frosbel:


Having conquered Everest and landed on the Moon, it is tempting to think we are bigger and better than our ancestors.
But on a purely physical basis, it seems, we just don’t measure up. Mankind is actually shrinking.
Cambridge University experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 per cent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html#ixzz2IA6QIIDx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

frosbel:
Big brother: A model of neanderthal man, which rose to prominence about 130,000 years and was far more robust that modern man



[size=14pt]Your ancestors , BTW[/size]

Logicboy03: This is serious.


People laughing at their own ignorance.

Frosbel, you live in the UK, you can go to the museums and look at the armours that the warriors were supposed to wear. Very small, and would fit an average 16 year old.

You can also go to your dentist and get him to explain why our wisdom teeth are giving us problems while many dont even grow wisdom teeth.


Examples of microevolution in humans
Funny how people laugh at their own ignorance.

[quote author=Logicboy03]



Dumbazz I am not comparing human and their nearthandal ancestors but humans against humans.

Knights of the early centuries to people of the 21st century. We are getting bigger in body size but with smaller jaws.

frosbel:

so it's only the Knights who are evolving, lol.

what's that school you went to again ?

Logicboy03:

frosbel:
So which is it, are we evolving into smaller or bigger frames, it cannot be both.

Which one is it ?



Logicboy03 I really feel for you , it must be confusing trying to defend the indefensible !

[size=18pt]Why are we getting taller as a species?
[/size]
For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

Logicboy03:



Lol....bigger

....natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

frosbel:
Big brother: A model of neanderthal man, which rose to prominence about 130,000 years and was far more robust that modern man



[size=14pt]Your ancestors , BTW[/size]

Chedarking:

I have now come to the conclusion that.....


Should I even talk sef?



From your OWN link...

SMH

plaetton:

I think its great folly to criticize something simply because you dont understand it.
If have any understanding of the mechanisms and processes of evolution, you would have known that even a change in diet, as you have posted above, can be a catalyst for a gradual and slow changes in an organism or species. And these changes can, over time, lead to new traits would enhance the survivability or the eventual doom of the species.

Logicboy03:
We are getting bigger in body size but with smaller jaws.

Logicboy03: This
Frosbel, you live in the UK, you can go to the museums and look at the armours that the warriors were supposed to wear. Very small, and would fit an average 16 year old.
Examples of microevolution in humans
Funny how people laugh at their own ignorance.

Logicboy03:
Lol....bigger

Why are we getting taller as a species?

For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature.

First, the observed increase in height has not been continuous since the dawn of man; it began sometime around the middle of the nineteenth century. In fact, examinations of skeletons show no significant differences in height from the stone age through the early 1800s.
Also, during World Wars I and II, when hunger was a frequent companion of the German civilian population, the heights of the children actually declined. They only recovered during the post-war years.

Second, the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us, regardless of environmental improvement

Chronic underfeeding during childhood, however, permanently affects stature and other traits, including intelligence.

plaetton:

I think its great folly to criticize something simply because you dont understand it.
If have any understanding of the mechanisms and processes of evolution, you would have known that even a change in diet, as you have posted above, can be a catalyst for a gradual and slow changes in an organism or species. And these changes can, over time, lead to new traits would enhance the survivability or the eventual doom of the species.

Chedarking:

Don't do that my man...

illogicalboy says we are EVOLVING into bigger specimens here:



here:


and here:



he then scours google for a link to back up his claim, reads the first 3 lines of a promising article posts this:


Not realizing that the same article says this:


and this:


and THIS:


These guys are saying it CATEGORICALLY....

EVOLUTION IS NOT MAKING YOU TALLER...

One statement caught my eye though...




That explains A LOT...

plaetton:


Well considering that since the austerity measures of the Shagari and Buhari regimes of the early 80s, underfeeding has become a permanent part of the life of the average Nigerian.
Can we infer that that is perhaps the reason that there is a dearth of intelligence in the land and for explosion of religious fervour over the decades?
Hhhmmmm!
Something to to consider.

Chedarking:

Don't do that my man...

illogicalboy says we are EVOLVING into bigger specimens here:



here:


and here:



he then scours google for a link to back up his claim, reads the first 3 lines of a promising article posts this:


Not realizing that the same article says this:


and this:


and THIS:


These guys are saying it CATEGORICALLY....

EVOLUTION IS NOT MAKING YOU TALLER...

One statement caught my eye though...




That explains A LOT...

frosbel: I start with mine :

1. Using logic, reason and scientific evidence, kindly trace back to the beginning , the origin of MAN.

2. In your own words, describe how you think human reproductive organs evolved into what it is today

3. If we came from monkeys , how come we still have monkeys around today


Thanks,

Chedarking:

Agreed...

Hunger has forced the Average Nigerian to look to God for respite...

Religious leaders keep preaching that God rewards the most pious...

So the average Nigerian is willing to give anything including human life to prove his piousness...

Hunger is a bastard...

Logicboy03:




Even different diets are responsible for Evolution (adaptation to different environment). What the article was saying was that humans were not getting taller by natural selection alone but by different diets.


Remember the article doesnt say diets alone but that diets are the major factors.

