Juston
Points


Anthropology
163

Midterm
1

03/22/09

R.M.
La
Jeunesse

The
following
is
the
definition
of
a
species
used
for
this
paper.





Lets
say
that
we
have
a
species
(S)
and
beings
that
are
of
that
species
and
can

reproduce
with
each
other
(s).
Each
s
in
S
has
a
certain
set
of
traits/genes
that
they

have
in
common,
if
a
being
does
not
have
that
certain
set
of
traits
in
common
with
S,

then
that
being
will
not
be
able
to
reproduce
with
other
s
or
is
not
a
member
of
S.




Let
the
set
of
traits/genes
that
are
found
is
S
be
{a,b,c,
X}.


Where


 a
=
a
set
of
physical
reproductive
traits/genes


 
 b
=
a
set
of
behavioral
traits/genes
affecting
reproduction


 c=
a
set
of
other
traits/genes
specific
to
S,
or
affect
reproduction
with
an
s.


X
=
a
set
of
traits/genes
that
do
not
affect
reproduction.




s
is
said
to
be
a
member
of
S
and
can
reproduce
with
other
members
of
S,


if
s
contains
the
set
{a,b,c}



If
s1
=
{a,b,c,A}
 and

 s2={a,b,c,B}
 since
s1
and
s2
contains
the
set
{a,b,c},
then

they
are
members
of
S,
and
can
reproduce.




If
s1
=
{b,c,
A}
 
 and
 s2={a,b,c,
B}
since
s1
does
not
contain
{a},
then
s1
is

unlikely
to
be
able
to
reproduce
with
s2.




If
s1
=
{a,c,A}
 
 and
 s2=
{a,b,c,B}
since
s1
does
not
contain
{b},
then
s1
may
be

physically
capable
of
reproducing
with
s2,
but
s1
may
not
attempt
to
reproduce
with

s2,
or
s2
or
s3
may
not
let
s1
reproduce
with
s2.




If
s1
=
{a,b,A}
 
 and
 s2=
{a,b,c,B}
since
s1
does
not
contain
{c},
then
there
is

some
trait
that
is
missing
or
present
in
s1,
that
is
hindering/preventing
s1
from

reproducing.




[Question
1]




 Macroevolution
is
the
process
of
an
S
changing
over
time,
or
the
split
of
an
S


into
S1
and
S2.

There
are
two
competing
views
that
exist
when
explaining
the


process
of
macroevolution;
punctuated
equilibrium
theory
and
the
gradual


development
theory.



 The
punctuated
equilibrium
theory’s
basic
premise
is
that
macroevolution


occurs
quickly
(evolutionarily
speaking)
after
a
certain
event
takes
place.
The
event


results
in
some
sort
of
barrier
(roads,

rivers,
mountains,
islands,
latitude,
resource


location,
etc.)
that
separates
S1
and
S2.

At
the
time
of
separation
the
set
of


traits/genes
in
S1
and
S2
are
the
same.
Over
time,
S1
and
S2
adjust
(quickly)
to
their


different
environments,
and
the
traits/genes
{a,b,c}
may
change
in
S2,
but
not
in
S1,


and
once
those
traits
differ,
then
we
could
state
that
S1
and
S2
are
two
different


species.
If
the
environment
remains
constant,
then
{a,b,c}
has
nothing
acting
on
it
to


change.
This
would
imply
that
if
no
barrier
separates
S1
and
S2,
then
the
traits


{a,b,c}
will
not
change,
and
thus
S
will
remain
constant.




 The
gradual
theory
of
macroevolution
contrast
with
punctuated
equilibrium


theory
with
respect
to
the
clause:
if
no
barrier
separates
S1
and
S2,
then
the
traits


{a,b,c}
will
not
change,
and
thus
S
will
remain
constant.
Gradual
theory
implies
the


idea
of
genetic
drift,
or
that
over
time,
the
traits/genes
{a,b,c}
in
S
could
change


without
any
physical
barrier,

only
time
and
distance
is
needed.
The
classic
example


has
to
do
with
the
lizard
reproduction
problem.
S1
can
reproduce
with
S2,
S2
can


reproduce
with
S3,
S3
can
reproduce
with
Sn,
however
S1
cannot
reproduce
with


Sn.
This
problem
illustrates
that
speciation
is
a
continuum,
not
a
“punctuation”.


(This
creates
a
problem
with
the
definition
stated
above,
lets
correct
it).


















Definition
for
genetic
drift
causing
speciation


{a,b,c}
are
a
set
of
traits/genes
that
must
exist
for
s
to
reproduce
with
a
member
of
S,


for
example,
if
a
=
{w,x,y,z}.


 Assumption:
An
s
can
have
trait/genes
{a}
if
s
has
the
majority
of
the
elements
of
a:{w,x,y,z}.


 So,
s1
can
physically
reproduce
with
s2,
if
a1
=
{w,x,y,z}
and
a2
={j,x,y,z}


 s2
can
physically
reproduce
with
s3,
if
a2
=
{j,x,y,z}
and
a3
=
{j,k,y,z}


 s3
can
physically
reproduce
with
sn,
if
a3
=
{
j,k,y,z
}
and
an
=
{
j,k,l,z
}


Therefore,
Sn
cannot
physically
reproduce
with
S1,
because

an
=
{
j,k,l,z
}
and
a1
=
{w,x,y,z}
implying
that
Sn’s
{a}
is
not
found
in
s1,

and
if
Sn’s
{a}
is
not
found
in
s1,
then
S1
cannot
physical
reproduce
with
Sn.


 This
pattern
could
also
be
true
with
traits/gene
sets
{b,c}





 However,
the
distinction
between
gradual
and
punctuated
theories
seems
to


be
misconceived,
because
it
appears
they
could
be
identical.

The
difference
between


the
two
theories
is
the
notion
of
time
and
the
definition
of
“barrier”.
The
barriers


that
the
punctuated
theory
shows,
still
results
in
genetic
drift,
the
difference
is
that


barriers
create
two
paths
for
genetic
drift
to
occur.
Because
if
you
have
S,
and
then
a


barrier
creates
S1
and
S2,
initially
S1
=
S2,
and
over
time
in
the
different


environments
genetic
drift
will
occur,
and
later
S1≠
S2.

This
should
happen
quicker,


because
S1
and
S2
can
no
longer
interact.
The
drift
could
happen
even
quicker,
if


genetic
drift
was
already
occurring,
and
a
barrier
developed
between
S1
and
Sn.


Gradual
evolution
theory
also
implies
a
barrier;
time
and
distance.
The


barrier
of
time
implies
that
a
certain
environment
will
not
always
be
the
same.
Over


the
course
of
a
million
years,
there
can
be
significant
change
in
an
environment


(weather,
resource
location,
etc.),
which
would
imply
the
traits/genes
{a,b,c}
of
the


species
might
need
to
change
to
adapt
to
the
change
of
the
environment,
or
the


species
would
become
extinct.
With
distance,
as
the
species
spreads
out,
the


environment
the
species
lives
in
changes.
The
species
spectrum
(S1~Sn)
might
not


be
separated
by
a
physical
barrier,
but
s1
and
sn
are
separated
by
a
barrier
of

distance,
because
s1
is
unlikely
to
travel
500miles
to
reproduce
with
sn.
Also,
time


could
be
look
at
as
a
barrier
of
distance.


However,

the
issue
that
seems
be
in
debate
by
the
two
theories
is
the


assumption
made
in
the
definition
of
genetic
drift.
An
s
can
have
trait/genes
{a}
if
s
has
the


majority
of
the
elements
{w,x,y,z}.
A
punctualist
might
state
that
the
assumption
is
false,


and
claim
that
every
element
in
{w,x,y,z}
needs
to
be
present
for
reproduction
to


occur,
and
then
argue
what
does
“majority
of
elements”
constitute.



The
area
of
empirical
evidence
that
is
being
used
to
debate
this
problem
is


the
fossil
record.

