Evolution or Training?

[YT2095]

An interesting thing happened while was messing about with an InfraRed signal jammer.
the LED emiter I could actualy SEE a faint deep red glow, but my web-cam sees it as a blue/grey very bright light. the LED must be very powerfull and leak a little into the visible Red band.

If someone was brought up in pure darkness with only LED lights like the jammer light, would they eventualy adapt and see with it. I without any training, can already see a little bit as can others I`ve tried it with (some cannot for some reason?). would our eyes take this little bit of light and extend further towards the brighter IR part in order to see?

I`ve heard of folks that go blind and after several years than can hear things that we can`t. could the same apply?

[Kedas]

not a medical opinion:
I don't think our eyes would adapt noticable but our brain could probably learn to filter the right info better.

Just to clear something up:
LED= Light Emitting Diode
Soo LED doesn't mean IR or UV or visual light.

[YT2095]

yeah, it`s a high powered Inrfa-Red (IR) Light Emiting Diode(LED).

Good point Kedas :)

[blike]

but my web-cam sees it as a blue/grey very bright light.

Point your webcam at your remote control for your television and then hit a button to change the chanel or something. I dunno what causes it, but thats how the cameras pick up the IR.

[YT2095]

yeah :) that`s how I used it to test that all my assorted IR LEDs were working and batts in the remotes :)

YT2095 selects <Cheat Mode>

[blike]

lol, do you know what causes that?

As regards to your original question:

I think there are degrees of sensitivity. In other words, if you grew up with only exposure to certain types of things, you would be much more sensitive to them. However, I don't think that for example you would see IR because your body has adapted to see the light.

[YT2095]

yeah, and you`ll usualy find the cheaper the cam the more range (frequency) you`ll get. it`s do with the quality/purity of the silicon doping in the CCD`s, the more impurities the broader the band it`ll look at, specific devices exploit this and so you get IR specific CCD`s that the firemen use and rescue workers etc...

could/would your body adapt over years though? I know it would be a cruel experiment to try on any living thing sure, but it would sure be interesting to find out :)

Another thing (yes probably VERY stupid I`m sure) but when shining this IR light (that you can hardly see) into one eye, I noticed that there was a distinct difference in my vision! it lasted about 2 mins, but it was a bit like being out of focus and things seemed difficult to see, a bit like walking indoors after being in bright sun, but without the darkening effect? so eyes CAN detect something? (I tried on both eyes in case it was fluke).

[fafalone]

It's not likely that your eyes would "adapt" to see IR light (though if a group was put into an environment with predominantly IR light, they would adapt over many generations), however it is possible to engineer IR detection into an eye. It just depends on the proteins present within the eye, and IR sensitive proteins are present in many animals. So in theory, a human could be genetically engineered to be able to see in the infrared range.

As to shining IR light into your eye, it's the same type of energy so while there will be no visible reaction, the energy will effect the cells in your eye.

[YT2095]

So... it would be possible to see IR light with the correct proteins (that we have anyway but not enough to be usable)?

A group that was bread in that environ would produce eventualy (IR seeing beings). would that involve a random gene that allowed that person to see more succesfully and therfore re-produce, or would it just happen anyway gradualy over time?

Could someone be "injected" with these proteins within a lifetime and appreciate the benefits of it, maybe only slight? a bit like "carrots help you see in the dark" tale.?

And, Is it the rods or cones in your eye that picks up the near IR?
I recon it`s the cones as they deal with color, but could be wrong?

[NavajoEverclear]

i can see all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. I can also see dead people.


BTW do you guys think my crap comments like this are occasionaly slightly amusing, or just a stupid attempt to appear abstracting intelligent via humor.

[Glider]

It would be rods. Cones are sensitive to specific sections of the spectrum, and light falling outside those wavelengths won't trigger reactions in cone cells. Rod cells however are less specific and generally more sensitive. Plus, there are many more of them.

[YT2095]

So with the right proteins in the rods, we could enhance our ability to see IR and wouldn`t necesarily need a specialised sense organ for it. but since it would be the rods we`de just see it as white light (a bit like the cam does).
and the vague deep red color, is just leakage into the visible spectrum that my CONES detect?
so it`s nothing really at all to do with IR?

Kinda makes a little sense now :)

[Glider]

That's about it.

Some fish, goldfish and piranha for example, can see in infra red.

[NSX]

So is it different proteins in dog's eyes that make them colourblind as well?

[fafalone]

Yes, or rather lack thereof.

