Have we really changed that much since the founding of civilization?
physiologically, not since the Upper Paleolithic. And most of the changes have come due to improved lifestyle as opposed to actual evolution. As far as I know the last major genetic change was the overbite replacing the side to side bite, which happened around the 11th century for Anglo Saxons
>>1354744
I don't know, but women's bodies have changed greatly since the 1940's. Could be all the hormones in the milk.
>>1354764
>overbite replacing the side to side
>side to side
I don't understand
>>1354779
He meant chewing back and forward replaced chewing from side to side.
>>1354779
side to side meaning the upper and lower jaws close against each other as opposed to the overbite where they do a scissor-like motion
it's related to an increased consumption of starch and carbs
>>1354764
This nigga...is very orthodox.
My answer is different. Yes we HAVE been evolving since the upper paleolithic(Neanderthal and H. Sapien cohabitation). In fact we have had several periods of INCREASED evolution during several rapid environmental changes such as the neolithic revolution(diet change and animal disease) as well as from population increases(greater disease susceptibility)
Here is more reasoning for why it most definitely is yes(which most biologists hold).
1. evolution is the change in allele frequency
2. There is a plethora of evidence of recent evolutionary processes. (lactose tolerance, anemia, sickle cell anemia, etc.)
Look up the 10,000 Year Explosion by Harpending and Cochran. A great read and goes over lots of evidence, however their claim that the Yamnaya moved lactose tolerance around has been proven inaccurate now.
Source: one of Henry Harpending's former students before he died
>>1354744
Our brains got smaller because the societies that survived were the ones full of docile slaves willing to do what they were told.
>>1354791
maybe we have differing definitions
OP was asking "THAT much" which to me means significant physical changes. The AMH (anatomically modern human) dates back 200,000 years. Of course there have been constant changes like disease immunity, hair color, etc, and they continue today, but I was taking a broader look
>>1354782
...but I still chew side to side
west African farmers began to farm yams thousands of years ago, they inadvertently changed the landscape so that it supported populations of malaria-carrying mosquitos, which then led to natural selection for individuals carrying the sickle-cell allele because it granted some individuals immunity to malaria.
>>1354806
I don't know then.
no not really, we progressed in some areas digressed in others overall the equilibrium remained the same.
>>1354792
Bullshit.
>>1354744
We lost bone density and height due to agriculture, and male faces use to be more apelike and rugged but now are getting softer.
>>1354777
The differences are diet (bland, vitamin poor food, vs cheesburgers vs vegan), lifestyle (active daily activities, couch potato, /fit/ freak) and the fact that you're bombarded by carefully selected sexy women in the media.
The fat ass thing is probably just prioritising ass/leg workout and fatty foods (also, horrible implants).
Relevantly so like being able to enjoy dairy products for instance.
Pic related it is a supplement to GGS and fills in its biggest critique.
Humans haven't changed for at least 100000 years.
The only thing that really has changed is technology.
>>1356176
And where did the cunning and cognition for technology come from you materialist kek?
Liberals are the real creationists
>>1356194
>And where did the cunning and cognition for technology come from you materialist kek?
From our minds?
Just because our technology has changed the last 5000 years, doesn't mean our mind has evolved you fucking moron.
>>1356176
Sorry but you're talking out of your ass.
In East Asian populations, the upper first premolar has one root, and the lower first premolar has three roots.
That dentition pattern is absent in Caucasian populations, where we have two roots in every premolar. It's also absent in African populations, South Asians, Aboriginal Australians, and pretty much everywhere in the world outside of East Asia.
Humans first left Africa 80.000 years ago, so that particular mutation necessarily had to take place (and become so prevalent) much more recently than that. Human evolution is real.
>>1356090
Cranial capacities have shrunk since the advent of agriculture. Fact.
>>1356276
you have provided no source. fact
>>1356276
Advent of agriculture started 10 kya.
Cranial size shrinking since 20 kya.
You're full of shit since forever.
>>1354744
We have not.
Our bodies changed a little, but it was not due adaptive changes neccesary to our survival. They were little things that altered due to our improved lifestyles.
Humans are taller than ever not because it is necessary for us to reach the fruit at the tops of trees... or reach the can on top of the grocery store shelf. We are taller because we have better diets than we ever have had: not just grains.
Our minds are the same. Our brains always had the capacity to be as smart as we are now, our ancestors just lacked the necessary technology to obtain it. They did well for themselves though.
We today as humans are still the same as our 10,000 B.C. ancestor... just a little more fed and benefiting from our ancestor's advancements more. Could we speak to them, I'm sure the casual fart or "that's what she said" joke would fly pretty well for both of us.
>>1356380
>that winged cocks
>>1356256
Gaining more teeth isn't evolution you fucking ignorant moron.
>>1356431
wew
>>1354744
Not really. Though many of our ancestors are rightly said to be 'tougher' than humans today.
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/search?q=stemming
If we actually tried, got up off of our lazy asses (worked out, ate right) didn't try to fuck up opur genes and bodies/health (smoking etc.), half ass eugenics, and did it properly we could get back some of that so called 'ancestral greatness' and have achieved pic related already
>>1354744
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
Social changes don't qualify, friend.
>>1354791
Are we evolving or adapting?
I would argue from asian physicist's perspective and say we are done evolving and we are just adapting, we aren't making anything that isn't reversed or nullified by simply breeding with a person from a single state over.
>>1356551
Evolution is adaptation
>>1356504
*
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2009/09/stemming-tide-of-deevolution.html
>>1356346
Proto-agriculture, where they gather and store wild wheat and plant a little has been a thing for 20,000 years.
>>1356284
Look it up yourself. The cranial shrinkage in that period is a well known fact.
>>1357333
My sides have transcended this plane of existence.
>>1356212
Mate even creationism is more resembling to reality than that crock of critical theory.
>>1356551
It's still evolution, you're just describing gene flow.
>>1354777
I don't think that's true. I'd like some sort of citation. Ancient statues are extremely similar and renaisance statues and paintings are just about indistinguishable to modern ideals.
And I don't see any noticeable difference in early nude photos either, pic related.
>>1354744
We've gained a host of genetic diseases and generally slightly weakened, I doubt we'd survive as is, if we were forced back to prehistoric standards without our technology and information. Though we've also become more intelligent and some of us have become tolerant of lactose and so can drink milk as adults, which has come in quite handy as a source of calcium.
Define "we".
>>1356176
100000 is a bit much. If you'd said 4000 years I might have had a better time believing you, but even then you would be wrong. Technological evolution has had a more drastic effect then biological in this time period however.
>>1356194
A certain cognitive ability doesn't equate to suddenly being able to build a nuclear reactor you moron, if that's what you're trying to imply. These technologies are built upon previous technologies, tests and observations.
We have changed a bit, but geniuses from 4000 years ago didn't have drastically lower IQs than the ones that are alive now do. They did however have a lot less to information to build upon.
>>1359094
I think he means homo sapiens sapiens.
>>1359120
>what is Flynn effect
Who dug up Stephen jay Gould
>>1354744
Logically, people would be less intelligent the longer they've been civilized.
There is no selection pressure against higher intelligence in primitive societies; but being born smart can be a drawback in civilization, if you're a member of the wrong class, for example.
>>1359177
Which only works because of stuff like not having lead in your water and receiving enough iodine.
If the Flynn Effect took place throughout the entirety of human history then we'd never have gotten civilization started
>>1356132
They agree on almost everything that they both comment on; and nothing they say implies the other is wrong on topics only the other comments on.
>>1360023
Actually they blow him the fuck out in several areas, especially the part where Cuck Diamond says that new Guineas are genetically superior
>>1360032
Diamond says nothing more or less than everyone else in his field says about westerners, or Europeans, or white people, or Eurasians.
And logically, someone from a society like the New Guineans would be smarter than someone from a society like ours. The difference is that being good at our society is more useful than being good at their society; there is no dispute about that.
>>1360035
>someone from a society like the New Guineans would be smarter than someone from a society like ours
By what logic?
Not to mention he doesn't say smarter, he literally says genetically superior
>>1356380
/bread
>>1360038
>By what logic?
There is no drawback to being smarter in a society like that. There is in civilized society.
>Not to mention he doesn't say smarter, he literally says genetically superior
There is no selective pressure against intelligence for them. Like I say, he says nothing people don't say about Eurasians compared to New Guineans.
Do you say they are genetically equivalent?
>>1360063
In what way is there drawback to being smarter in civilized society? If anything, our society currently idolizes intelligence
>>1360069
>In what way is there drawback to being smarter in civilized society? If anything, our society currently idolizes intelligence
Not that anon, but he clearly means from an evolutionary standpoint. Meaning a "drawback" as in it correlates with having fewer children, which is all that matters. It has nothing to do with how good your life is or whether people respect you.
>>1360069
You could be a threat to a ruling class. For most people born smart in civilization, it either makes no difference, or it's actively bad for them.
Our society idolizes success, and there is a vogue for artists and coders.
>>1360082
>You could be a threat to a ruling class
Please, stop it with this persecution complex.
The ruling class doesn't give a shit about smart people, because they have the average man to rely upon.
>For most people born smart in civilization, it either makes no difference, or it's actively bad for them
Only if you don't know how to use it, in which case you aren't very smart.
And you think New Guinean tribes don't have the same stuff? What is it with this noble savage bullshit?
