Meet future women: shorter and plumper

[ChimneySweep]

Meet future woman: shorter, plumper, more fertile - health - 19 October 2009 - New Scientist

Women of the future are likely to be slightly shorter and plumper, have healthier hearts and longer reproductive windows. These changes are predicted by the strongest proof to date that humans are still evolving. Although differences in survival may no longer select "fitter" humans and their genes, differences in reproduction still can. The question is whether women who have more children have distinguishing traits which they pass on to their offspring. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children, on average, than taller, lighter ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol levels likewise reared more children, and – not surprisingly – so did women who had their first child at a younger age or who entered menopause later. Strikingly, these traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn also had more children It is not the first study to conclude that natural selection is operating on humans today; the difference is that much of the earlier work has drawn that conclusion from geographic differences in gene frequencies, rather than from direct measurements of reproductive success. That leaves Stearns's study as perhaps the most detailed measure of evolution in humans today.

Humans today largely create their own environment - so is this natural, cultural or serendipity?
PS Will it make a change tot the future of the Finest Women of all Time thread?

[springscout]

Microevolution is an interesting subject, but I strongly doubt that it could occur within such a short amount of time (our future, as opposed to that of our great, great grandchild).

I don't think we'll ever meet them in our lifespan. In any case, science is notoriously inaccurate where long-term predictions are concerned.

Five bucks says humans never get there; no offense to the ladies but I'm willing to bet most men would take model women over non-model women.

[ChimneySweep]

I don't think we'll ever meet them in our lifespan. In any case, science is notoriously inaccurate where long-term predictions are concerned.

Interestingly, according to another article I read, the Dutch seem to be bucking the trend.
Height in the United States stopped increasing fifty years ago, and in fact women are now getting shorter:
From the New Yorker:

. According to the National Center for Health Statistics—which conducts periodic surveys of as many as thirty-five thousand Americans—women born in the late nineteen-fifties and early nineteen-sixties average just under five feet five. Those born a decade later are a third of an inch shorter. But not the Dutch:

In the space of about 150 years, the Dutch have gone from being one of Europe's smallest people to the tallest in the world.The average height is now 6 feet 1 inch for Dutch men and 5 feet 7 inches for Dutch women. The most convincing argument for why the Dutch have grown so tall so recently was put forward by J.W. Drukker, a professor of economic history at the University of Groningen. His studies revealed that the Dutch growth spurt of the mid-19th century coincided with the establishment of the first liberal democracy. Before this time, Holland had grown rich off its colonies but the wealth had stayed in the hands of the elite. After this time, the wealth began to trickle down to all levels of society, the average income went up and so did the height.

Since then, the gap between the rich and poor in Holland has remained relatively narrow, and the country now has some of the best pre- and postnatal care in the world. This is in direct contrast to America, for example, where the population, once more than 3 inches taller than the average Dutchman, has not increased in height for 25 years. Although America itself is wealthy, the wealth is not evenly distributed.

[Hurt]

Quote by: springscout Microevolution is an interesting subject, but I strongly doubt that it could occur within such a short amount of time (our future, as opposed to that of our great, great grandchild). I don't think we'll ever meet them in our lifespan. In any case, science is notoriously inaccurate where long-term predictions are concerned. Five bucks says humans never get there; no offense to the ladies but I'm willing to bet most men would take model women over non-model women.

But survival of the fittest isn't determined by physical fitness alone..

[DoctorBarber]

Women of the future are likely to be slightly shorter and plumper, have healthier hearts and longer reproductive windows. These changes are predicted by the strongest proof to date that humans are still evolving.

I thought it took millions of years for evolution to occur. What the heck?

[gallo]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I thought it took millions of years for evolution to occur. What the heck?

You thought wrong. Perhaps if you actually made an effort to learn...

[gallo]

Quote by: Hurt But survival of the fittest isn't determined by physical fitness alone..

What is "survival of the fittest" and what does it have to do with evolution?

[yukonmuffin]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I thought it took millions of years for evolution to occur. What the heck?

Evolving is an action verb. it's happening, not happened.

[barts]

Quote by: springscout Five bucks says humans never get there; no offense to the ladies but I'm willing to bet most men would take model women over non-model women.

But will the "model" women have as many babies as "non-model" women? And, will the babies of "model" women be more reproductively "fitter" than the babies of "non-model" women?

One wonders, too, who the "model" women will choose among the men? Human evolution is not just a matter of who men will "take".

[barts]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I thought it took millions of years for evolution to occur. What the heck?

Depends on the species, and the environment. Just wondering, but where did you hear that evolution takes millions of years?

[grandpa]

Quote by: barts Depends on the species, and the environment. Just wondering, but where did you hear that evolution takes millions of years?

Good question. Through everday observation, we see people capable of adapting to survive and prosper in this new environment or that. And we don't need manufactured evidence about a young earth to explain any of it, either.

Grandpa h.

[Wailer]

Quote by: ChimneySweep PS Will it make a change tot the future of the Finest Women of all Time thread?

Hmmm...did Rachel Ray make the FWOAT list?

[ChimneySweep]

barts:

But will the "model" women have as many babies as "non-model" women? And, will the babies of "model" women be more reproductively "fitter" than the babies of "non-model" women?

Allowing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I can't argue re "model' women exactly, but taller women are more likely to have careers and career women are less likely to marry early, stay married or have children.

FuturePundit: Tallness In Women Correlates With Masculine Ambitions.

Scots academics questioned 1,220 women from the UK, United States, Canada and Australia and found the taller ones were less broody, had fewer children and were more ambitious. They were also likely to have their first child at a later age. Shorter women tended to be more maternal and homely, according to research carried out by psychologists Denis Deady, of Stirling University, and Miriam Law Smith, from St Andrews University. The researchers theorize that higher testosterone made the women taller while simultaneously causing their brains to develop to have more masculine features. They conclude, rather, that taller women have more of the male sex hormone testosterone, which could give them more “male” traits, such as being assertive, competitive and ambitious.

Careers And Marriage - Forbes.com
While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat and less likely to have children. And if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

will they taste the same ?

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: barts Depends on the species, and the environment. Just wondering, but where did you hear that evolution takes millions of years?

From Google after searching "evolution", "how long did it take apes to evolve", stuff like that.

I've read that for apes, evolution was a very slow process for apes that occured over millions of years, and that the first humans lived 3 to 4 million years ago and are named "Australopithecus afarensis".

If any of this nonsense is inaccurate, feel free to make corrections.



Oh, and meet my new friend Larry. Hes a vegetarian.

[GeminiBrian]

=DoctorBarber;67165 Oh, and meet my new friend Larry. Hes a vegetarian.

Poor soul - no wonder he looks so miserable if you're the only friend he can find.

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Poor soul - no wonder he looks so miserable if you're the only friend he can find.

I'm sure if he met such a spectacular homosexual such as yourself, his life would be full of joy and laughter! Gay is the answer to all life's problems right Gemini?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: DoctorBarber I'm sure if he met such a spectacular homosexual such as yourself, his life would be full of joy and laughter! Gay is the answer to all life's problems right Gemini?

Yes - right - I do tend to laugh at most things, Doc - not least myself.

I find it's far healthier than being morose.

[ChimneySweep]

Ah -hem..short, plump woman here (you know, the future of mankind)..could you guys at least ATTEMPT to keep this on topic please?

[Cruella]

Further thread derailments and personal insults may lead to thread closures and infractions being issued. Stay on topic please, and refrain from making the debate personal.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.