Punctualist
state
that
because
the
fossil
record
is
not
continuous,


then
that
is
clear
evidence
that
evolution
happens
punctually.
However,
just
because


there
is
an
absence
of
evidence
in
the
fossil,
does
not
imply
that
evidence
does
not


exist.
With
this
in
mind,
gradualist
would
state
that
the
fossil
record
is
a
snap
shot
of


the
evolution
of
a
species,
and
the
missing
gaps
in
the
fossil
record
have
not
been


found,
or
since
fossilization
is
a
rare
occurrence,
then
a
fossil
might
not
have
been


made
of
that
stage
in
evolution.



In
humans
the
fossil
record
from
about
2million
years
ago
seems


inconclusive
about
how
humans
evolved
because
there
are
missing
links.
The
fossil


record
suggest
that
modern
homo
sapiens
originated
on
the
East
Coast
of
Southern


to
Northern
Africa
mostly
along
the
Nile
river,
however
it
is
unclear
if
there
was


gradual
evolution
or
an
event
that
separated
homo
sapiens
from
the
other
primates.



However,
if
we
strictly
go
by
the
evidence
in
the
fossil
record,
it
would
suggest
that


man
came
from
punctuated
events.





 Some
would
say
that
the
fossil
record
is
limited
in
its
ability
to
explain


human
evolution,
and
we
need
to
look
at
other
sources
to
find
the
answers.
Now


how
else
could
we
look
at
speciation
in
Humans?
(Question
4)
Before
we
can


answer
that
question
we
need
to
review
how
speciation
occurs
in
mammals
and


then
take
a
look
back
at
humans.
Speciation
of
mammals
would
occur
when
the


elements
that
govern
reproduction
{a,b,c}
are
no
longer
congruent
between
two


populations
of
mammals
that
had
a
common
ancestor.



Minimum
requirements
for
speciation




 There
is
an
S
which
has
traits/genes
{a,b,c,
X}.

A.
If
a
barrier
comes
to
exist
in
S,
then
it
will
result
in
S1
and
S2.

B.
If
the
barrier
prevent
S1
and
S2
from
interacting,
then
the
gene
pools
in
S1

and
S2
to
freely
vary
from
each
other.


 C.
S2
is
said
to
speciate
when
traits/genes
{a,b,c}
differ
from
those
is
S1.


 


 The
most
crucial
elements
in
all
species
including
mammals
are
the


traits/genes
that
are
directly
responsible
for
reproduction,
{a}.

In
mammals
these


are
traits
such
as
sexual
organs,
creation
of
sex
cells,
antigens,
incubation
of
the


fetis,
incubation
time,
route
of
exit
of
the
fetis,
mammary
glands,
health
of
the


mother,
2
sexes,
and
chromosome
number
to
be
a
few
examples.
Within
a
species


these
traits
should
in
the
most
part
be
similar,
however
any
significant
deviation
in


these
traits,
may
make
reproduction
impossible.
If
the
trait
change
hinders


reproduction,
then
it
would
have
a
very
low
chance
of
changing
across
species.


Implying
that
trait/gene
{a}
should
remain
fairly
constant
across
species
of


mammals.
The
only
problem
here
is
that
chromosome
number
can
changes
across


species.
Not
sure
how
to
explain
that.



 The
behavior
component
of
mammalian
species
{b}
should
vary
much
more


in
mammals
than
the
reproductive
traits.

Behaviors
that
aid
in
reproduction
in


mammals
are
selective
breeding,
socialization,
mother
and
fathering,
migration,


imitation,
altering
environment,
etc.
Not
all
of
these
traits
are
found
in
all
mammals.



A
behavior
that
directly
relates
to
mammalian
reproduction
is
mate
selection.

If
a


set
of
females
in
S
will
only
reproduce
with
a
male
of
S
who
does
behavior
X,
and


there
is
another
set
of
females
in
S
that
will
only
reproduce
with
a
male
who
does


behavior
Y,
then
this
creates
a
behavior
barrier,
S1=S2.
Then
in
time,
genetic
drift


and
selection
on
the
favored
behavior
might
result
in
two
distinct
species.



 The
{c}
component
of
a
species
has
to
do
with
traits/genes
that
are
indirectly


related
to
reproduction
(these
can
be
physical
traits
or
behaviors).
These
are
traits


involving
environmental
adaptations,
disease
resistance,
resource
acquisition


ability,
size,
basically
anything
that
can
be
selected
for
or
against.
In
mammals
one


of
these
traits
might
be
resource
preference.
If
S1
prefers
berries
on
bushes,
and
S2


who
is
smaller
than
S2
develops
a
preference
for
berries
in
a
tree,
then
in
time
these


groups
might
speciate.




 However,
where
can
all
of
this
variation
come
from?
That
is
the
beauty
of
the


{X}
component.
Since
natural
selection
is
not
acting
on
{X},
then
the
elements
in
{X}


might
cause
a
trait
to
emerge
that
is
beneficial.
Once
that
beneficial
trait
emerges


and
gives
the
individual
an
advantage,
then
it
could
either
spread
to
the
S,
or
result


in
speciation.
Could
it
be
possible
that
the
extra
chromosome
problem
be
a
member


of
{X}?


 Human
variation
should
follow
a
similar
path
to
mammals,
if
there
is
any


change
in
the
{a,b,c}’s
then
speciation
might
occur.
The
most
significant
punctuation


that
could
cause
an
S1
and
S2
in
early
man
may
have
been
our
tendency
to
form


social
groups.
If
each
social
group
tended
not
to
interact
(which
is
evident
with


outsider
hatred
problems),
then
the
social
group
would
be
a
barrier
to
early


humans.
Between
the
groups,
there
would
selective
pressure
for
resources
to
be
the


dominant
group,
and
it
could
be
argued
that
as
the
communication
in
a
group


increases,
then
the
strength
of
the
group
increases.

If
true,
then
this
could
provide
a


nice
environment
for
humans
to
emerge
from.



A
major
problem
that
occurs
in
humans
is
that
despite
being
spread
across


the
entire
globe
for
60,000years,
we
did
not
speciate.
If
rapid
speciation
does
occur


as
punctuality
claims,
then
why
could
Pocahontas
and
John
Smith
have
child?
Is


there
something
special
about
humans
that
prevent
us
from
speciating?



[Question
2]



 One
of
the
first
genetic
systems
discovered
is
ABH
series
in
the
human
blood


system.
These
are
a
series
of
traits
that
generally
fall
into
the
variability
case
{X}
of


the
{a,b,c,X}
distinction.
The
ABH
series
generally
does
not
affect
ones
ability
to


reproduce.
However,
there
have
been
times
in
recent
human
history
that
this
blood


group
series
allowed
some
individuals
to
reproduce
and
others
not
be
able
to


reproduce,
making
the
blood
groups
a
{c}
at
times.
For
example,
there
have
been


epidemics
where
a
certain
blood
group
was
resistant
to
pathogens.




 The
blood
groups
ABO
are
composed
of
two
components,
creating
4
distinct


groups;
A,B,AB,O.
The
first
component
is
the
structure
on
the
outside
of
the
blood

cell,
called
antigens.
These
antigens
allow
for
the
immune
system
to
recognize
and


not
attack
the
blood
cell.
If
the
wrong
antigen
type
is
put
in
a
person,
then
the


immune
system
will
identify
the
blood
as
an
invader,
and
destroy
it.
Blood
type
A,


has
antigen‐a,
B
has
antigen‐b,
AB
has
antigen‐a
and
antigen‐b,
and
O
does
not
have


any
antigens.




The
second
component
is
a
set
of
anti‐bodies
that
would
detect
the
presence
of


the
other
blood
types.
Blood
group
A
would
have
antibody‐B,
B
would
have


antibody‐A,
AB
would
not
have
any,
and
O
would
have
antibody
A
and
B.
Then
to


further
complicate
the
blood
system,
there
is
a
another
set
of
antigens
the
Rhesus


group,
which
is
classified
as
+
or
‐,
depending
on
the
presence
of
certain
R‐antigens.



When
transferring
blood,
one
has
to
be
careful.
If
B
blood
was
placed
into
a


person
with
A
blood,
then
the
person’s
antibodies‐B
would
reject
the
B
blood.
Since


O
blood
has
anti‐bodies
for
A
and
B
blood,
then
an
O
blooded
person
can
only
take
O


blood,
but
since
the
blood
has
no
antigens,
then
it
can
be
donated
to
everyone.
AB


blood
on
the
other
hand,
can
receive
blood
from
everyone
because
there
are
no


antibodies,
but
cannot
donate
to
other
groups,
because
the
other
person’s


antibodies
would
connect
to
the
AB
bloods
antigens.




