Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
> New Research Confirms That Natural Selection Is Acting On The Current Human
I don't get this article. Was there ever any reason to doubt that
natural selection is acting on us?
Is the point that we have actual evidence of natural selection on
current humans, rather than evidence of selection on past humans and
no reason to doubt that it acts on current humans? If that's the
case, I don't get this:
> New evidence suggests that natural selection is leading women to have their
> first child at earlier ages. This is shown to be an inherited evolutionary
> change that is taking place despite the influence of social factors such as
> religion and education.
Since when are social factors outside the scope of natural selection?
Animals with bigger brains and sensitive sensors are able to act
socially, which increases their chances of reproducing.
Is the point just that giving birth earlier is being selected despite
other pressures to give birth later?
-- Karl Anderson email@example.com http://www.monkey.org/~kra/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:26:17 PDT