3 ms·

I suspect the parents and the children are taller. I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence

by fnid 17y ago

I suspect the parents and the children are taller. I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. Your quote says, "Presently differ." Three or four generations of people have been born since 1948 when they split. Furthermore, the ability for dna to selectively turn on or off particular genes in response to environmental conditions is itself inherited from the parents. I'm sure there were, in our past, some mutants who did not have the ability to turn on or off genes and perhaps they died. It's easier to train monkeys to fear a stick than to fear a flower. It's because the genes allow it. Sticks look like snakes. If it's easier to learn to fear a snake, the monkey survives longer.

tokenadult 17y ago
I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. The quotation is about expression of a trait (phenotype) and not about genotype, and thus not about "evolving different physical traits." There is no evidence that gene frequencies have changed at all in either place.
- fnid 17y ago
  I'm still not convinced. If it's 90% heritable, then the average of the shortest population needs only be 5' tall. That's pretty short. Nutrition could account for the rest. Yes, nutrition is environmental, but it doesn't change my original claim. Our physical ability to respond to environmental changes is inherited. If you feed someone who has inherited the genes from two 5' tall parents, I highly doubt you could feed one twin better than the other and get a 6" difference in height. You know by thinking about it that it won't happen. Furthermore, 4 generations of offspring will lead to genetic differences in the population. Foxes can be domesticated in 10 generations. That's a huge divergence in phenotype.

by fnid 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago

I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. The quotation is about expression of a trait (phenotype) and not about genotype, and thus not about "evolving different physical traits." There is no evidence that gene frequencies have changed at all in either place.

fnid 17y ago
I'm still not convinced. If it's 90% heritable, then the average of the shortest population needs only be 5' tall. That's pretty short. Nutrition could account for the rest. Yes, nutrition is environmental, but it doesn't change my original claim. Our physical ability to respond to environmental changes is inherited. If you feed someone who has inherited the genes from two 5' tall parents, I highly doubt you could feed one twin better than the other and get a 6" difference in height. You know by thinking about it that it won't happen. Furthermore, 4 generations of offspring will lead to genetic differences in the population. Foxes can be domesticated in 10 generations. That's a huge divergence in phenotype.