why does'nt biology/history admit that humans may have shrunk in size as all other Living beings,shy admiting?
607969
The fossil record doesn't show any kind of trend towards smaller body size in the hominid lineage.  The earliest hominids, like Australopithecus afarensis, were much smaller than we are now, perhaps only 3 or 4 feet high.\n\nIf anything, the trend has been towards larger body size.  Homo sapiens in general is taller than Homo erectus was, which was taller than Homo habilis and so on.\n\nEven the off-shoot population of European neandertals were shorter than average human stature, but had more massive bones, with higher density than ours, and may have been noticeably stronger.\n\nThere was one off-shoot that may very well have shrunk in size.  Homo floriensis was discovered a few years ago as remains on an Indonesian island, and appears to have been a dwarf form of human.  Dubbed the 'Hobbit' by the popular press, it may well turn out that this was a tiny species of human, only 3 foot high, that lived in the area at the same time as Homo sapiens sapiens.\n\nDwarfism is a common adaptation found in island species isolated from the mainland.  Dwarf forms of elephant once existed on Malta, and a dwarf mammoth survived on Wrangel island until only 5000 years ago.\n\nUnfortunately, only two workers really examined the Homo floriensis fossils.  One is the dude who put forth the claim of a new species, and the other one claims they were just the remains of a regular human who suffered from dwarfism.  The fossils were smashed beyond recognition on the trip back, and each researcher blames the other.  And then the Indonesian government refused all research permits for the area since that time.  So we're still waiting to hear for sure as to what those fossils mean.
966025
I think it would help your paper to say why you think each of these things might occur, and even add some references that support your reasoning. You might be interested in the "Trends in Evolution" part of the web page I have linked at the bottom to help your make predictions.\n\nWhy do you think sexual dimorphism would change in the future, and why would it get more apparent if sexual roles are becoming more equal? (in general sexual dimorphism has been decreasing in human evolution - see link below, about 2/3 of the way down the page)\n\nWhy do you predict they will get taller (this is a good prediction, by the way, but why do you think it to be true)? \n\nIs there any reason to think that ESP or telekinesis will become possible?? (probably not, in my opinion, but what data can you find that says one way or the other)? \n\nIf you have read something that supports what you are saying, and you can provide references in the paper, your arguments will be much stronger - increasing the probability of a good grade!!
542946
sure they were, this is clear because of the evidence we've got from geology. the bones we've found don't lie. but something you should notice, and that is dinosaurs were not all huge wild animals, they were just a kind of animals, including all sizes and all behaviours. also it is believed that some of the animals living nowadays are the children of ancient dinasaurs.
680017
We have evolved through these ages ourselves, with no help from some fairy tale. Humanity allows itself to be repressed by foolish stories of gods.
146095
It can, but that doesn't mean it will. It's happened for me before, especially when I was sick. It's just because you can eat so little that the weight will have no choice but come off-- just the same as if you were to starve yourself. Hope that was clear!! But muscle can also shrink away too.\nI'm a biology major, by the way-- life and the sustaining of it is what I thrive in. :)
937655
All the claims based on human physiology have good non-aquatic possibilities such as adaptations to a savanna lifestyle, so it's not a compelling theory.\n\nIt does however seem entirely plausible that as generalists, our ancestors may have foraged around the water's edges and shallows, much like some monkeys do today.\n\nThere's a good list of the arguments for and objections (at the bottom) against the theory on Wikipedia at the link below
1166114
We did evolve from a previous species, one that diverged from an ancestor that was common to apes, but it's possible that the human line was never, strictly speaking, the SAME as an ape...it depends on how severe the genetic mutation was...\n\nddead: I like how you point out all of the hoaxes and don't state that there have been many skeletons found and recorded for Home habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis (while not necessarily man, still the same genus and possibly one that bred with sapiens), and you don't even mention the whole genus Australopithecus, a commonly cited group of ancestors...\n\nEvolution hasn't been proven, but there is a theory and ongoing science to support this theory, part of which is actual physical evidence...Creationists have stories and faith, but I guess that's enough for them...
1177394
generally, yes.  this is primarily the result of better nutrition and healthcare, as is most evident in the chinese population.  whereas 2 or three generations ago, the majority of chinese lived mostly on rice and were quite small, with the introduction of greater variety into their diet they grow tremendously.\nso yes, people are getting taller, and it is probably more evident in countries that until recently were very poor.
