Slashdot Mirror


Did Natural Selection Make the Dutch the Tallest People On the Planet?

sciencehabit writes The Dutch population has gained an impressive 20 centimeters in the past 150 years and is now officially the tallest on the planet. Scientists chalk up most of that increase to rising wealth, a rich diet, and good health care, but a new study suggests something else is going on as well: The Dutch growth spurt may be an example of human evolution in action. The study shows that tall Dutch men on average have more children than their shorter counterparts, and that more of their children survive. That suggests genes that help make people tall are becoming more frequent among the Dutch. "This study drives home the message that the human population is still subject to natural selection," says Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University who wasn't involved in the work. "It strikes at the core of our understanding of human nature, and how malleable it is."

23 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. still ? by itzly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This study drives home the message that the human population is still subject to natural selection

    Obviously. It's surprising that some people think otherwise.

    1. Re: still ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's nothing, I get emails advertising that kind of growth all the time.

    2. Re:still ? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Evolution is always applicable.

      So if you have a population of short, fat, uneducated people breeding like rabbits ... your population is going to skew to that.

      If you have a population of tall, thin, athletic, smart and healthy people breeding, that's what you're going to be getting as well.

      Any time a population selects based on a set of criteria, evolution happens and the traits selected become prominent.

      Honestly, walk around a mall and look at who is pushing baby carriages. That is who is providing the inputs for evolution.

      Evolution is pretty much a constant process. Whether or not it's choosing the "best" of the species or not depends on the population ... and birth rates by demographic for the last few decades suggests that it isn't the educated or wealthy who are producing offspring.

      Saying that evolution might no longer be applicable is failing to understand what it is in the big picture in terms of evolution. It skews towards survival of the fittest. But modern society could be skewing it to "survival of the ones who fail to avoid having children".

      Many many people simply self select out of the next iteration of evolution and choose not to have kids.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:still ? by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What has changed is the fitness function. Some time ago, resistance to diseases would have been a very good trait. Now, we can treat most diseases with antibiotics, so it's not longer a big deal to have natural resistance. On the other hand, qualities like "forgetting to take the pill and get pregnant", or "I don't give a fuck what my parents think, I want his babies" are more successful now. A lot of people only look at the old fitness, and ignore the new one.

    4. Re:still ? by Teun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting, esp. in the light of facts, the Dutch have the lowest per capita no. of teen pregnancies and use of antibiotics...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  2. It's the water! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the short Dutch are below sea level

  3. Re:Evolution by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, they DO have to keep their heads above the water in case a dike gives way.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  4. Re: Selection, yes. by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't natural selection also include perception? Aren't there some species that choose mates based on colorful feathers or sounds, and those with the most colorful feathers or most desirable sounds tend to produce offspring more? So how is choosing a mate based on height any different?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  5. Re:Evolution by Shortguy881 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the US. It took less time to bread out intelligence.

    --
    Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  6. Women like to look up - Science! by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tall men are percieved as more powerful, commanding - look among military commanders and corporate executives for the short guys. No so many. It's a pattern that just exists. Tall guys tend to be strong guys, and they win physical fights even if they have to sit on the opponent. They gain a sense of control and tend to have the advantage in negotiations.

    Women - godz help me here - tend to mate up with the winners. Tall men tend to be winners. Tall men tend to have families with more children, even if they have to marry and reproduce with many women serially. They tend to have that ability because they tend to make more money than shorter men. The advantage isn't noticable in everyday life, but the advantage works over centuries to produce a taller people as the short dudes tend to lose out in the carnival. People get taller.

  7. Re:Evolution by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the US. It took less time to bread out intelligence

    Well, we do have a lot of wheat here.

  8. Hormones in dairy? by De_Boswachter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dutch people ale avid milk drinkers and meat eaters. The average height of Dutch people has increased significantly over the past generations since WW-II, coinciding with the increasing availability of dairy products (there's been a surplus, referred to as 'The Milk Puddle' and the 'Butter Mountain') and cheaper meat ('Kilo Crackers' and 'Poof Chickens'). In the 60s and 70s there were elaborate national media campaigns to encourage milk consumption. Milk was even distributed for free by elementary schools in the 70s and early 80s. The use of growth hormone in dairy cattle is forbidden. Yet, it leaves me wondering whether there's a relation between hormones, dairy intake and increased height of Dutch people over the generations.

  9. Re: Evolution by Vermonter · · Score: 3, Informative

    If this is a matter of existing genes being switched on or off, then 150 years isn't too short of a time.

  10. Dutch Butt by Hulfs · · Score: 3, Funny

    So they can account for us Dutch folks being taller than other cultures through evolutionary forces, but can that account for Dutch Butt too?

  11. Re:Evolution by invid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the US. It took less time to bread out intelligence.

    I come to slashdot for the rye remarks.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  12. Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at the US. It took less time to bread out intelligence.

    The irony in this is absolutely priceless :-D

  13. Re:Evolution by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    +5 Insightful

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  14. Dinos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the evolution of the Dinos is anything to go by, in 100 million years, the Dutch will be 25 meters tall and Americans will be 25 meters wide...

    1. Re:Dinos by ChrisMaple · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Dutch are 0.001 furlongs taller than 150 years ago, or 6.5e-18 parsec.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Dinos by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe because the US, Liberia, and Myanmar are the only 3 countries in the ENTIRE WORLD that have not officially converted to metric.
      Oh, and if you're curious, I'm an American who's completed all my schooling exclusively in the USA, and I was only taught metric.
      I had to learn to use that old imperial system to interact with you stubborn old fossils clinging to an incomprehensible hodgepodge.
      Perhaps I should add that I graduated in 1984.

  15. Re:Taller men get more girls the world over by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I doubt that this is right. It's just a misconception to say that in a first-world society, fertility is pretty much the same thing as attractiveness. It's not. In fact, the people who are broadly judged to be most desirable - the people with Ph.D's, sixpack abs and fancy jobs - have fewer children that the average. A much stronger driver of first-world fertility in a place like NL is: Who's sloppy with their birth control, who's impulsive enough to think things like "Yeah, I should just have the baby!", who's someone that thinks that having a child is going to fix the problems in their relationship, etc.

    For these fertility increasers to be correlated with height is just weird and hard to explain, but it's obviously real, so there much be some mechanism. But that mechanism is not as simple as "Taller men get more girls".

  16. Re:Evolution by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Notice that Netherlanders from outside Holland and North Holland aren't as tall as Hollanders... and these other states are above sea level. QED.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  17. Re:Evolution by Snufu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look at the US. It took less time to bread out intelligence.

    Intelligence is the yeast of our problems.