|
|
|
|
|
| | Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study SaysPage 1 of 3 (1, 2, 3) |
Study predicts that in 400 years average woman will weigh nearly 1 kg more, be 2 cm (almost an inch) shorter
A strong body of evidence exists that humans are continually evolving a diverse fashion in response to various environmental influences. Despite skepticism from some who blindly reject such studies for various dogmatic reasons, human evolution does appear to be happening. And researchers in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology are revealing exciting insights into what man (and woman) may look like in the future.
A new study from Yale University researchers offers some intriguing and unusual conclusions about where human evolution may be headed. A new study analyzing a population of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham indicates that women are being naturally selected to be shorter and chubbier, have children younger, and have lower cholesterol and blood pressure.
The complex study came to these conclusions by looking at the medical records of 2,238 female participants, spread across two generations (starting in 1948) and looking at their medical history when they reached menopause. The study examined those that successfully reproduced and looked at what traits influenced their reproductive success. It also made adjustments for income, education and lifestyle choices such as smoking, before applying correlations to determine the direction of evolution. They also looked at secondary effects, i.e. whether low blood pressure led to younger sexual maturity, or whether the paths were independent.
Based on the results women in the third generation of the study, currently ongoing, are expected to begin their first period a month earlier, and enter menopause a full month later than their mothers and grandmothers, on average. Heaviness proved to be also be selected, as heavier women have more children, on average.
Professor Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University and coauthor of the study states, "The idea that natural selection has stopped operating in humans because we have gotten better at keeping people alive is just plain wrong. It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture."
The Yale experts predict that based on the current trends, in the year 2409AD, the average woman in Framingham will be 2 cm (almost 1 inch) shorter and 1 kg heavier (approximately 2.5 lb). Women in 2409 AD are predicted to have their period 5 months earlier and to go into menopause 10 months later -- almost a full year later.
19.http://www.dailytech.com/Evolution+is+Favoring+Shorter+Heavier+Women+Study+Says/article16693.htm
Intresting, what are your thoughts on this study? | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/14/2010 5:07:19 PM |
Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
No, it doesn't say that. They weren't predicting ALL women, just that [very tight] population. If they'd done the study on Boulder, Colorado, women the results would have been much different. The idea of the study was to prove that evolution is still at work on modern humans, not to predict that women would be short and fat in the future.
I also didn't care for the website's editorializing "Despite skepticism from some who blindly reject such studies for various dogmatic reasons,"--that has no place in this story. Plus, they don't even understand what the word "skepticism" means.
My thought on this study is that it was a monumental waste of Yale's monies, but I guess they gotta spend all that dough somewhere. | |
|
| |
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/14/2010 5:53:00 PM |
...this study is that it was a monumental waste of Yale's monies... Wow. Great. So in essence science has now proven that short, fat chicks get laid... didn't need a study... could have figured that out over a couple drinks. | |
|
| |
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/14/2010 7:11:18 PM | | Not sure if I'd put much credibility into this study since the female population is getting taller and heavier in all the other studies that have been done... plus North Americans as a whole are becoming more and more over-weight... JMTC | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/14/2010 10:46:54 PM | This is good news since I don't live too far from there. Apparently the men there are sexually selecting for fat chycks. The thin women are unwanted which leaves more of them for me. 
Now I just need to find a place where short, balding, slightly chubby men are considered sexually desireable. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 3:42:52 AM | Everybody is getting fatter so it's hardly surprising that any study would conclude we'd be heavier if the future (although I'm willing to bet they're wrong about that anyway)
And women are getting shorter ?