[YT2095]

I`ve heard that some snakes can too Rattlesnakes for sure can.
I`ve tried my cats with this IR light, I can`t make up my mind if they can see it or not, are they just ignoring me whilst thinking "he`s a complete nut case" or they just can`t see it, and when they seem to be able to, could it be sound that`s making their heads move tracking me with ears instead?
It`s a very high output on this IR transmitter, I can blind my web-cam with it across a room, so I`m sure if they could see it, they`de look away?

Glider, are there any foods that you know off that contain this protein or would act as a co-enzyme to enhance already existing proteins? carrots I`ve heard help, but I`m not sure if it`s and old wives tale or not :)

[Sayonara³]

Rattlesnakes don't see in infra-red, they have 2mm-wide pits in the skin on their face that are able to detect heat. It's a separate mechanism to the eyes.

Something tells me you are going to have trouble finding food with a suitable protein in it, much less get that protein - intact - from your digestive system into the rods in your eyes.

[YT2095]

soz, I thought they did, probably got it wrong with detect as opposed to see.

as for the foods, I don`t see why not? we know that certain foods contain certain reactants that do have a physiological effect upon our systems, surely that could also be possible on the possitive side of things too?
we know that methanol oxidises to formaldehyde and affects the optic nerve to send you blind, and that Vit C can be a very good anti-oxidant and both survive the digestive acid HCl(aq) quite well.
Don`t get me wrong, I`m thinking that eating `X` so many times a week will make see IR, but surely there`s foods that will assist in this protein production, even if it`s only to slow it`s decay over time? :)

[Sayonara³]

Sayonara³ said in post #17 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21963#post21963):
Something tells me you are going to have trouble finding food with a suitable protein in it.

[YT2095]

but it doesn`t NEED that protein as it is, just the precursors :)

[Sayonara³]

Biology-less biology doesn't "just happen" because you want it to.

There's no existing mechanism for what you are trying to do. "If we had these proteins in our eyes, we would be able to see IR" does not mean you can just squirt a load of junk into your eyes (or eat lots of potatoes - whichever) and grow a whole new organ. It still assumes adaptive radiation.

[YT2095]

fact is (as I understand it from here) that we all have these proteins within our eyes, to a greater or lesser extent, they do exist, but not in sufficient quantities that enable use to perceive IR radiation. using the old maxim "we are what we eat" (and to some extent that holds true) is not possible that these proteins couldn`t be built upon by at least slowing thier decay rate and therefore haveing more working ones at any given time?

[Sayonara³]

There's a big difference between having a protein in a certain place; and having a working mechanism with all the correct biochemical pathways, neural pathways, and processing capability.

[YT2095]

I recon the human mind could quickly adapt if all of a sudden we could see a little into the IR section of the EM spectrum, I mean it`s not like a HUGE leap or anything, we can already FEEL (touch sense) Black body radiation, it just means that we`de be able to see a little of it too. pathways,,, Hmmm... I don`t think that would really be an issue in all honesty, although given many generations with this ability it would indeed become "hardwired" into us I expect.

[Sayonara³]

OK, whatever, proteins can randomly aggregate in the eye and beam heat pictures into your brain.

Come here and I'll put some protein in your eyes for you. I hope you're not afraid of needles ::evilgrin::

[YT2095]

in reverse order, I used needles daily and so no, not afraid at all (and NO I`m not a junkie! LOL)

I think you`ve been watching too much "Boys from Brazil" and stories about the "Nazi Angel"

but yeah, In a nutshell, if it COULD be done, I think it would be great! esp for Firemen or FEMA staff :)

[Skye]

Carrots have Vitamin A, which is also called retinol. It is converted to retinal, which is neccesary for vision, within the body. You can't produce retinol, so you need a supply of it in order to see. If you are deficient, carrots would help you see better. I believe it's also the precursor of carotenid pigments, which help colour your skin.

Anyhoo... retinal fits into another protein called opsin to form a thing called rhodopsin. Or more precisely, a particular isomer of retinal does (the cis isomer). When light strikes it the retinal it changes shape to a trans isomer and comes out of place, which causes a little electrostatic charge, which ends up causing a neuron to fire. But it's not the retinal that causes colour differentiation, rather it's the opsin. Your body quite happily synthesises opsins, and they encoded by your genes. This more or less rules out the effect of diet on the range of colours in your vision, as you don't need dietry protein precursors for opsins.

I have no idea if it would be possible for variant opsins to function if you injected them into your eye but even if they did manage to bind to your cells (I think they bind to the cells outer membrane) you would have to wait untill your brain rearranged itself to make sense of it all. This might take some time. It would seem to be far easier to do it genetically, I'd say the brain has a flexible enough development to take into account an added opsin (it would also require it's own differentiated cells though). The brain has presumably done so in the past.

[aman]

It seems in the animal world the infra-red sensors are handled most efficiently outside of the eye and on the skin, closest to the source. It seems it would take a lot of amplification if the source was on the other side of an optical lens and vitreous solution of a common eye. Maybe if there were two lenses in an eye and the infra red could be focused?
Just aman

[Sayonara³]

That's a very good point aman.

[Skye]

Well one lens focusses as about as good as you can get, to a point (your fovea). To exploit IR you'd want huge eyes and no other colour receptors but IR ones. That'd get the best image I think.

[desaia]

hello

[JaKiri]

Please make constructive posts, or not at all.

[Giles]

Even if you could just inject a protein which underwent the right conformational change when it picked up IR, if the induced signal was transmitted along an existing neural pathway it would just be interpretted as an existing colour.

Merely having more receptors won't increase sensitivity to IR if the radiation is of too low energy to trigger a conformation change in receptor proteins.

YT, what you're talking about is inheritance of acquired characterisitcs, which is not how evolution takes place.

[Janus]

YT2095 said in post #1 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21830#post21830):

I`ve heard of folks that go blind and after several years than can hear things that we can`t. could the same apply?

What happens here is not any increase in the sensitivity of hearing, merely that the brain devotes more of its sensory processing power to the sense of hearing.

The ears constantly detect sounds that we are not consciously aware of. The same is true with the other senses. All this sensory input would drive us to distraction if it weren't for the fact that most of it is filtered out by a subconscious mechanism.

When a person loses their sight, the brain slowly redistributes the sensory processing for sight to the other senses. The filters start letting more information from those senses through .
The senses don't become more acute, just more attention is paid to them.

[YT2095]

fair enough, and I agree with 100%, in fact the same has happened with a few deaf friends of mine, they tend to notice things with eye`s that we see, but pay no attention to, I can`t lip read but I can do sign language, but even if I couldn`t, they would still understand a good 90% of what I was saying :)
I`m still left wondering though, if over a several genrations, if it would effect the morphology or "wiring" of our brains to such an extent, that we could almost see in the dark?
or would if be that the people that COULD see in the dark, had a better survival rate than those born not as good, and so through sellection, began a race of night seeing humans?
CAN evollution be proactively controlled, or does it rely soley on accidents in nature becoming more succesfull?

[Skye]

Yeah, it's accidents of nature being more successful one. It's essentially impossible to go through gene expression backwards (proteins-->DNA) and even harder to encode a specific development into DNA. And even if organisms could, how would they tell what was advantageous and what wasn't? The most likely changes you would inherit would be cancers, lost limbs, aging etc. Not so good....

[aman]

There isn't much evolutionary pressure anymore so enhanced night vision will probably have to come from the labs. We still might be changed by some rogue virus in the future. If a virus started clotting everybodies blood, it might be only hemopheliac genes that survive. I don't think a virus would get us all and those people that live might be quite different than what we consider normal today.
Just aman

[Glider]

aman said in post #37 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=23812#post23812):
If a virus started clotting everybodies blood, it might be only hemopheliac genes that survive. I don't think a virus would get us all and those people that live might be quite different than what we consider normal today.
Just aman
Yes, and they'd all be male, so extinction wouldn't be far behind (haemophilia is an X-linked trait, there are virtually no female haemophiliacs).

[YT2095]

how about people in hospitals on anti coagulants such as warfarin or heparin, would they survive or does if have to be genetic?
or would it be that they`de survive as long as they kept on the medication, whereas someone with the gene would just be immune fullstop?

[JaKiri]

Glider said in post #38 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=23814#post23814):

Yes, and they'd all be male, so extinction wouldn't be far behind (haemophilia is an X-linked trait, there are virtually no female haemophiliacs).

And those that exist all die when they hit puberty.

[Sayonara³]

Ewwww :rolleyes:

[Glider]

That's pretty much it, yep.

[YT2095]

well still on exactly the same theme, just not on eyesight in the dark, if I may shift it more towards medicines.

someone that is on anti-coagulants for life (a young stroke victim for example) after say 10 years of taking 5mg warfarin per day and having the amounts adjusted regularly from blood test results, can a situation occur whereas the person is almost immune to the initial levels, a bit like arsenic poisoning, a regular dose that upped gradualy over time, and they can take in one dose the amount that would kill an elephant and still be perfectly ok.
does THAT effect us geneticly at all?