>>1360081
>fewer children
But do we know how successful those children will be over the long run? If an idiot has 4 children but only one of them reproduces, then the genius with 2 children who both reproduce wins out. You can extend this to more generations.
>>1360092
>Please, stop it with this persecution complex.
>The ruling class doesn't give a shit about smart people, because they have the average man to rely upon.
Being smart is of no advantage, then.
>Only if you don't know how to use it, in which case you aren't very smart.
I don't even. They could be educated poorly, nobody in primitive society is given a sub-standard education on purpose.
>And you think New Guinean tribes don't have the same stuff? What is it with this noble savage bullshit?
What stuff? And what noble savage bullshit?
>>1360111
It is an advantage, it's just that the ruling class doesn't give a shit about it because they have all the other ones
>I don't even. They could be educated poorly, nobody in primitive society is given a sub-standard education on purpose.
Unrelated to what I said
>What stuff? And what noble savage bullshit?
>You could be a threat to a ruling class. For most people born smart in civilization, it either makes no difference, or it's actively bad for them.
The noble savage bullshit is that you think that this is only what civilized folk do, and the "simple yet soulful" indigenous people don't
>>1360119
>It is an advantage, it's just that the ruling class doesn't give a shit about it because they have all the other ones
>The noble savage bullshit is that you think that this is only what civilized folk do, and the "simple yet soulful" indigenous people don't
What is it that you think I'm saying? Indigenous peoples kill each other all the time. The point is that there is never a situation where it's better for the individual indigenous person to be less intelligent; they are not likely to be killed for being smart, and they are likely to benefit from being smart.
In a civilized society, being smart is only an advantage if you are also born upper class. If you aren't educated or fed, you won't end up smart. In indigenous society, the whole tribe starves or feasts.
>>1360146
>The point is that there is never a situation where it's better for the individual indigenous person to be less intelligent; they are not likely to be killed for being smart, and they are likely to benefit from being smart.
If the ruling chief considers the smart witch doctor to be a danger to him, then that witch doctor might find himself tumbling down a mountain in an "accident"
>If you aren't educated or fed, you won't end up smart
Educated=/=smart. And how do you think you rise up from the squalor into the upper class? Through brains
For humans I apply two evolutions: biological and social. Biologically, we have remained much the same since the homo sapiens first emerged apart from small alterations based on social evolution, such as growing higher, hands becoming more dexterous, etc. Social evolution I see as the human evolution, advancing with every year and dictating how we live and think with each new generation. This dictates the coarse of overall directions in society and is both influenced by and causes events. Social evolution is itself dictated by any number of outside influences, just as we biologically evolved to adapt to grasslands from trees as apes, so do we as civilizations change and adapt due to our internal and external human interactions. I find the latter of these ideas as the most important to the time span of our lifetimes, but don't take anything I've said here as solid because I'm an armchair historian.
>>1360430
Its a feedback loop you dip. Social adaptions become genetically integrated such as how europeans handle alcohol better.
>>1354744
>You will never EVER go back in time hundreds of thousands of years
>You will never EVER walk into a territory full of barely anatomically modern humans and be treated like a demi-god because of being tall and well fed
>You will never EVER be pulled into a bush and ridden by an archaic homo sapien woman who is overwhelmed by lust due to you being the result of half a million more years of sexual selection than any man she's seen before, making you a 12/10 in her eyes
Does anyone else have this feel? Anyone in decent physical health would be considered extremely attractive if you went back far enough because of sexual selection.
Considering evolution isn't even a thing, no. Watch some of Dr. Hovind's seminars, you might learn something about your creation.
>>1362057
Live in the present, you pleb
>>1362057
>archaic homo sapiens
Would probably go with habilis. Question is: would that be considered bestiality?
>>1363031
No, but it would probably be incest.
>tfw penis size is driven by sexual selection
>tfw even an average sized schlong would be massive to them
The average 4channer would be a Chad Thundercock to Homo Habilis women. Who wants to build a time machine?
>>1360038
>Not to mention he doesn't say smarter, he literally says genetically superior
I don't remember him saying this, I remember him saying that their environment forces them to learn to be smarter, and that stupid people wont live as long, but not that stupid people dont exist
>>1362057
I think they were much stronger back then, their well used and well selected bodies will crush your little sedentary civilized body even if you lift, bro. They will look at you like a freak, much like nigger tribes look at blonde pale snowniggers.
>>1362057
They would probably snap your spine like a twig and eat your flesh.
>>1363122
>Implying that prehistoric humans wouldn't have wanted the BHSC -- big homo sapien cock
>>1354806
A living fossil!
>>1354744
aside from anime our existence has for the most part been devoid of accomplishments
