Caesarean births ‘affecting human evolution’

Flap Zappa wrote:so this affects human evolution but saving children who would not normally survive due to defects doesn't.

It has been a long standing evolutionary question why the human pelvis has not grown wider over the years.
The head of a human baby is large compared with other primates, meaning animals such as chimps can give birth relatively easily.
The researchers devised a mathematical model using data from the World Health Organization and other large birth studies.
They found opposing evolutionary forces in their theoretical study.
One is a trend towards larger newborns, which are more healthy.
However, if they grow too large, they get stuck during labour, which historically would have proved disastrous for mother and baby, and their genes would not be passed on.
"One side of this selective force - namely the trend towards smaller babies - has vanished due to Caesarean sections," said Dr Mitteroecker.
"Our intent is not to criticise medical intervention," he said. "But it's had an evolutionary effect. "

didge wrote:

Flap Zappa wrote:so this affects human evolution but saving children who would not normally survive due to defects doesn't.

Where does it claim that saving children does not matter?

It has been a long standing evolutionary question why the human pelvis has not grown wider over the years.
The head of a human baby is large compared with other primates, meaning animals such as chimps can give birth relatively easily.
The researchers devised a mathematical model using data from the World Health Organization and other large birth studies.
They found opposing evolutionary forces in their theoretical study.
One is a trend towards larger newborns, which are more healthy.
However, if they grow too large, they get stuck during labour, which historically would have proved disastrous for mother and baby, and their genes would not be passed on.
"One side of this selective force - namely the trend towards smaller babies - has vanished due to Caesarean sections," said Dr Mitteroecker.
"Our intent is not to criticise medical intervention," he said. "But it's had an evolutionary effect. "

And this proves why you more than anyone require such articles to be posted in full, to prevent you looking as per usual a twat

Flap Zappa wrote:
it doesn't it is an argument that has gone on in the past.

didge wrote:

Flap Zappa wrote:
it doesn't it is an argument that has gone on in the past.

You were wrong here..

That is a fact

Flap Zappa wrote:
wrong about what?

ALLAKAKA wrote: An increase by 6 in every 1,000 in over 50 years.

Flix wrote:There are various theories around this. One question is why if modern humans became as we are now around 150,000 years ago why hasn't this trait been bred out by now, if it causes so much mortality. Prior to 150,000 women were much bigger, about the size of the average male now, with hips inches larger than present day but through time their pelvises and hips have narrowed, probably its thought to enable the female to walk more easily and further than previously wide hips would comfortably allow.  There is a correlation apparently that the size of a woman's head is approximate to the pelvic opening. There's a lot more about human babies presenting face down when other apes babies face sideways for birth but I don't remember it all.

didge wrote:

Flap Zappa wrote:
wrong about what?

Just about everything

fatbob5 wrote:Surely it could be argued that ALL medicine affects Human Evolution

fatbob5 wrote:Surely it could be argued that ALL medicine affects Human Evolution

Flap Zappa wrote:
no that would be you.
but what am I wrong about here. Or did you actually read what I wrote for a change.

didge wrote:

Flap Zappa wrote:
no that would be you.
but what am I wrong about here. Or did you actually read what I wrote for a change.

Incorrect again, as stated I constantly show up your lack of education and knowledge

For starters, your first post was wrong, as it does effect evolution if then genes are passed on within a child that would have normally died with defects.

Hey ho, this was just showing how we can ourselves play a hand within evolution and often for the better of humans..

This shows that bigger babies can form through cesarean and thus have for healthier babies, but even if babies are born poorly, we have the medical know how, with how to help them get better and assist them through life.

Flap Zappa wrote:
the only thing you constantly show up is your arrogance.
My first post never said it didn't effect evolution, as I said, learn to read what people write, not what you want to think they write.

keeping alive those with defects, and by defects I mean anything that would naturally kill them before or after birth is bound to have an effect on evolution in the long term if they live long enough to breed themselves.

some genetic abnormalities may be beneficial, after all that's how we got where we are, but many are evolutionary dead ends which is why we are not surrounded by billions of species that have died out over eons.
If something is likely to kill you before, during or after birth then it probably is not good for the species as a whole.

We are in effect making our species weaker, not stronger.

didge wrote:

Flap Zappa wrote:
the only thing you constantly show up is your arrogance.
My first post never said it didn't effect evolution, as I said, learn to read what people write, not what you want to think they write.

keeping alive those with defects, and by defects I mean anything that would naturally kill them before or after birth is bound to have an effect on evolution in the long term if they live long enough to breed themselves.

some genetic abnormalities may be beneficial, after all that's how we got where we are, but many are evolutionary dead ends which is why we are not surrounded by billions of species that have died out over eons.
If something is likely to kill you before, during or after birth then it probably is not good for the species as a whole.

We are in effect making our species weaker, not stronger.

Yes it did actually

You wrote the following:

"so this affects human evolution but saving children who would not normally survive due to defects doesn't. "

That is as plain as day what you were saying and I have shown it is inherently wrong as it would effect evolution through genes being passed on, as was explained by the fact more mothers now need cesarean.

We are making ourselves far stronger, by the fact we are now living so much longer than ever before

So again you keep talking even more horseshit, its getting further embarrassing

Yes I am arrogant when dealing with thick alt-right worshipers

I find it great sport, especially when they put their foots in their mouths so often as you do

Flap Zappa wrote:
so you didn't understand my question then?