[Skye]

"does THAT effect us geneticly at all?"

No.

[YT2095]

fair enough, and things like alcohol or drug abuse?
or taste in music or art, or a liking for a certain language?
things that are known as "Hereditary traits"
(I don`t mean things like metal illness or eye color here)

are these genetic?

[Skye]

Oh, well put simply everything is the product of genes interacting with the environment. You wouldn't say, "alcoholism is only caused by genetic factors", or "alcoholism is only caused by social factors." You can say that such and such a gene (or social condition) has a statistically significant effect though.

The other bit is that genes are actually very simple in a way. For the most part, the important part here, they just code for different proteins. They don't say "oh build this guy a really big nose", it's all proteins. It's really only by these proteins ability to catalyse specific reactions that there is any interaction with the environment. They can go around catalysing all kinds of things, and it's all these reactions which lead to life. They even convey the messages and catalyse the production of more proteins. The problem is that to do all this cool stuff they need to be really complicated, and this is part of the reason you can't pass on your traits to your children. There's just no way for another protein to 'read' all the proteins and convert it into genes made of DNA.

[YT2095]

I understand the basics of genes or alelles as their called and how they`re composed of A-G-C and T pyrimadines and purines and what bonds with what and why and how they attatch to the sugar/phosphorus links in the chain (simply put)
I`de like to know why certain behavioural traits such as alcoholism can be "handed down" or even skip a generation, when alcohol is a rellatively new chemical discovered for abuse in terms of evolution. it just seems a bit odd to me? :)

[Skye]

Perhaps because some of the genes 'for' alcoholism are probably also 'for' related behaviours.

Alcohol has been around for a while. I was talking to a tutor about human evolution and brought up that Australian aboriginals have larger molars than other peoples. She said they also have larger intestines. These are probably because most other peoples teeth and intestines have become smaller as we have increased the processing of food, cutting it up, grinding it, etc. They don't much, so they still need the teeth and guts. When you think about it alot of these changes are only thousands of years old. Alcohol has been consumed for quite some time, perhaps enough for pretty substantial adaptations to it.

Anways I'm off to bed :)

[YT2095]

ok, thnx, and sleep well :)

It seems that evolution over a few thousand years is possible then! (I suspected such), it would be interesting to calculate how many generations that would actualy imply, given the different lifespans of the populous per era. to effect a genetic change (allbeit minor and not to anyones advantage).

neat stuff :)

[aman]

In these billions of people we got male females and female males and XXY's and all sorts of mutations so somebody will survive. We're almost as bad as cucarachas when it comes to stompin out all of us.
Just aman

[Glider]

YT2095 said in post #49 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=23865#post23865):
ok, thnx, and sleep well :)

It seems that evolution over a few thousand years is possible then! (I suspected such) It is, but not in the way I think you think it is.

The aboriginals would not have developed larger molars and a more robust gut over a few thousand years, nor would everyone else have developed smaller teeth & guts in the same timespan. There is inherent in the species a degree of variance to begin with. Under tough dietary conditions, those with more robust teeth and guts would have done better, and were more likely to pass on the existing trait. Under less tough dietary conditions, the posession of more robust teeth and guts is less important as a factor. So, whilst statistically, the aboriginals have larger molars and guts (i.e. the population is distributed around a higher mean with respect to these measures), the western European (or American) population contains individuals with molars and guts as large as the aboriginals, but these populations have a broader distribution with respect to these measures (i.e. those traits have not been selected for in particular), so due to the lack of dietary (environmental) pressure, the original variance in molar/gut size is still broad.

Whilst this does demonstrate evolution in progress (as it is), it is different from stating that a population has has developed a significant phenotypical difference (which takes millions of years), rather, the population distribution has narrowed around an existing difference which provided an advantage under certain environmental conditions.

[phoenix]

aman said in post #50 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=23888#post23888):
In these billions of people we got male females and female males and XXY's and all sorts of mutations so somebody will survive. We're almost as bad as cucarachas when it comes to stompin out all of us.
Just aman

Actually, genetic diversity of human beings is remarkably low compared to other species. The unusual sex chromosome combinations you mention are actually mostly sterile. That doesn't help survival of the species particularly.

On the main topic of this thread: What is evolution? Are we talking about fixation of alleles or does change in allele frequency count as evolution, too?

If the latter, it will be easy to observe even within centuries. Local or global - no matter. Think of selection for milk tolerance, or the relative explosion of, say, the Chinese as a proportion of the world's population. There are bound to be some unique alleles there that have different phenotypic effects.

Regards,

Phoenix

PS: Maybe more important is the question - are we getting smarter? If not, then everything will slowly boil down to genetics. If we are getting smarter, genetic effects will become less important over time, and opportunities for learning will play an increasingly large role.

[YT2095]

Genetic diversity inbuilt into all of us....ok.
so do I have the genes in me to make a black man/woman?
as far as I know, there has never been any interracial breeding in my bloodline, so would I still have that gene(s) in me from "Adam and Eve" so to speak, or has it bred out of me? what would happen if lived in a hot country like Africa, for say a thousand generations, would my offspring become gradualy black as the melanin in black peoples skin helps them live in such a climate, or would we all remain white?
same experiment again but still living in England for same time, would out of the blue at some time my many generations of offspring make a black child?
the point being, would the hot or cold climate make a difference, or would it just happen anyway out of pure fluke?

[Skye]

Skin colour is a bad example because it's complicated and not really well understood.

We have the same locations on our genome, but different alleles at those locations. You don't have all the alleles for anyone else, because we are all genetic individuals, cept monozygotic twins.

[YT2095]

perhaps my understanding is a little simplistic, I understood skin color to be nothing more than a direct result of melanin in the skin that developed over many generations for folks that lived in hot contries, so the blacker the man the hotter or more UV light his/her ancestors lived in, and people with asian colors tan or Yellow as some see, get lots of hot weather, but not as much as an african guy does. and here in europe, not alot of sun and quite damp (especialy in england) we`re all white, furter north like sweden or denmark, very white also and mostly blonde hair too. it`s rare to see a black man with blue eyes or a swedish man with black curly hair and black skin.
nature`s seen to it that we`re best matched to our surroundings it would seem.
I don`t understand why it`s a bad example? as the only difference between me and a black guy is skin color really, and that`s only because where our ancestors lived for many generations, seems an ideal example to me, and simple too :)

[Skye]

Well, it's complicated and not really well understood :) There are at least four genes (we don't know exactly) with several alleles at each (we don't know that either) and they might interact (who knows?). It's just hard to say much for sure, and unfortunately it's not very simple.

[YT2095]

hehheheheh, could it get more vague? :)
(not your fault I understand)

I guess there are other differences between myself and a black guy other than color, but I assume that`s still all to with the climate we evolved in, forgetting blood type etc... differences with blood can happen in families even. but essentialy there`s no difference. if I had a componenent that a black guy needed and the blood group were the same, it would work and he could use it succesfully for his natural life and vice versa. so genetics can`t be THAT different surely?

[Skye]

That's really because of the nature of red blood cells. But yeah, races aren't that different. There are differences; some races don't have some alleles.

[YT2095]

is it the lack of a certain allele that cause sickle cell anemia?
or many native american indians (males) don`t have body hair?
that sort of thing?

[Skye]

For sickle cell, it's a different allele that codes for a protein that stretches the red blood cells out into a long thin sickle shape when there is low oxygen. Then they clump up and...anemia.

Dunno about the native americans, probably complicated again.

[Sayonara³]

Many caucasian/african/mediteranean/asian males don't have body hair, so it's obviously not a racial trait.

[YT2095]

can you back that up with a document or a proof please? I only know of the one race with this inherant trait naturaly occuring.
Cheerz :)

[Sayonara³]

I can back it up with people if that's any help.

Unless you want to be more specific about the trait you are trying to discuss, this is a science forum you know.

[YT2095]

well quite simply, the native americal indian males don`t grow facial hair for some reason, I don`t know of any other race with this trait. and so I was wondering if that would qualify as a genetic difference brought about by climate or foods or any other external factor.

[alt_f13]

Originally posted by fafalone
As to shining IR light into your eye, it's the same type of energy so while there will be no visible reaction, the energy will effect the cells in your eye.

I can attest to this. A long time ago, whilst sitting in front of the TV, this idea came to mind. So, I decided to test it by clicking the remote into my eye for about a minute. Lo and behold, my eye started to hurt.

Would people who were able to see past our spectrum see more colors or simply see our colors distributed over a wider range of frequencies? I'm guessing more colors. Can't wait till ultra/infra computer monitors come out.

[Sayonara³]

alt_f13 said in post #65 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=24175#post24175):
I can attest to this. A long time ago, whilst sitting in front of the TV, this idea came to mind. So, I decided to test it by clicking the remote into my eye for about a minute. Lo and behold, my eye started to hurt.
lmao

:D

[Sayonara³]

YT2095 said in post #59 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=24020#post24020):
is it ... many native american indians (males) don`t have body hair?
that sort of thing?

YT2095 said in post #64 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=24157#post24157):
well quite simply, the native americal indian males don`t grow facial hair for some reason, I don`t know of any other race with this trait.

See how they're different questions?

Do you mean that they don't grow facial hair, or that they can't? Don't is probably social, can't is probably genetic.

[YT2095]

the latter :)

[atinymonkey]

I can think of about billion people with a similar genetic trait. They are fairly hard to miss, they have there own country.

[Sayonara³]

YT2095 said in post #68 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=24183#post24183):
the latter :)
You mean, that's what you meant to ask, or that's what you think is the case?


:D lolol

[YT2095]

YT2095 said in post #64 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=24157#post24157):
well quite simply, the native americal indian males don`t grow facial hair for some reason, I don`t know of any other race with this trait. and so I was wondering if that would qualify as a genetic difference brought about by climate or foods or any other external factor.
is what I meant to ask.

[atinymonkey]

Like the opposite to the Vikings? Grew beards all day long, they did. Or having genetic predisposition to shave?

[Skye]

I remember reading as a kid those native to the north west of the US used bone tweezers to pluck out their facial hair. Ouch.

[YT2095]

yada yada yada *sigh*

ok here`s one for ya! :)

a couple hundred years ago Britons were considerably shorter (in height) than they are now, you only have to go into Shakespeares house in Stratford Uopn Avon to see how small the door sizes were, or the Manor House in West Bromwich west midlands to see this, so quite clearly, within a short space of time evolution has us Britons alot taller by at least 6+ inches(avg), I have to duck to walk through these doors and I`m only 5 foot 9!
and NO it`s wasn`t done for the sake of keeping valuable heat in the homes, they WERE actualy that small!

explain that one! :)

[Skye]

They had alot less food at times, especially high protein foods and fruits. There was much more widespread diseases, which taxes the energy available. Children also worked on top of this, child labour was still being used in industry in the last 100 years or so.

[YT2095]

I`de buy that if the same didn`t apply or happen to Royalty as well, but it did.
plain and simple, we have gotten considerably taller since those times and nutrition plays only a monor part, there are zulu warriors of a poorer diet of the same time frame that are taller than current europeans.
the odd part is this that occured to one race and only within "a blink of an eye" on an evolutionary scale.
sure disease caused premature death, avg age was mid forties, poor diet does NOT stunt the growth of a nation though, and certainly not the ones "in power".

[Skye]

Why don't you think nutrition affect the growth the people of a nation? It affects every other living thing.

I'm not sure about the heights royalty, but they suffered from the diseases of the time and getting fresh foods in winter was always a problem. Preserved foods aren't great because some vitamins break down, especially if you bathe them in salt.

Here's a discussion on skin colour by the way.

http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0000027

[iglak]

my personal opinion, which is really kind of psuedoscience, since i have no evidence, i just observed with my eyes and formed a hypothesis... but i will say it anyway.

as you know, all animals have DNA, and all organisms have RNA. if you didn't know that, it doesn't matter, because it has nothing to do with my theory/hypothesis of relative evolution (i just made that phrase up).

as you know, animals evolve very slowly due to natural selection. my theory/hypothesis is that there is something else underlying that evolution. this something else is that the human brain (and other intelligent organism's brains) has the power to, subconsciously, alter what horomones go where inside the body. (i have some observable evidence for this, if you want it, just ask...)

if i understand correctly, horomones play a huge part in physical appearance, and at least some part in organ abilities. thus, if humans can subconsciously alter horomone flow, then they can subconsciously alter their appearence and adapt to certain things (grow faster, or see a lower electromagnetic spectrum...).

most of you would think that this would not pass down to the next generation, because no genetics were altered. in a sense you are right, but the result is that you are wrong. the parents have the will, want, and emotions, that are their subconscious, to adapt to whatever it was. because kids idolise their parents, and their surroundings, and other people, what the parents think is picked up my the kids through minute changes in thing they do.

so, at a younger age they develope the want to adapt to that environment, and the want to do so quicker. this is passed down further, and with more intensity through more generations. relatively quickly (within a several of generations), the society could adapt hugely with what would look like an evolutionary change on the outside, but is really just the subconscious thought of the society as a whole.

P.S. :feedback: