10 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

When compared to animals we are far more likely to pass on our genes to the next generation. 200 years ago people would have 8 children but most would not make it to adulthood. Wild animals have it worse than that.

Except, of course animals that produce dozens or hundreds of offspring each season, of course. Again, this comparison makes no sense.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I will once again ask you for examples of evolution in humans

One example of human evolution that I've been thinking about lately is Lactase Persistence. All baby mammals drink milk. Lactose is hard to digest. Mammal babies make the enzyme lactase to digest milk. As the mammals grow they stop making the enzyme lactase. We humans have evolved to continue making this enzyme.

I wonder how this came about. Do you think this was natural selection? Do you think people drank milk, some died and no one made the connection until enough people died to evolve.

I don't know but I'll listen to opinions.

Just now, CharonY said:

Except, of course animals that produce dozens or hundreds of offspring each season, of course. Again, this comparison makes no sense.

True, in general, the larger the animal the fewer offspring. We'd have to do the comparison with other large animals.

I talked about this earlier and pointed out that spiders may lay hundreds of eggs at a time.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I think a problem here is that you are narrowing your field of view on this, but still trying to apply it to a broader conclusion.. Avoiding predators is not the only avenue of natural selection.

Agreed. I have used examples of finding food and a broken bone is a death sentence for a deer or many other animals. I think the majority of the examples apply more to animals than humans.

Can you think of any examples of natural selection that affect humans more than animals. I realize there are lots of examples but I think living in the wild is harder than living in civilization.

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

This is again conflating survival with reproductive success.

I know the difference. I've talked about both. The post you quoted me I talked about natural selection.

Then when I talked about reproductive success I said "Next lets look at ..." as I changed the topic.

In wild animals I think the main driving force for evolution is natural selection but mutations must be present.

Do you think reproductive success is the main driving force for human evolution? I don't know but I don't think so. I think everyone can have a couple offspring. Since we have such a high survival rate people may decide to have 2 children, expecting both to survive. Animals have as many as possible without realizing the link between sex and offspring.

Is genetic drift the main driving force for human evolution? I very much doubt that.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by BusaDave9
to clarify

11 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

I wonder how this came about. Do you think this was natural selection? Do you think people drank milk, some died and no one made the connection until enough people died to evolve.

I don't know but I'll listen to opinions.

Research is good. Wikipedia or other free web sources provide a wealth of information on the nature of the LP gene, and consulting them would quickly make clear that it wasn't about people dying from milk consumption. Roughly 5 billion people in the world still lack the LP gene, and before 8-12000 years ago, almost no one had it. People who tried milk before then didn't die of flatulence and diarrhea, they just felt sick and decided milk wasn't a viable protein source. As do billions still. (Unless having access to lactose free diary products, as is common now in developed countries) Look up the topic and learn how selective advantage might have arisen for those having the LP phenotype - I gave you a strong hint a couple sentences back there.

Also note that at least six mutations (single-nucleotide polymorphisms – SNPs) have been associated with lactase expression. Can you see how these mutations might shift from being neutral to beneficial in certain environments? Look back through the thread and I think you can put this together. And also, a courtesy of replying to posts is appreciated. Several here are going to some trouble to help the learning process.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by TheVat

7 hours ago, swansont said:

I will once again ask you for examples of evolution in humans

Breasts are an interesting example of human evolution due to reproductive success.

Sexual attraction is the main reason women have breasts from puberty to death. Sure breasts are used to nurse infants but that is a very small percentage of their lives.

Think about this: no other animal, not even apes, bonobos and chimpanzees, our closest relatives have breasts until they have a baby and start to lactate.

Guys love breasts. That's why women have them even when they are not lactating.

Guys look at breasts and think "I want to have babies with her!" and they are NOT thinking "They would be able to feed our baby nicely.

Okay but seriously, I don't think this plays a big part when we are seriously looking for a wife. When guys are young they are just out to have fun and are attracted to breasts.