why do we not see evolution in humans?

[brightlights]

if you look back at our earliest depictions of humans on pottery, walls, etc... why do they still resemble the humans of today? if evolution is continuous why have we not seen it these last 6000 years? this may be a stupid question, but i thought of it while driving today and thought it wouldnt hurt to ask.

 

[Tachocline]

Do you think evolutionary timescales are in the several thousand year range typically?

 

[brightlights]

if evolution were true, we would see nothing huge in 6000 years. but my point is we see nothing at all.

 

[mark kennedy]

I like the Ice-man Otzi find, he is the oldest known intact human and he is probably about 5,300 years old. He wore clothes, had a bow and arrow, had some mushrooms that have antibotic properited. He had tattos, indentations in his ears indicating he may of wore earings. For all intents and purposes this guy was not all that different from modern humans.

It also interesting that they have found flint tools and fire hearths from as long as 790,000 years ago. Even Homo Habilis had tools and he is said to have existed some 2.5 million years ago. I think the OP comments and questions have some merit.

 

[Split Rock]

I like the Ice-man Otzi find, he is the oldest known intact human and he is probably about 5,300 years old. He wore clothes, had a bow and arrow, had some mushrooms that have antibotic properited. He had tattos, indentations in his ears indicating he may of wore earings. For all intents and purposes this guy was not all that different from modern humans.

It also interesting that they have found flint tools and fire hearths from as long as 790,000 years ago. Even Homo Habilis had tools and he is said to have existed some 2.5 million years ago. I think the OP comments and questions have some merit.

Are you implying that there has been no evolution in the hominid line since Home habilis???

 

[Tachocline]

I like the Ice-man Otzi find, he is the oldest known intact human and he is probably about 5,300 years old. He wore clothes, had a bow and arrow, had some mushrooms that have antibotic properited. He had tattos, indentations in his ears indicating he may of wore earings. For all intents and purposes this guy was not all that different from modern humans.

It also interesting that they have found flint tools and fire hearths from as long as 790,000 years ago. Even Homo Habilis had tools and he is said to have existed some 2.5 million years ago. I think the OP comments and questions have some merit.

And tools are indicators of evolution how? What about the general stature changes that are ongoing, as this seems to be becoming hereditary then does it not become evolution? People born without appendices?

 

[brightlights]

are there really documents of people born without apendicis?

 

[Split Rock]

if evolution were true, we would see nothing huge in 6000 years. but my point is we see nothing at all.

Even 6,000 years is a very short period of time in terms of evolutionary change. We have seen minor evolutionary change in a number of different species during this time: for example the Peppered Moth and Darwin's Finches, etc. For speciation and adaptive radiation, I believe the fastest known for vertebrates involve the Cichlid fish in African lakes and that is on the order of 10,000 years.

When specifically looking at humans, one of the problems is that we are able to alter our environment to suit our current genetic profile. If we are cold, we can heat our homes. If food is lacking, we can grow our own. This means that there are fewer selective pressures that nature can bring to bear on us.

 

[Nathan Poe]

if you look back at our earliest depictions of humans on pottery, walls, etc... why do they still resemble the humans of today? if evolution is continuous why have we not seen it these last 6000 years? this may be a stupid question, but i thought of it while driving today and thought it wouldnt hurt to ask.

Look closer. Go to your local museum and check out the ancient clothing: Armor, helmets, and the like. Some of that stuff looks child-size; could you fit one of those helmets on your head?

You'll see the same thing in medieval armor, only not as big a difference. A man in full armor should look humongous, but many of those suits are no bigger then you or I.


People have been getting bigger and taller throughout history. There's an evolutionary change right there. Not bad for a few thousand years...

 

[Split Rock]

Look closer. Go to your local museum and check out the ancient clothing: Armor, helmets, and the like. Some of that stuff looks child-size; could you fit one of those helmets on your head?

You'll see the same thing in medieval armor, only not as big a difference. A man in full armor should look humongous, but many of those suits are no bigger then you or I.


People have been getting bigger and taller throughout history. There's an evolutionary change right there. Not bad for a few thousand years...

Part of this trend could be due to nutrition as well. Genetics are not the only thing that influences a person's height. I am not sure what the consensus is on the apparent increase in European height over time.

 

[Tachocline]

It doesn't matter if it is nutrition. That is an external stimuli that is modifying the environment. If this effects change in hereditary then it qualifies as evolutionary change.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ithink it is interesting that Homo Habilis was determined to be on of the human ancestors because there was tools found nearby. Had it not been for that it could almost certainly passed for an ape given the cranium size being smaller then the generally accepted lower limit.

 

[ForeRunner]

Look closer. Go to your local museum and check out the ancient clothing: Armor, helmets, and the like. Some of that stuff looks child-size; could you fit one of those helmets on your head?

You'll see the same thing in medieval armor, only not as big a difference. A man in full armor should look humongous, but many of those suits are no bigger then you or I.


People have been getting bigger and taller throughout history. There's an evolutionary change right there. Not bad for a few thousand years...

Julius Ceaser was considered very tall for a Roman.

He was 5'6"

 

[Split Rock]

It doesn't matter if it is nutrition. That is an external stimuli that is modifying the environment. If this effects change in hereditary then it qualifies as evolutionary change.

Nutrition can affect human height without changing heredity. In other words, one's phenotype can be affected by both one's genotype and the environment.

 

[Split Rock]

Ithink it is interesting that Homo Habilis was determined to be on of the human ancestors because there was tools found nearby. Had it not been for that it could almost certainly passed for an ape given the cranium size being smaller then the generally accepted lower limit.

If 1470 [Homo habilis fossil ER 1470] was an ape, it would be a truly extraordinary one. The brain is far larger than that of any ape, with the possible exception of extremely large male gorillas. The braincase is far more rounded and gracile than that of any ape, and the brain has a human rather than an apelike pattern.- Tobias P.V. (1987): The brain of Homo habilis: a new level of organization in cerebral evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 16:741-61.

 

[ScarabicAtheist]

So Julius Caesar was had malnutrition? Wow, youd think that the great roman empire could FEED THEIR EMPEROR.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So Julius Caesar was had malnutrition? Wow, youd think that the great roman empire could FEED THEIR EMPEROR.

Well, they didn't exactly have the Atkins diet back then. Imagine how well a Roman Peasant ate...

 

[Dragar]

Humans are evolving.

For instance, in areas of the world where malaria is common (West Africa, for instance), sickle cell anaemia (a genetic disorder which is normally harmful) is much more common than in other areas of the world. The reason for this is that it provides some protection against malaria, and so humans with that mutation survive to breed more often than humans without the mutation, passing on their genes.

In other parts of the world, where malaria is not as common, the disadvantages of sickle cell anaemia far outweigh the advantages, and so we find a decrease in those particular genes amongst the population.

In other words, populations of humans in areas of the world where malaria is common have evolved a change in their bodies called sickle cell anaemia to protect against it.

And, more than that, because populations of humans in areas of the world where malaria is not common have evolved to remove sickle cell anaemia, a disadvantageous mutation.

Dragar

 

[Asimov]

What about in terms of brain power, I'm sure progressing from domesticating horses to the Industrial Revolution to splitting an atom have something to do with our brains evolving. If I'm wrong, then tell me what would be a factor in that?

 

[Data]

If 1470 [Homo habilis fossil ER 1470] was an ape, it would be a truly extraordinary one. The brain is far larger than that of any ape, with the possible exception of extremely large male gorillas. The braincase is far more rounded and gracile than that of any ape, and the brain has a human rather than an apelike pattern.- Tobias P.V. (1987): The brain of Homo habilis: a new level of organization in cerebral evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 16:741-61.

OWNED.