On 11 Jun, 12:39, Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
> chazwin schreef:
>
>
>
>> On 10 Jun, 14:33, Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
>>> Scott H schreef:> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
>>>> see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
>>>> But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
>>>> size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
>>>> approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
>>>> food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
>>>> heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
>>>> happiness.
>>>> The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
>>>> doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
>>> It's quite logical that a species like the humans will split someday
>>> into those who get taller, and those who do not. But actually getting
>>> smaller is something that does not happen. Human dwarfs may replicate
>>> more succesfully and inherit the earth. Eeven smaller dwarf may be still
>>> more succesfull. But the bigger humans will sureley demand their space.
>
>> It is highly unlikely that humans will "split". Due to technology.
>
> If a group of people all have gene X which reduces growth and other
> people all have gene Y which continues growth, only when they mix you
> will have variations. But they don't mix that often.
Tall people marry short people all the time. Genes are more complex.
Even simple dominance/ recessiveness would scotch your argument. My
family consists of very tall people 6' 4" and 5' 6" both males.
Simlple dominance rules mask many variations.
They stick to their
> kind most of the time. People have preferences. One day these
> preferences will cause a split that cannot be bridged anymore.
Splits only happen in times of geographic isolation - you need to go
back to Darwin.
>
>> But this HAS happened in the past. Environments which favour smallness
>> have become populated with smaller people: cite Mbuti of the Congo,
>> and other places which favour tallness to help see dangers and
>> opportunities on grasslands for example have become populated with
>> taller people: cite Watusi or Masai.
The case of pygmies and Masai would never happen in the present
technological/urban situation.
>
>> Dwarfism has genetic problems and is unlike to become more widespread
>> due to significantly shortened longevity and reduced fertility.
>> Leon is demonstrating his misunderstanding of natural selection once
>> again. The only way in which traits can increase in a given population
>> is for that trait to have significant reproductive advantage, and for
>> individuals with competing traits to die before they have a chance to
>> reproduce.
>
> Not quite. Here again the law of large numbers counts. A preference will
> graduadely take over. Just because making three kids in stead of two is
> more fun with someone you really like.
You seem blind to my objections and content only to continue with your
unsupportable speculations.