Are we evolving to greater heights, vertically speaking?

Before answering these questions, we need to remember that evolution requires two things: variation in physical and/or behavioral traits among the individuals in a population; and a way of selecting some of those traits as adaptations, or advantages to reproduction.

For example, finches that have large, powerful beaks also have an advantage cracking large, tough seeds during periods when small, soft seeds are scarce. As a consequence, large-beaked birds are more likely to eat better, survive longer and reproduce than small-beaked birds. Because beak shape is an inherited trait (one that is substantially influenced by genes), more successful reproduction by large beaked birds means that the genes predisposing finches to large beaks are transmitted to the next generation in relatively larger numbers than those genes encoding small beaks. Thus, the population of finches in the next generation will tend to have larger beaks than finches in their parent's generation.

Let's use this basic operating principle of evolution to predict, retrospectively, the direction of change in human height if evolution were the cause of the change. We know from studies conducted in industrial England that children born into lower socioeconomic classes were shorter, on average, than children born into wealthy families. We also know that poorer families had larger numbers of children.

Given those initial conditions, what would evolution predict? [size=28pt]The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. But this did not happen. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.
[/size]

plaetton:

He he. Glad that we can agree on something.

Chedarking:

You Lie

It's so funny how Atheists do a lot of the very thing they accuse theists of doing - LIE


The article goes to great lengths to prove that DIET not EVOLUTION is the reason we are growing tall:




I'm all for intellectual discourse BUT

You make an assertion, ignorantly post a link to back up your claims, and then realize you've shot yourself in the foot....

How can I take you SERIOUSLY?

"The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. But this did not happen. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller. "

mantraa: Take look at this short video about evolution very well explained by a 15 year old girl.

Onision:Evolution is racist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrAQpUAfgW8

If she can understand it, so can you. She has also provided some good links that explain it in more depth.

Hopefully you will understand why the simple question "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Is the same as asking "if all humans evolved from Africa, why are there still Africans?" Or if all dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves.

Watch the video then let us know what you think

Logicboy03:




You people cant read. You just see what you want to see. Just like how people selectively read the bible and say that the bible is against slavery.



The article talks about evolution from a natural selection mechanism (fitness) and says that is not the reason. Majaze and I explain that a change diets/nutirition over time can lead to evolutionary changes.

Read the quote again;

Majaze and I explain that a change diets/nutirition over time can lead to evolutionary changes.

the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us

Chedarking:

Wow...Are you just being OBTUSE?

Or do you suffer from dyslexia?

What is your point?

You asserted that we are growing taller as evidence for evolution.

Your backing article says otherwise...

You say:



Your article says:



DUDE!

What is wrong with you man?

the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us

Logicboy03:
lol....I know you are dull but, how you couldnt see that evolutionary change is the hieght?

Logicboy03:
And this quote means that evolution has nothing to do with height or what?

For example, finches that have large, powerful beaks also have an advantage cracking large, tough seeds during periods when small, soft seeds are scarce. As a consequence, large-beaked birds are more likely to eat better, survive longer and reproduce than small-beaked birds. Because beak shape is an inherited trait (one that is substantially influenced by genes), more successful reproduction by large beaked birds means that the genes predisposing finches to large beaks are transmitted to the next generation in relatively larger numbers than those genes encoding small beaks. Thus, the population of finches in the next generation will tend to have larger beaks than finches in their parent's generation.

Let's use this basic operating principle of evolution to predict, retrospectively, the direction of change in human height if evolution were the cause of the change. We know from studies conducted in industrial England that children born into lower socioeconomic classes were shorter, on average, than children born into wealthy families. We also know that poorer families had larger numbers of children

Given those initial conditions, what would evolution predict?

The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. [size=28pt]But this did not happen[/size]. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us, regardless of environmental improvements.

plaetton: @Chedarking:
Considering that you and Frosbel have post these scientific articles to boost your own side of the argument, it would seem that you both agree that the human species as a whole is capable of undergoing changes, whether taller or shorter. Right?

If you agree so, why would you both consider evolution , a gradual change from one species to another, as improbable?

Have you not considered that perhaps god designed living organisms to evolve towards perfection, in the same way that religious doctrine is said to be specially designed by god to evolve our souls towards perfection?

mantraa: Take look at this short video about evolution very well explained by a 15 year old girl.

Onision:Evolution is racist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrAQpUAfgW8

If she can understand it, so can you. She has also provided some good links that explain it in more depth.

Hopefully you will understand why the simple question "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Is the same as asking "if all humans evolved from Africa, why are there still Africans?" Or if all dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves.

Watch the video then let us know what you think

Chedarking:



Sincerely, I have seen more intelligent orangutans at the Zoo.

Let me break it down for you into bite-sized chunks so your head doesn't explode from the sensory overload.


1. The Author gives a theoretical example of what should happen following Evolution theory here:


2. The Author then provides us with a real life human population sample here:


3. He then points out that the exact opposite of what evolution would predict happens:


4. The guy now tells you why it doesn't happen pointing out that height actually increases and decreases depending on diet.

5. Finally he tells you that if you like chop, if you like no chop, you no fit ever tall pass certain limit:



Phew!!!

Thank me later!