Evolution's Path May Lead To Shorter, Heavier Women

Hugh Pickens writes "Yale University researchers believe that if evolutionary pressures of sexual selection and reproductive fitness continue for another 10 generations, the trends detected in their study may mean that the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter, 1 kg heavier, will bear her first child five months earlier, and enter menopause 10 months later. 'There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans,' says Stephen Stearns of Yale University. 'That's just plain false.' Stearns and his team studied the medical histories of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham, using medical data from a study going back to 1948 spanning three generations, and found that shorter, heavier women had more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol were also more likely to have large families as were women who gave birth early or had a late menopause. More importantly, these traits are then passed on to their daughters, who also, on average, had more children. The study has not determined why these factors are linked to reproductive success, but it is likely that they indicate genetic, rather than environmental, effects. 'The evolution that's going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals,' says Stearns. 'These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things.'"

Comments

Re:Alrighty Then

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't talk sense around here. You'll have some fucktard on here screaming that the universe is more than 6000 years old.
 
Funny how those who don't want religion and don't know religion are the first to tell the religious what they believe and how they should live.

Re:Population trends and the direction of evolutio

[Anonymous Coward]

And to think, I actually had the idea that this was leading into a nigger post.

But I suppose that would have been sorely mistaken. For niggers to constitute a "breed of humans with a genetic propensity towards violence and lawlessness", we would first have to establish niggers as a "breed of humans."

That challenge is to biology as the perpetual motion machine is to physics.

Re:Idocracy

[oldhack]

"The content of the concept of intelligence is the observation that if a person is good at one mental task then all things being equal he is morel likely to do better at any other mental task."

That's an example of recursive bullshit. Breathing is a mental task.

Fuck off.

What about my "no fat chicks" sign?

[thetoadwarrior]

The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches. They're more likely to be short and fat. The well off take care of themselves and they also work so they're less likely to have kids or as many.

We're effectively stalling evolution and will take a step back thanks to protecting the ignorant and lazy. Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.

One number explains it: 8008135

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously,

Women with larger breasts have a stronger tendency to attract a mate, and a frame to support the extra weight. 2 cm shorter and 1kg don't really represent a lot of genetic drift.

You know, if you think about it, barbie probably has more than 1kg of breast weight and probably 2 cm of spine compression to support it.

Okay - I wasn't serious. Men are pigs, myself included.

Re:Idocracy

[oldhack]

Go hawk your pseudo science somewhere else. Take your muddled brains with you.