230135
There is evidence to say that we are still evolving. Many people believe that our brains have gotten larger.\n\nProblem is that evolution through natural selection takes millions upon millions of years. The human lifespan is nothing next to this. That is why it is so hard for us humans to wrap our minds around the concept of geologic time & evolutionary changes.\n\nHere is the deal w/ the whole monkey issue:\n\nWe did not evolve from monkeys. Biggest misconception ever. Certain groups of people like to keep this myth going b/c it helps their cause.\n\nActually we (human line) branched off millions of years ago during the Oligocene. The line that we think of as apes & monkeys form a different branch of the evolutionary tree. We are not directly decended from monkeys OR apes. They are on different branches all their own.\n\nSome theorists believe (i.e. S. J. Gould) something called punctuated equilibrim in which at certain times in history evolutionary changes occurred in short spurts due to changes in the climate/environment which in turned allowed natural selection to occur. Makes sense --> no change = no natural selection = no evolutionary changes.\n\nWe have seen in the past that some groups of people are naturally immune to select diseases. IF a particular disease occurs in which only 1/4 of the population is immune & the rest die out, then you have a change in the evolutionary gene pool.\n\nNatural selection still occurs today. The peppered moth is one example.
139425
Genetics. It might sound stupid, but girls were taught to be "dainty" 800 years ago, and had that pounded through their heads for 200 years. It caught on, and through genetics, it was passed on. Girls fainted at EVERYTHING, blood, bugs, you name it. Since bugs (like nits) were disease causers, they ruined daintyness. After 600 years of this, it's not something that goes away really fast. The menfolk were fighting military battles. See a connection? Now, I'm not saying that there were absolutly no woman that didn't like bugs, but most girls had the equiette of the time.
966073
No.  It might of looked smaller as the macrocosm expanded.\nA small object beside a small object doen't look small.  But a small object beside a big object looks small.
1004804
The thought is that life (all of it) came from a single organism and over a long time has become what we can see today. An example i can think of that has occurred over a short enough time span that we can use would be Human intelligence, size relative to geography, and skin color relative to geography.  We as humans are smarter today than generations past, for instance modern man 10000 years ago did not have the smarts we have today, do you believe it is due to school or human mental advancement(evolution). There is an extremely noticeable difference between natives of different geographical locations. Darker skin in the hotter regions and lighter skin in the regions with less sun per year. ie Africa and Europe  The theory is very well developed and provable back to a certain point.  And NO ONE said that a GOD didn't strike the first amino acid with the lightening to start the evolution.
58152
When I think about that kind of stuff, the finer things in life are defined. First off, good has no meaning without bad. THen you might look at the nebular theory of the solar system. In essence, we are expanding matter, so how could this be if humans were complacent. In other words, if we were comfortable and didn't have anything to strive for, then we wouldn't be expanding. I on't know of anything that grows smaller as it ages. The fact that we are never satisfied to supports this theory. When you buy a car and a new one comes out, you want the new one. We have unlimited wants with scarce rescources. \n\nAnother linear approach to your question would be on the scarce rescorces side. The rescorces in this case would be Genes, hence, the people who eat anything and look great (screw them). The genetics, however, are a part of the expanding explosion we are in.
1088564
Hmmm, could be a trick question by someone promoting a specific religious formula response.\n\nWe have the Navajo answer, the Assyrian answer, the Hebrew answer, the Nordic answer, the Viking answer, and some pretty nifty variaitions from Japan and Micronesia.  I can look up several others from Africa.\n\nThose, of course, are all part of the religious and cultural perspective, and some are not currently considered acceptable replies.\n\nCurrsnt sceintific treatments generally posit a gradual development of  humanity over a period of many millions of years, emerging out of a series of "branches" of the human family tree.  If you want to get more detailed, some speculate we started with fish that developed legs and crawled up out of the water.\n\nNow, if you are asking about embryology, there are some NEAT treatments of that you can find on the web.\n\nOtherwise, would you please post a more specific version of your question?
1057032
It is highly unlikely because the epiphyses of long bones have fused by this age so as not to allow further growth. But there are little exceptions...mystery....I don't know...individuals are unique and so are their bodies. /PEACE
1150573
There would be no excuse.  Mankind has been the same at the root, the only things that have changed are technology, and morals and values.  The basics are all there.  Deep down we have been the same: the want for survival, the want for territory of our own, the want to procreate, the want to ensure our offspring a future.  This has been going on since humans could walk upright.
462220
When you use another persons thoughts, words, etc. but you say it in your own way.\nExample- News Report:Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.\nYou might say: The fossil of the possible missing link between swimming and walking fish was discovered. This fish has been extinct for 375 million years.\nHope this helps