The sample size itself is fine but the time line is far too short. You'd need a lot more than two generations to determine long-term trends in evolution. As well, considering all the possible variables , there can be no doubt that the methodology of this study is lacking in scientific soundness. There's no good reason to believe that selection for shortness has anything at all to do with such a minuscule drop in height. The extrapolations are grossly misleading. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 4:06:17 AM | From the study:
Our aims were to demonstrate that natural selection is operating on contemporary humans, predict future evolutionary change for specific traits with medical significance, and show that for some traits we can make short-term predictions about our future evolution. To do so, we measured the strength of selection, estimated genetic variation and covariation, and predicted the response to selection for women in the Framingham Heart Study, a project of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Boston University that began in 1948. We found that natural selection is acting to cause slow, gradual evolutionary change. The descendants of these women are predicted to be on average slightly shorter and stouter, to have lower total cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure, to have their first child earlier, and to reach menopause later than they would in the absence of evolution. Selection is tending to lengthen the reproductive period at both ends. To better understand and predict such changes, the design of planned large, long-term, multicohort studies should include input from evolutionary biologists. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/23/0906199106.abstract?sid=c8c1bf78-75f8-445d-8d93-d85ddec17084
1) Heavier:
Why are women getting heavier since 1948? The study says "stouter", which either means more rugged, or more corpulent, aka fatter. Washing by hand left women with huge arm muscles. So I doubt that women are getting more rugged. That leaves getting fatter. Could it be because so many women are eating so much fattening junk food and doing so little exercise, that we are facing an obesity crisis in women as well as men?
2) Shorter:
Average height of a woman in the medieval ages: 157.55 cm (5 ft 1.5 in)
http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/4-ft-2.php
Average height of a woman in 2007: 160.5 cm (5 ft 3 in) - 163.4 cm (5 ft 4.5 in)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world
The main reasons for this difference are improved nutrition, notably increased consumption of meat and milk, and antibiotics. http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/4-ft-2.php
Considering the obesity crisis, the decrease in height since 1948 can be accounted for by the rise in junk food.
3) Lower total cholesterol levels:
We used to use a lot of lard in our diet. Now, we use vegetable fats instead, thanks to modern machinery.
4) Lower systolic blood pressure:
Greater belly fat, which is seen in the "heaviness", goes hand-in-hand with a raise in systolic blood pressure. So the lower systolic blood pressure means that there is a huge lowering of systolic blood pressure due to other means, and that's due to cutting out very fatty meat products such as lard.
5) Having their first child earlier:
There are plenty of women not having children until their 30s or 40s. Having children young is seen most commonly in the poor in our society, because benefits systems now support single mothers.
6) Reaching menopause later:
HRT and other drugs are common, as are plenty of vitamins, which hold off the menopause.
Now, let's look at at least one obvious conclusion of these changes:
If we are looking at these in evolutionary terms, then since women are having their first child earlier, and reaching menopause later, they are able to keep having kids until much later. So the women born in Western countries should be experiencing an even greater birth rate than before 1948. Also, infant mortality rates have been lowering significantly. So far more kids should be born, and far more should survive to adulthood. So without immigration, our countries should be experiencing a population explosion. But without immigration, statistics show that we are experiencing a negative birth rate. More people are dying than are being born. That's the very opposite of the situation before 1948, and exactly the opposite of what the study would suggest should be happening, were it representing facts accurately.
Summary:
People's lives are changing, because things change every year. That's what happens. Things change. I don't have exactly the same lifestyle than I did 20 years ago, and I don't have exactly the same lifestyle my parents did at my age, and I think everyone will say the same. Life isn't perfectly static.
However, just because I am a bit fatter than my dad was, does that prove Darwin's theory of evolution? Hardly. That things changed was known hundreds of years before Darwin. If it did, then everyone would have known what Darwin claimed before Darwin was born.
Neither is this study pointing out much that any redneck couldn't figure out himself.
The only thing I can conclude is that the authors wished to make a name for themselves publishing something in evolutionary studies, and this was the best they could come up with, that didn't require using their brains. Doesn't say much for the future of science. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 8:50:51 AM | Let's see, I'm about 25 pounds lighter than my mom was my age as is my sister. We are the same height. We don't eat fast food or fried crap.
I don't know this town, but are the people all primarily of the same race? How can they call this science? How can they translate this information to the rest of our nation of millions of people?
The population sample does not seem representative of the rest of our society. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 9:06:54 AM | | The study only proves evolutionary forces are at work. As far as whether women in general will be shorter and fatter, and the reasons for that, I have no idea. There may be no greater meaning or purpose behind that other than it being random. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 9:14:54 AM | | If you can survey women who had kids, and find that more of them are shorter and fatter, then that tells me short women have more kids and then get fat. Why do shorter women have more kids? It's because they can wear heels and still go dancing with men. The taller a woman is, after she adds on that allowance for heel height, she has far fewer men she can date. If you took heels out of the equation the reproductive numbers would follow. The getting fat is just what happens when you have abundant food available, when you're stressed from raising kids. It's either eat that cheeseburger or strangle Junior (or Princess). | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 5:21:12 PM | | .. for crying out loud, evolution is supposed to be change to a higher more complex state, how are short and heavier more complex... what we see is degeneration of health and if anyone thinks that growth from steroid use is healthy they need to get a second opinion... hormones in our food add to early puberty and late menopause... imo the theory of evolution has ~evolved~ in so many ways that ~science~ rarely knows what it is talking or arguing about .... blessings | |
|
| |
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/15/2010 5:54:29 PM |
for crying out loud, evolution is supposed to be change to a higher more complex state, how are short and heavier more complex... what we see is degeneration of health and if anyone thinks that growth from steroid use is healthy they need to get a second opinion... hormones in our food add to early puberty and late menopause... imo the theory of evolution has ~evolved~ in so many ways that ~science~ rarely knows what it is talking or arguing about .... blessing
Hiya, sorry evolution by natural selection doesn't occur in that way. It's just an effect of DNA's sole reason for being, to replicate itself. And the DNA that has adapted better to it's environment will copy itself. That is life. It's not affected by anything else. | |
|
| |
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 12:08:24 AM |
.. for crying out loud, evolution is supposed to be change to a higher more complex state, how are short and heavier more complex... what we see is degeneration of health and if anyone thinks that growth from steroid use is healthy they need to get a second opinion... hormones in our food add to early puberty and late menopause... imo the theory of evolution has ~evolved~ in so many ways that ~science~ rarely knows what it is talking or arguing about .... blessings
There is so much wrong with this statement it is shocking that it is allowed to be on a ‘real’ science forum, here…
evolution is supposed to be change to a higher more complex state
NO, evolution is about adaptability to your environment along with the odd gene mutation. The ‘best’ evolved is the one best suited to its environment.
what we see is degeneration of health
Do you have any evidence for that...'what WE see' no that is what you see, I see people living longer and having more productive lives.
imo the theory of evolution has ~evolved~ in so many ways that ~science~ rarely knows what it is talking or arguing about
imo it's a good job your opinion isn't regarded to highly on this forum...The theory of evolution like any thoery doesn’t evolve but as more FACTs are made known so the theory encompasses them, the more facts that are found the stronger the theory…once you have found enough facts the theory becomes I guess ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and once you have witnessed Cladogenesis or a change in species over time then 'beyond any doubt' and it will no longer be a science theory but a science fact. Conversely if you find facts which run contrary to a theory then that theory has to be dismissed in place of a new one which fits ALL the facts... Here though the FACTS are that women are getting shorter and fatter over a period of time (this is a change in the species), this is down to lifestyle mainly diet (environment)…Evolution is a change in the population over time through the environment.
I read an article decades ago where surveys like this had been made and concluded that women are becoming ‘pear shaped’. My observations would agree with this.
| |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 12:36:50 PM | NO, evolution is about adaptability to your environment along with the odd gene mutation. The ‘best’ evolved is the one best suited to its environment
Well, not really. Evolution isn't about anything really, it just kind of happens. the changes that tend to stick around are the ones that happen to confer a benefit of some kind, or aren't so deleterious to the organism as to prevent reproduction. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 12:54:58 PM | "Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says"
*****************************************************************************
"No, it doesn't say that...
...also didn't care for the website's editorializing.
*****************************************************************************
Can I take it, therefore, that you would not agree with my assessment of the gravity of the situation; that it will take women two trips to "haul ass" ?
| |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 1:45:22 PM |
Well, not really. Evolution isn't about anything really, it just kind of happens. the changes that tend to stick around are the ones that happen to confer a benefit of some kind
'Well not really'…but then go on to agree??? A change that confers some benefit...well that would be one best suited to its environment then! Whether it is being able to survive attack by running faster or withstanding cold,heat,famine,disease or being able to reach food that others cannot reach or... Anything outside of the body is its environment. It sure as hell doesn't 'kind of happen'. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 2:09:41 PM | Pretty defensive there, you put emphasis on the wrong part of the statement it should be on 'Evolution isn't ABOUT anything really,' i.e. saying it's about survival of the fittest or what not is tantamount to saying it's about 'higher forms'.
You described evolution in such a way as to make it appear as though it has a purpose. It has no direction, and a beneficial mutation isn't necessarily one that is best suited to the environment although they will tend to occur in tandem.
And yes it just kind of happens, it's a phenomena that occurs due to the physical laws matter and energy obeys within the universe. An example from recent memory, there's this mechanism for compacting DNA within a cell called 'macromolecular crowding' which is described as RNAs and Proteins etc, come into contact with DNA and change it's physical conformations.
Basically, flashy language that says when you stuff a bunch of things together into a container they get compressed to fit within the container. There's no real rhyme or reason to why it happens. It just does.
I also disagree with your definition of environment. The body itself is part of the environment. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 3:08:09 PM |
pretty defensive there, you put emphasis on the wrong part of the statement it should be on 'Evolution isn't ABOUT anything really,' i.e. saying it's about survival of the fittest or what not is tantamount to saying it's about 'higher forms'.
No, again, do not equate ‘survival of the fittest’ with ‘higher forms’ they are two totally different things. Being the fittest or best suited to your particular environment has NOTHING to do with being a higher life form, this is where you and mona are getting confused the most successful creatures on the planet would not be considered a higher life form, most are single celled!
You described evolution in such a way as to make it appear as though it has a purpose. It has no direction, and a beneficial mutation isn't necessarily one that is best suited to the environment although they will tend to occur in tandem.
Where are you reading that??? Sounds like you are making this bit up now. Evolution has no direction other than to follow whatever is happening around the said species, ie its environment. How is a species adapting to its environment in anyway directional?
I also mentioned the beneficial mutation disjunctive from the adaptation, here
evolution is about adaptability to your environment along with the odd gene mutation.
‘along with’…side by side…no mention there of a genes mutating to suited its environment, gene mutations can be effected by your environment or by the body itself and has nothing to do with 'best fit' for its environment. If the gene mutation is some how benefitial then that member of the species will thrive, if it thrives making all the original extinct then there is a change in the species.
And yes it just kind of happens
No, there will be a cause. Here…
An example from recent memory, there's this mechanism for compacting DNA within a cell called 'macromolecular crowding' which is described as RNAs and Proteins etc, come into contact with DNA and change it's physical conformations.
This is a cause!
There's no real rhyme or reason to why it happens. It just does.
There is, you just don’t yet understand how...why is more than likely the environment again.
I also disagree with your definition of environment. The body itself is part of the environment.
To disagree would be your prerogative however:
Definition of environment
1) The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.
2) The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms, especially:
a. The combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, and survival of organisms
b. The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.
or
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Ecology the external surroundings in which a plant or animal lives, which tend to influence its development and behaviour
Environment would not include the 'one' or in this case the body. If you were talking about a cell, then the body would be part of its environment but not the cell itself, however, we are not. | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 4:37:58 PM | So.. I can't figure out what basis you have for fighting with me.
I wasn't arguing whether there was causation or not. No one seriously believes in spontaneous anything, however the idea that there may be a purpose of some kind i.e. a grand scheme behind everything can only generate a big shrug.
The cause you champion is a secondary phenomenon of our physical universe the laws of which appear to be the way they are well... just because. they just are. we don't know why, and everything that follows from them just is.
The thing with evolution being 'about' stuff is a semantic argument. Using the word about has a tendency to attribute an agenda to something. It may seem obvious to you that evolution is the term used to describe the phenomena of: things happen to change. I don't see how you can have the separation of adaptability from mutation as that adaptation requires a change (mutation) in the genome to occur in order to be realized.
I could see a case for a behavioral argument coming out of the previous paragraph though.
It's not so obvious to others. In my experience, people tend to require things to be 'about' something, to have a purpose. Therefore I find it necessary to specify that evolution is a description of the natural world and not an agenda/dogma and not 'about' anything because well; it isn't. Evolution is about change, adaptation is a subunit of the whole idea. The positive subunit :-p
Nature doesn't care about anything, it just does stuff.
Within the cell itself there are also selective pressures at work as genes and proteins compete with one another. so, what happens within the cell influences it and of course extracellular events influence it as well.
The genome is itself a pressure on itself! It has elements that induce change in itself regardless of external pressures! | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 5:26:38 PM |
So.. I can't figure out what basis you have for fighting with me.
Not sure if you are aware of it but you started it! hence...
I wasn't arguing whether there was causation or not.
What were you arguing about then because I was only posting about what was causing it…which is why I cannot understand why you are going on about some sort of agenda with evolution.
No one seriously believes in spontaneous anything
so why mention it then...I didn't...here you did
Evolution isn't about anything really, it just kind of happens
so you believe in spontaneous actions??? yea ok. It doesn't 'just' kind of happen...a monkey didn't 'just' walk down the road and turn into a human... there is a cause and effect, something causes it to happen, the effect is evolution...what the cause is is environmental and/or gene mutation, gene mutation could be environmental or it could just be the body making odd copies of itself and not necessarily related to environmental causes...I'm sure this was in my first post.
we don't know why
You keep mentioning 'why', is there a reason for this. I don't talk about why, HOW it happened for sure, you keep talking about some hidden agenda with evolution, why?
It's not so obvious to others. In my experience, people tend to require things to be 'about' something, to have a purpose. Therefore I find it necessary to specify that evolution is a description of the natural world and not an agenda/dogma and not 'about' anything because well; it isn't. Evolution is about change, adaptation is a subunit of the whole idea. The positive subunit :-p
you know you rambled on then for 3 whole paragraphs why 'about' has some implication with an agenda then ended with
Evolution is about change
sighs in disbelief. So following your contention, evolution follows an agenda ...
Using the word about has a tendency to attribute an agenda to something.
Which kind of makes the rest
It's not so obvious to others. In my experience, people tend to require things to be 'about' something, to have a purpose.
and everything after a bit silly really. I mean look...
adaptation is a subunit of the whole idea. The positive subunit
which is what I was saying in my opening post! Adaptation isn't the only cause, mutations being another and possibly other causes we don't know about but it is the 'positive subunit'!
I think you are just on a wind up now so best you go down your path on your own | |
|
| Evolution is Favoring Shorter, Heavier Women, Study Says
Posted: 1/16/2010 8:25:58 PM | coolnomad said:
It may seem obvious to you that evolution is the term used to describe the phenomena of: things happen to change. I don't see how you can have the separation of adaptability from mutation as that adaptation requires a change (mutation) in the genome to occur in order to be realized. I think it does not - and according to your own definition it does not - require any change of physical gene. A phenotypic change can occur within a population sometimes without any genetic change
at all. Without genetics knowledge, without the specifics on the specific genetic change, you could never say Evolution happened, unless, of course, the really sensible definition of Evolution is being used..."Change happened" . That's Evolution.
I could see a case for a behavioral argument coming out of the previous paragraph though. Certainly As in the recent case of speciation being observed in progress with the hybrid Darwin's Finches and their foreigner's song, complete with grammatical error and foreign accent. That learned ( from father) behaviour, is causing a change, as it is responsible for strong inter-group hybrid mate preference. From a single male foreigner, a new group is emerging. If this group displays increased vigour, and strong mating preferences, it's "off to the races".
It's not so obvious to others. In my experience, people tend to require things to be 'about' something, to have a purpose. Therefore I find it necessary to specify that evolution is a description of the natural world and not an agenda/dogma and not 'about' anything because well; it isn't. Evolution is about change, adaptation is a subunit of the whole idea. The positive subunit :-p The verb might be, but the noun is "Evolution".
The genome is itself a pressure on itself! It has elements that induce change in itself regardless of external pressures! The genotype can be considered to be a phenotype too, and genome can be a phenome. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