 The
disease
that
caused
the
black
plague
was
delivered
by
vector
of
a
flea,


and
then
transferred
from
human
to
human
when
it
became
pneumonic.
This


particular
disorder
seems
to
be
more
successful
in
the
people
with
O
blood
groups.


It
is
possible
that
the
O
blood
would
be
easier
to
attach
to
than
the
A
and
B
blood,


because
O
blood
has
no
antigens.

Since,
the
plague
has
a
high
mortality
rate,


combined
with
the
success
it
had
in
the
O
blood
system,
then
areas
where
the
plague

occurred
have
a
lower
population
of
O
blood
groups.
This
would
be
why
the
O
blood


is
less
common
in
Europe,
than
other
regions
of
the
world.




 The
same
problem
occurred
with
small
pox.
Small
pox
has
an
antigen
system


similar
to
antigen‐A.
This
would
mean
that
the
A‐blood
system
would
identify
small


box
as
if
it
is
blood,
and
not
get
rid
of
it.
However,
since
B
and
O
blood
have


antibodies‐a,
then
these
systems
would
flush
small
pox
out
of
the
body.
Thus,
those


with
the
A
blood
system
would
more
likely
die
from
small
pox,
thus
blood
type
A


would
be
less
prevalent
in
areas
where
there
was
a
small
pox
epidemic
occured.


Since
small
pox
has
been
very
common
in
India,
this
would
explain
why
the
A‐blood


group
is
less
common
in
India.




 It
could
be
predicted
that
due
to
recent
human
activity
that
the
distribution


of
blood
types
will
slowly
become
evenly
distributed.
The
reason
why
is
because


cultural
practices.
Europeans
created
the
environment
that
caused
the
black
plague,


by
creating
the
sanitary
conditions
that
favored
the
rat
that
carried
the
flea
that


possessed
the
plague.
Europeans
have
since
learned
from
that
experience,
and
now


practice
sanitation
better.
Also,
humans
have
created
a
way
to
combat
the
plague


through
antibiotics,
and
small
pox
through
a
vaccine.
Thus,
in
the
future
these


pathogens
will
no
longer
have
the
selective
pressure
they
once
had,
and
blood


groups
should
back
fall
back
into
free
variations.



Questions
3.




 Humans
have
many
physical
traits
that
can
fall
into
the
{X}
category
stated


above,
but
on
occasion
some
traits
can
become
a
member
of
{c}.
These
traits
are


often
explained
in
terms
of
dominant
and
recessive
genes,
represented
as
Aa.
If
the

dominant
trait
is
present,
then
that
A
will
cause
the
phenotype.
If
only
aa,
then
the


recessive
phenotype
will
emerge.
However,
there
could
be
multiple
systems
acting


on
one
phenotype,
polygentic
traits,
represented
as
Aa,
Ba,
and
Ca.
Better
yet,
some


phenotypes
could
be
interacting
with
other
trait
systems,
or
relying
on
other


systems
to
be
activated.




 A
good
example
is
the
skin
tone
in
humans.
In
the
past,
humans
found


themself
in
an
environment
that
favored
thinned
hair,
and
then
the
need
for


pigmentation
in
the
skin.
The
initial
environment
was
in
the
tropics
near
the


equator,
where
there
is
a
high
degree
of
UV
exposure.
UV
light
from
the
sun
can


damage
and
cause
the
bonds
in
protein
and
DNA
to
break
down,
and
cause
skin


diseases.
So,
those
that
have
better
protection
from
UV
light,
will
live
longer
and
be


more
active
during
the
day,
than
those
that
have
less
protection.
Those
that
were


heavily
pigmented
had
an
evolutionary
advantage
over
those
who
were
not.




 The
exact
opposite
occurred
when
humans
migrated
northward.
As
one


moves
away
from
the
equator,
the
amount
of
UV
light
present
decreases.
That
would


be
no
problem
if
UV
light
was
not
needed
for
vitamin
D
production,
however
it
is.


