Has There Been An Evidence Of Evolution In Human Being In The Last Few Millenia?

[jankren]

If evolution is true, then shouldnt we see at least a slight noticeable change in human physical appearance between people today and people from lets say a few thousand years ago? I mean according to historical records human beings dont seem to have changed much in the last few thousands of years. We still basically look the same.

They say climate changes one's appearance. However, we are aware of massive population immigrations from one region to another that has happened in the last few hundred years but lets take an example of the European descents in the Americas. Has there been any very minor change in them genetically or physically compared to Europeans who still live in Europe?

I personally kind of think it makes no sense you know. I mean how long will it take a black African man to turn into a pale nordic man if he moves to Northern Europe?

[C-Rob]

WEll, his descendents will be much paler and if they mate with the natives, his blackness will go away pretty quick. Now if a tribe went up and just stayed to themselves, I have no idea if they'd ever become big, red hairy, and white.

[jankren]

WEll, his descendents will be much paler and if they mate with the natives, his blackness will go away pretty quick. Now if a tribe went up and just stayed to themselves, I have no idea if they'd ever become big, red hairy, and white.

Interracial marriage is not evolution.

[chamaeleo]

Interracial marriage is not evolution.

Mate choice IS one factor in natural selection. Extrapolate natural selection over a hundred successive generations, and you might begin to see evolution within a population. Or not, depending on lots of other variables.

I drink way too much coffee for PTC paper to register for me...I think I'm a "late-taster".

As for actual evidence of human evolution over the last few millennia: are you looking for entirely new phenotypes, or would you be satisfied by the simple observation that the Earth's human population now has a radically different genetic distribution than what was here a few thousand years ago? The longer the timespan, the greater the genetic differences.

Good answers, guys, not much else for me to add!

[Chaigidel]

well for one thing people 2 thousand years ago were on average much shorter than modern man?

[Ummon]

well for one thing people 2 thousand years ago were on average much shorter than modern man?

A matter of caloric input infact, not evolution. Hunter-gatherers were taller in perspective.

[Last Roman]

well for one thing people 2 thousand years ago were on average much shorter than modern man?

that has to do more with diet and general health care than evolution.

[Kiljan Arslan]

not much but then it takes a hell of a lot longer then a few thousand years.

[jankren]

not much but then it takes a hell of a lot longer then a few thousand years.

The thing is Im not talking about major change. Just show me a little evidence of slight change in human physical structure.

[Copperknickers II]

The thing is Im not talking about major change. Just show me a little evidence of slight change in human physical structure.

Even that would take much too long to notice so far. Besides, as humans we fill a pretty nice little ecological niche here, in that we haven't been put under any evolutionary pressure since around the ice age. The fact is that in these numbers and with this level of globalisation, we will have researched genetics to the point that we can modify our genes and evolve ourselves before we showed any sign of evolution.

Even if we didn't, we wouldnt evolve at all really, as every time we breed we dilute our genetic code, and if noone fails to reproduce then no genetic feature will have the chance to become prominent, therefore no evolution.

[Acco]

The thing is Im not talking about major change. Just show me a little evidence of slight change in human physical structure.

Why does it have to be a physical structure change? Evolution is a change in the inherited traits that are passed down from generation to generation.

And yes there has been evidence of evolution in human beings recently and it is evident with sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia was first discovered when James Herrick noticed on one of his patients, that was complaining about open sores on his leg, that upon close examination the patient had red blood cells in the shape of sickles (a farm tool) instead of the usual flattened disk. Sickle cell anemia is caused by a change occuring in the polypeptides found in hemoglobin (Hemoglobin is a protein that carries oxygen throughout the red blood cell). So, for example, when someone who has sickle cell anemia is deprived of oxygen these hemoglobin join forces and create fibers and thus these fibers cause the red blood cells to dramatically transform into the shape noticed by Herrick. These sickle-shaped cells are more rigid and often get stuck in the capillaries, the smallest blood vessel in the body, and this in turn causes tissue and cell damage because of a lull of movement through the vessels. But to the point, sickle cell anemia is often found among Americans of the African ancestry and natives of tropical areas in Asia and Africa, however it is seldom-seen in, for say, Scandanavia. Why? Because people who are heterozygous for sickle cell anemia are somewhat resistant to malaria, this occurs because sickle cells often get destroyed in circulation and they happen to destroy the malaria parasites with them. Scientists estimate that this trait as an effective resistance to malaria was most likely developed as a mutation and was passed on through the population, it became widespread in an area prone to malaria and this mutation suited to the people's advantage. One important principle of evolution.

[Ludicus]

One important principle of evolution.

Yes, a fine example of positive selection, genetics programs controlling host-pathogen interaction in humans (and also other species)
The evolution of a number of erythrocyte genes are linked to malaria resistence.
"In the case of host–pathogen coevolution, the pathogen is under strong selection to constantly devise new strategies for gaining access to the host while evading its defense system, whereas the host is under selection to deny access to the pathogen and to neutralize it"

[Gaidin]

Why does it have to be a physical structure change? Evolution is a change in the inherited traits that are passed down from generation to generation.
<snip long paragraph>

That has got to be my favorite example. Damn you for beating me to it.

[Kiljan Arslan]

well that ber hard physical change takes forever, now biological change on the other hand dosn't. Remember what small poxs csarried by resistant europeans did to the Natives of America and the aborigionies.

[jankren]

If evolution is true how come a baby of a black African couple who was born in lets say Sweden doesnt adapt to his cold environment by having smaller nostril and lighter skin?

I personally think evolution is just a theory. Though I admit it makes much more sense than stupid creationism.

[Wiertz]

If evolution is true how come a baby of a black African couple who was born in lets say Sweden doesnt adapt to his cold environment by having smaller nostril and lighter skin?

I personally think evolution is just a theory. Though I admit it makes much more sense than stupid creationism.

Because this evolution takes MANY MANY generations, this just doesn't change instantly because he is born in a cold environment.

[jankren]

Because this evolution takes MANY MANY generations, this just doesn't change instantly because he is born in a cold environment.

In my opinion probably its not that for example people living in Africa evolved to adapt to its environment by turning black but rather its all about natural selection which killed all the people with lighter skin so only the ones with black skin were left. I really just cant believe the gradual physical change theory.

[MrMofo]

If evolution is true how come a baby of a black African couple who was born in lets say Sweden doesnt adapt to his cold environment by having smaller nostril and lighter skin?

Here youre talking about Lamarkian evolution, not darwinian.

And in my anthropology classes it was stated that one theory thinks it would only have taken 20,000 years for pigmentation in skin to change entirely from black to white. Apparently it's one of the more adaptable traits.

[Justice and Mercy]

If evolution is true how come a baby of a black African couple who was born in lets say Sweden doesnt adapt to his cold environment by having smaller nostril and lighter skin?

Just another person who doesn't understand basic evolutionary theory, here.

Evolution isn't a baby realizing the conditions outside the womb before it's born and adapting at will.

But it's not something I feel like explaining on the spot. Go read a science book or something.

EDIT:

So mkay I understand now that evolution is not about monkey gradually turning into a human being. Its more about human beings used to screw monkeys and produce ... WHAT?!? Im confused ...

No, seriously, go read a science book. If the dogshit we Americans call "High School science textbooks" have the right answer it can't be a difficult concept to grasp.

[Iron Juggernaut]

If evolution is true how come a baby of a black African couple who was born in lets say Sweden doesnt adapt to his cold environment by having smaller nostril and lighter skin?

I personally think evolution is just a theory. Though I admit it makes much more sense than stupid creationism.

ANYWHO, there are several quite noticable changes in modern man. For instance, did you know that the average height has increased in today's populace by 2 inches compared to the people of a hundred years ago?