Submitted by dxrknxrth t3_ztc5yv in askscience
Lyndeead t1_j22j4iw wrote
Reply to comment by ViskerRatio in Are people who live in certain climates less susceptible to the effects of the weather there? by dxrknxrth
I can cite my literature review for you, again these are anthropology studies, which is now under biological anthropology or evolutionary biology.
Important point here: a lot of the prevailing ideas about our evolutionary history is based on assumptions, because we don’t have any living specimens of our evolutionary ancestors. How would we ever actually test these ideas with the scientific method.? This research relies a lot of comparisons, correlations, and associations with modern populations as proxy groups understanding that the conclusions may not be 100% accurate. Just because the methods aren’t the epitomized gold standard of science doesn’t mean they are invalid, incorrect, or to be ignored.
Also, anthropology as a discipline started in the 1800: as a “science” to prove racial difference separated humans into distinct species as a way to encourage slavery and as you mentioned eugenics. While that history cannot be erased, papers and research evaluating racial differences in such a way are no longer in circulation and no longer cited or built upon, they have been rejected and dismissed after numerous studies disproved the premises. I did in another post discuss the concept that head size and or brain size is not an indicator of intelligence for this purpose, similarly to why I explained melanin as functional for sun exposure and Vitamin d production, taking them out of the context of eugenics and placing them in the context of physiological function where they belong.
Moving on. Wearing clothing and indoor living are behaviors of modern humans/ homo species, only within the last 300,000 approx. years human evolution as far as the evidence we have extends back 7 million years. Behaviors are studied by cultural anthropologists and archaeologists and are not in my scope of research. However, when we are talking about biological adaptations, that is adaptations and variations in anatomy and physiology, we have to consider a much larger timeline of human evolution. What did we start with and how has it changed.
On body shape-
It’s important to note that shape is not the same as size, it involves relationships in different directions (long AND narrow, short AND broad) your points about the tallest people are more of a size indicator because we don’t have any information about the body shape from just height, are the lean or stout? Anyway
Bergman’s rule and Allen’s rule are the two guiding rule for my statements. They are well documented.
Here are some sources:
Ruff, Christopher B. 1993. Climatic adaptation and hominid evolution: the thermoregulation imperative. Evolutionary Anthropology
*Chris Ruff writes a lot of body morphology and climatic adaptation.
Beals, KL; CL Smith, SM Dodd. 1984. Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines.
Daniel Lieberman- Story of the Human Body
DeMenocal, PB. 2011. Climate and Human evolution
…. To be continued I’m sleepy.
ViskerRatio t1_j22masn wrote
> only within the last 300,000 approx.
Pale skin emerged in a similar time frame. However, going that far back you're talking mostly about pre-human species. More importantly, you're talking about pre-human species that didn't live outside of temperate zones.
If cold = pale skin, then how did pale skin emerge hundreds of thousands of years before settlement of cold regions?
> Bergman’s rule and Allen’s rule are the two guiding rule for my statements.
I believe you're misusing them. They're intended for discussions of speciation, not minor variations within a single species.
> Climatic adaptation and hominid evolution: the thermoregulation imperative.
Your original point was about modern human beings and the variations we see, not about pre-human species that evolved into humans.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments