the more educated and successful classes.
Oh yeah?
They must be lying to you, because they call me a double-alpha male. ;-]
See Walmart;)
The issue here is the island and the time span. Without establishing what the baseline was prior to their arrival how can you know that 22 isn’t a return to the norm?
Secondly, 141 years is an awfully short time span to ‘evolve’. Is this really macro-evolution or some other social factor? Did they even control for that? Did you see them listing a control population? Did they compare their results to other islands? Are they measuring the mean, mode or median age at which women give birth? Can you think of other causes that would lower the age at which women give birth?
My wife has evolved a bigger ass!
I only read the title.
But I know the story is BS.
Look who is in the White House.
And as long as people continue to favor various forms of slavery (all collectivist governments and those that use central management), humans are not evolving.
“My wife has evolved a bigger a$$”
That is a horrible thing to call yourself, DrainBramage! Reminds me of a joke: how did the woman lose 200 pounds of unwanted fat? Answer: she divorced her husband. LOL!
Are We Not Men?: We Are Devo!
But I guess that they weren’t being completely honest as to which evolutionary branch they thought you topped out at, eh? :)
The researcher found earlier childbearing and larger families in an isolated population and stipulated a "genetic push."
Now if they identified a gene, and then found the same one in ghetto black populations with the same childbearing patterns, that would be scientifically interesting.
Here’s a handy test to determine if someone is evolved/evolving: ask them if they like karaoke.
I don’t think you’ll find that in the genome.
There is a biological correlation between the reproductive rate and survival rate of a species. The higher chance that a species will survive, the lower the reproductive rate.
That is why, in the Western nations, the reproductive rate tends to be lower because almost everybody born will make it past the age of 5, whereas in nations with a higher mortality rate, like the the Mid-East and Africa.
Who says that’s evolution? More like changes in social behavior.
The conclusion is very probably correct, but the study in no way proves it.
First, the numbers are too small. They are not large enough to eliminate the possibility of random genetic drift.
Second, the study does not seem to look at any genetic change at all. So where is the evolution?
The change in time of first birth is well within the normal human range, and is very moderate. The change in age at first birth could easily be explained by a very slight cultural change. If stuck on an island, where choices are limited, what is to stop people from getting married earlier, and starting families? Presumably everyone has a job lined up, so there is no wandering around deciding on a career, or pioneering in a new region.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.