life help: Is it just me or are humans getting taller? - Help.com

Maybe its just your local area, but I think nutrition there must have gotten better than before.

I believe in North America it is due to large consumption
of milk and milk products.
Milk is/was meant to be consumed my infants only up to the develpoment
of teeth.
To continue after that leads to growth hormones effected.

im a 15 year old girl and im 5 11…maybe 6

my 2 uncles are over 6 foot and my mom is 5 11

Well maybe the doors to the cottages were built in a certain way that people knew how to build. Maybe they were just as tall as we are now, just they built the doors smaller?

Now its 6′10″ standard, 3.5′ wide? I think.

My parents are tall, and I’m pretty sure the height is due to better nutrition.

Back in the 1800’s, they had more disease, poor nutrition, and poor hygiene.

No, there’s a max size. While our bones and muscles may keep expanding… There will be no major size changes in the next couple centuries. Millions of years from now, that’s a possibility.

The problem is now, that our bodies get too big for our organs, and they can’t keep us alive. This increased body size results in so many proplems… (poor circulation, for example… Not to mention some others that you would need a specialist to explain.)

It’s an estimate mostly… And looking back it was much higher than I was intending… Quite an exageration.

I was talking about more significant changes. Like a foot. About 500 years ago, we were about half a foot shorter… So yeah… But many scientists (or at least the ones on discovery…) are saying thats to nutrition and increased immunity against disease.

But when you look at the men and women who are over 7 feet tall, you realize that we won’t live to see any major size differences, *Again, like a foot* unless evolution suprises us all and takes a massive step…

History shows we are getting taller. The question just is, how much taller? And how long are we going to keep growing?

For instance, look at horses… Back in the dinosaur age, they were the size of small deer. Now look at clydsdales.

So yes, we can have major size differences… We already have *from small ape to what we are now* but, no matter how much we change in height, I’m more interested in what we will become. We went from apes to humans… So what do humans turn into?

Lol… ya… I said horses because that’s what I’m most familiar with… My horse had a foot problem and I wanted to check out their evolution so I could see why.

That’s an interesting thought… And I do believe we are always evolving. Genetic variation says we are always evolving…
Else we would be asexual and budding off of ourselves. :P But we just haven’t reached that degree of perfection yet.

I would disagree if you’re saying that when we evolve, we are improving, because I think we would be devolving. These examples might be too specific, but take eyesight - we have lasers and lenses to fix them so bad eyesight is passed down - resistance to diseases is decreasing due to a ‘bubble environment’ with modern medicine, physical abilities are diminished by the presence of machines and firearms…

I think its getting to the point where technology is increasing in a way that less and less effort is required by the human body. In fact, computers may pretty much surpass the human brain in this century. I suppose, the only future in human evolution would be genetic modification….

Yes, humans are their own destruction. But…

Say… hypothetically, we hadn’t created technology and allowed an evolution to itself?

Perhaps then… without our bubble and modern medicine… It would work out that way. The humans who couldn’t survive wouldn’t, and those who could would.
The problem is that humans have sidestepped evolution because we want to save all of us… which allows bad traits to be passed down.

Well, while I said that we might be devolving, I suppose it wouldn’t be fair to say that we are passing down bad genes - not all bad genes are bad. Where the full expressed trait for sickle cell anemia may cause thicker blood and organ failure, it allows people with half the trait to survive acute malaria. We might be harboring genes unknowingly that will save us.

I’m five two and a half.
I wish.

Laina1312 wrote:
I’M FIVE TWO AND A HALF. I wish.

That was capitalized. :(

Hey scratch,
sickle cell anemia is not a benefit overall for the human genome, despite the protection it provides to heterozygotes in areas of Africa beset by malaria. But it is the only case of overdominance that Darwinists can find in the real world.
The question to ask is, ‘how can errors in dna replication or transcription generate new genomic information?’ What we don’t need is evidence of deterioration of coding sequences or polypeptide products by mutation, which then fortuitously provides resistance to anti-biotics or pesticides. These cases are almost always the result of impaired organelles like ribosomes, or repressor inhibition by damage from incorrect synthesis or incorrect post-translational modification by accessory proteins.

MaggieRae17,

Your comment is a re-statement of the tautologous concept articulated by Herbert Spencer, ’survival of the fittest’. If some survive and reproduce and some don’t, big deal. That statement doesn’t tell us anything useful, because it doesn’t make any predictions which are falsifiable.

If you wish to make a scientific statement, you need to either 1) make a falsifiable prediction, or 2) offer an empirically-derived principle which is devoid of subjective opinion or inference.

You also make a comment regarding the counterproductive preservation of ‘bad traits’, making you sound like a eugenicist, a la Sanger, Darwin, Hitler, et al. I trust that you don’t actually fit into that category.

MaggieRae17,

You made another comment regarding the increasing size of horses over time. Clydesdales are indeed extant equines known for their robustness and height. However, very small ponies exist today also. The diversity of species neither supports nor disconfirms evolution. It simply means that most species inherently possess a great degree of genetic diversity. This diversity is winnowed down and lost through selection events; the more specialized a population becomes, the more genetic information is lost from that population.

Genetic information is not increased or magnified by natural selection, it is decreased. Sounds rather counterintuitive, I know, but that’s the way it is.

well i’m getting shortter, feeling like f** frodo sometimes.