shewolfnm wrote: I cant imagine when/why a mutation of 'dwarfisim' was a positive mutation . Looooooong shot..
but maybe it is due to these ' little people' that we have the gene still today? Granted , today the gene is recessive and only pops up something like 1-100,000 people.
But all mutations have to come from somewhere. Maybe...? Who knows.
Great thread!!!!
The little people were not dwarfs, they were of normal proportions (except that their arms were relativley long compared to their body length). Dwarfism causes stunted limbs, while the body and especially the head remain of "normal" size.
The length of a human population depends largely on their diet and the abundance of food available. there are lots of statistical data to demonstrate this. For example, based on measurement s of army recruits, at the beginning of the 20th century the Swedes were the shortest people in Europe 70 years later when the country had developed itself from a poor agricultural society to a modern industrial one and the amount of food coupled with better nutritional science (applied in schools) and the availability of free health care, had made the Swedes into the tallest people in Europe (a position now taken over by the Dutch).
Small body size is an advantage in certain environmental conditions. A small body requires less energy to be maintained and needs less energy to cool or heat itself. If the supply of food is small and there are no larger races to compete with (as was often the case in remote places like dense tropical forests (think about pygmies), deserts (think about khoisan bushmen) and on isolated islands) the individuals with smaller body sizes have a better chance of survival. In the case of this particular species of humans the other factor where size matters, the skull, was sufficiently small to allow the species as a whole to grow small (In modern humans the size of the skull means that females cannot become too small, or they will no longer be able to give birth naturally).