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.
“we are now experienceing a reverse evolution, or devolution, in the mind of at least one Nobel Prize winner”
Devolution is evolution. There is no reverse, because the process is neutral on the outcome. Who’s to say what’s upward or downward, better or worse, scientifically speaking? Whatever’s selected is selected, and what’s morally bad for the social organism is fine and dandy for the weak and stupid. So long as civilization lasts, that is, at which point they’ll die off and hunter-gatherers, or whatever, will take over and maybe we’ll be back to your “upward” trajectory.
It was just a joke. I guess I refer to it as “sleeping” or “slumber” after I saw a tombstone with the sentence, “Shhhh! Go away, I’m sleeping”.
Will the son rise tomorrow? Can you prove it?
Nobody really can answer whether they know that for certain either. However, repeated observation indicates that it is probably the case the sun will rise tomorrow.
As it is likely the case, thanks to repeated observation that the size and frequency of progeny is affected by its chance of survival.
“Au contraire: Predators are at the top of the food chain and multiply”
Yeah, work smart not hard. What’s smarter than not to work at all? That is, evolutionarily speaking, meaning survival and reproduction are your only goals. I’ve heard people joke about aliens being ignorant of our hierarchy should they see humans picking up their dog’s waste. History, perhaps, will see welfare queens as our upper caste, Lords and Masters to our helots.
The Son rose about 2000 years ago, but He is coming back soon. I hope we're all prepared!
Oh there’s no doubt about it. And it’s not all positive. From 1945 to 2008 the average IQ of the U.S. population decreased from 100 to 70 or maybe less.
The repeated observation of a correlation does not prove a connection between the factors, and it does not prove that, if a connection exists, the connection is (for example) genetics rather than environment.
I have observed that the son rarely rises in the morning without the application of loud drumming in his room or ice water on his face. Is this unfortunate situation caused by genetics? If so, what specific gene or combination of genes? Is his specific genetic condition the result of mutation, or simple randomness? Is it a survival advantage or disadvantage?
Is the observed behavior caused by environmental factors, such as temperature, lighting, or diet? Or is it caused by conscious human choice? These are the sorts of questions that are raised, but not answered, by the observations made by the researchers in the article.
Possibly the greatest measurable amount of human evolution to occur in the 20th century was WWII, particularly in the European Jewish population where half were killed. Which Jews tended to survive and what genetic impact did it have? The Jews alive today, the descendants of the holocaust survivors, likely score higher in many areas than the Jewish population average before. Tribal warfare is the special evolutionary pressure that drives human evolution, and has been for a very long time. For the last several thousand years Jews have particularly been on the receiving end of it, the victims of leftist envy.
One large amount of de-evolution occurring right now is with smart women. The smarter the woman, on average the fewer children she will likely have. The result is a growing gender gap. Women will become increasingly less intelligent than men. The political gender gap will also increase. Women will increasingly becoming socialists and support higher taxes on the producers, and men will increasingly become conservatives, against higher taxes and increased regulation by the socialist non-producers.
“Natural selection has been defeated or at least put on the defense as ‘the excess population’ no longer naturally dies off”
It never did, that is uniformly across the species. Or at least not for a very long span of human history, back to the agricultural revolution at least. It is, however, true for nonhuman organisms, which gives evolution great credence.
By the way, no one much bothers with Human Starvation Darwinism anymore. That’s old hat. Ever since the mid twentieth century it’s been all about the genes, humankind being mere robots for the perpetuation of code. Well, not code, really, but you know what I mean.
The killing of the Jews was an example of a government living out the ideals of evolution - “improving the species” through culling the unfit.
I know some folks are offended by amusing sentences on tombstones but I’m not. To me, it showed the person must have had a sense of humor. There is one tombstone in the cemetery where my in-laws are buried... it reads, “I told you I was sick”. Gets me laughing all the time.
“This ‘study’ was really just someone reviewing the birth records”
Exactly. It’s demographics, and rather uninteresting ones, at best.
But I don't want to evolve!
Yes, the example is inconclusive, just as the varying heights of my mother and aunts, cousins and daughters tells us nothing about “evolution.”
In my opinion - which is pretty much as good as anyone else’s judgment on the subject - homosexuality has environmental causes. Therefore, the existence of the tendency or behavior is not a factor in the genetic development of the human species.
What a blasphemous statement! :)
Leftists VEHEMENTLY assert that homos are “born that way”.
It’s actually necessary for them to promote their agenda.
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.