I'm not really sure either lol. that's why I'm hoping some mumbai resident that knows all about it will teach me the truth
northern europe had access to better resources to nourish and grow children so dna adapted over time i suppose
Height correlates with diet. In the north we'be been eating meat since the stone age. High calorie and protein dense food to get us trough the harsh seasons. In warm and poor countries they can just pick fruit from the wild or they can sustain on a shit diet.
The Nordics aren't only tall, they're also high-IQ, and figured out quickly how to make good clothes, build houses, saunas, etc.
Pygmies live in the jungle, their small height makes it easier for them to sneak around, escape predators, hide, hunt stealthily, etc.
How can the dna adapt over time though? The only traits that pass down to your children are the genetic ones that come from you and your wife, not something you acquire with life afaik, therefore your good nutrition shouldn't make a difference? or maybe it makes the children healthier when growing up therefore that cycle continues and it explains it? I dunno really
yeah, it does correlate with diet, but if you had a group of SEAs and nordics growing up side to side with great diet and all factors checked in, the nordics would still end up heightmogging the southeast asians.
Give it a 1000 years of selective breeding and I'd bet they would be fairly equal in height.
that is a good explanation. so, unlike the neanderthals, there was no need for modern nordic humans to preserve heat with a shorter stature since they could just make up for it with creations like what you pointed out?
I see it.
Indeed. But then, in this scenario, I don't think we would even have that much difference between races and ethnic groups as all good traits would be selected therefore shittier ones like wide noses, dark eyes, shit statures/frames/colourings etc would all go extinct with time.
Cold adapted pheno = Central Asians, Siberians, Arctic people and northeast Asians
Epigenetics.
This.
im a smart boi
the brutal thing is that they were actually the shortest by a big margin in europe
it is partially related with climate and living conditions besides hunting ability, but maybe it just really wasn't as important of a factor.
i guess so, pre-industrial european male were on avg 10cm shorter than he is now and it's probably more cuz of nutrition than sexual selection (For the most part)
doesn't it contradict darwinism though? or well, align with lamarckism which was proven to be false?
i wonder why that happened more in the NL than other EU countries
lots of raw fermented cheeses that they have been eating since birth high calcium and vitamin k2 content
i think the sexual selection theory part really can't 100% explain why the dutch are much taller than other europeans and americans with similar cultures. so i think this is a good explanation.
i mean, i think there is, but maybe it just wasn't a big factor after we learned to protect ourselves from the cold therefore other traits could be selected as another poster said above.
there is a reason i cant remember right now, read up about it its pretty interesting
lifefuel for you @Ai Impact just junglemax
blogs.scientificamerican.com
height is purely genetic and what you eat,its receptors and how much hgh you produce
looksmax.org
looksmax.org
Keep in mind that the Roman historians and commentaries from Roman generals, described the Frisii tribe (ancestors of modern Dutch) as being the tallest people with the Illyrians
