Evolution Of Humans In The Last Hundred Years.

I can point to a few, disease resistance being one major area, the malaria resistance of some Africans. Significantly, within the last 3,000 years, the ability to digest lactose into adulthood appeared in East Africa, although this mutation existed for 5-6,000 years in Europe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you say that these cases are genetic changes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup.

Several genetic markers for lactase persistence have been identified, and these show that the allele has multiple origins in different parts of the world (i.e. it is an example of convergent evolution).[46] The version of the allele most common amongst Europeans is estimated to have risen to significant frequencies about 7,500 years ago in the central Balkans and Central Europe, a place and time approximately corresponding to the archaeological Linearbandkeramik and Starčevo cultures. From there, it most probably spread eastwards as far as India. Likewise, one of the four alleles associated with lactase persistence in African population, is also probably of European origin.[47] Since North Africans also possess this version of the allele it is probable that it actually originated earlier, in the Near East, but that the earliest farmers did not have high levels of lactase persistence and, subsequently, did not consume significant amounts of unprocessed milk.[48] Lactase persistence in Sub-Saharan Africa almost certainly had a separate origin, probably more than one,[49] and it is also likely that there was a separate origin associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel.[

wikipedia

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not understand you. What is the "old" end which is the "new".
If you could please explain.

 

Also, Tibetans evolved to handle the thin air up there where they are, although this may have been over thousands of years.

 

So the Spartans have created a more physically evolved homo sapiens sapiens ?

 

Evolution did, plus they are near China, not Sparta.

Scientific American had a good list and article on the subject of this thread last year.

 

You believe that human "races" are genetically different?

 

I suppose that we can only thank the powers that be that some people in history decided to ignore advice like this. This Opheolite person appears to represent "the establishment"... useful in their own way, but seriously flawed when it comes to originality or innovation.

Actually, there have been some studies done recently which indicate that certain sections of society are indeed becoming more attractive. We know which ones, of course, and social perception only accounts for a part of it.

 

Good examples. However, these are examples of 'races' or 'strains', as they are not fixed within the entire species. It will likely be many millennia more before that single genetic change (lactase retention into adulthood) has become fixed within the human family. Because for the last several score millenia, the human species has been separating to various parts of the globe, thereby precluding full interbreeding allowing for fixation of genes, we witness instead raciation. Once full interbreeding resumes (if ever), then fixation can occur, allowing for full change (evolution) of the species.

 

Try to think before typing on your keyboard. If you disagree with my statement then you are agreeing with this statement: "It is fine to hold on to an idea in the absence of any supporting evidence. It is a good thing to believe something quite unsubstantiated."

I have a record of innovation in my work. I have a thirst for innovation and originality in science. What I do not have a thirst for is half cocked, self indulgent, idle speculations that seek to pass themselves off as a bona fide theory. The OP has not gone down this road, but has thrown up a vague speculation. Until and unless that speculation is supported by evidence that is all it is: mere speculation.

Do you seriously contend that it should be given more attention until and unless that evidence is forthcoming?

You say "there have been some studies done recently which indicate that certain sections of society are indeed becoming more attractive." Excellent. This would provide partial support for the OP's speculation. Now be so good as to provide citations for these studies. Really, surprise me by actually being able to do so.

 

Evolution isn't just evolution that affects an entire species, it can be defined as changes in gene frequency in a population. Asperger Syndrome is another example.

 

The vast majority of mammals lose the ability to digest lactose after they are weaned. Some groups of humans have a mutation that allows them to digest lactose into adulthood to varying degrees. This adaptation arose in societies that domesticated animals and used their dairy products. This only happened within the last 10,000 years or so.

 

Observations made at the local bar at closing time don't count.

 

Well, you could measure that. Go ahead. do it.

 

There are minor differences, but with all things considered there is very little genetic difference among humans. We're probably all descended from that group of around 1000 of those hardy souls who survived the drought or whatnot in South Africa, some think, in a recent Scientific American article.

 

Yes, that's quite correct. It is a fine thing. Other than in the use of the word "believe", which is a little strong and used in an attempt to distort what was being said.

Many scientists have gone to their graves not ever being able to prove speculation, only to have it proved post mortem, or to have later generations define it further.

Speculation sometimes establishes a path of thought later proven to be correct. Sometimes it does not. Without that initial idea and someone prepared to follow it through, however, you have nothing.

What you said was, word for word, ".... If you can demonstrate all or part of your thesis is backed up by solid evidence your idea advances; if not, then it should be abandoned and you move on to the next idea."
That is clearly saying that if you can't prove it, give it up.
I said that it is a fine thing that many did not do so.

Personally, if I were working for you I would not bother even bringing an idea to your attention. I'd be more inclined to present it to someone who was prepared to entertain an idea and offer his own thoughts on the subject. Yours appear to boil down to "prove it (to me), or go do something useful".
Not exactly what one might label encouraging.

Yes, yes, Oph. No need to get all defensive.

And a request for input.

By the one speculating, or those who are inclined to agree? Why not? Where do you think that proof is going to come from, unless someone who has an idea is prepared to follow it up, even if that evidence is not immediately forthcoming?

No. I quite enjoy watching people like you get all hot under the collar.
It's out there. Go look for it yourself, you lazy turd. Unless you're not overly interested, in which case I'm not sure what you're doing here at all, other than waiting for a footservant to present it to you all wrapped up in a fancy pink bowtie.

Ask. Politely.

 

Hah!

 

"Very little" genetic difference.

There are so few prepared to entertain the notion that those differences exist, or are not prepared to delve too far into what they might actually be.

You're prevaricating even when directly questioned about it.