This
would
explain
why
as
one
heads
north
of
the
equator,
pigmentation
in
humans


decrease.
Because
vitamin
D
is
needed
for
a
child
to
develop
bones,
and
if
the


vitamin
production
is
hindered,
then
the
child
might
not
live
to
adulthood.




 Hair
and
eye
color
seem
to
correlated
with
a
person’s
pigmentation.
When
a


person
has
very
dark
pigmentation
in
their
skin,
their
hair
is
very
day
and
their
eye


color
is
almost
black.
However,
when
a
person
has
little
pigmentation
in
their
skin,


then
there
hair
is
blonde
or
red
(low
pigmentation)
and
eye
color
is
blue
(low

pigmentation).
This
suggests
that
the
pigmentation
of
skin,
hair,
and
eye
color
all


depend
on
similar
melanin
regulating
genes.
If
those
genes
malfunction,
then
we


have
albinism,
affecting
skin,
hair,
and
eyes.




 However,
this
does
not
fully
explain
hair
color,
because
we
have
blonde
hair


and
red
hair
when
melanin
is
low.
This
suggests
that
hair
color
could
have
two


systems
regulating
the
color.
Melanin
is
the
dominant
color,
and
covers
up
the
red


coloring
in
heavy
pigmented
people.

The
same
is
true
with
eye
color,
if
a
person
has


low
pigment,
then
they
can
have
blue
or
green
eyes.
This
would
suggest
that
eye


color
has
other
systems
regulating
color
as
well.



[Question
5.]



 Anthropologist
tends
to
view
stature
as
being
a
genetic
trait
that
is
free
to


vary,
{X}.

Mostly,
the
pituitary
gland
regulates
stature.
The
average
height
for


humans
is
5’5ft.
There
are
genetic
factors
that
regulate
height,
but
the


environmental
factors
seem
to
have
a
significant
affect,
which
could
imply
that
the


distribution
of
stature
has
more
to
do
with
culture,
than
genetic
drift.
The
general


consensus
is
that
stature
is
increasing
across
populations.


Simple
way
of
determining
the
affect
of
culture
on
stature.


 Let
 M
=
the
elements
that
that
affect
stature.
 Where
0
≤
M
≤
n


n
=
maxium
amount
of
resources
that
can
affect
stature.

P
=
Population
#.


 
 D
=
the
distribution
of
the
resource
M
in
P


 If
M=x,
then
stature(S)
=
g+(0.5)x,
n
=
6
 g
=
genetic
base
height


 Assume:
g
=
3.0ft


 
 
 
 


 In
society
A,
MTotal
=
25,
P
=
5,
and
D
=
evenly
distributed.




 
 M1
=
5
S1=5’5,
M2=5
S2=5’5,
M3=5
S3=5,
M4=5
S4=5’5,
M5=5
S5=5’5

Save
=
5’5.









 In
society
B,
MTotal
=
25,
n=6,
P
=
5,
and
D
=
60%(Pa=2)
and
40%(Pb=3).




 M(Pa)
=
15
 Ma1
=
7.5
Sa1=
6.0ft,
Ma2
=
7.5
Sa2
=
6.0ft


 
 M(Pb)
=
10
 Mb1
=
3.33
Sb1
=
4.6ft,
Mb2
=
3.33
Sb2
=
4.6ft,
Mb1
=
3.33
Sb1
=
4.6ft


 
 STotal
=
2(6.0ft)
+
3
(4.6)
ft
=
25.8,


SAve=
5.15ft

Even
though
M
is
equal
in
population
A
and
B,
the
distribution
of
resource
can
affect
average

height.





 Culture
affects
stature
by
either
increasing
or
decreasing
the
elements
of
M.


For
instance,
a
culture
that
invented
the
boat
is
going
to
be
able
increase
its
supply


of
protein
to
the
population,
increasing
the
value
of
M,
which
would
result
in
high


stature
size.
However,
a
society
could
have
a
class
that
holds
the
fish
for
themselves,


and
does
not
let
the
majority
of
the
population
access
the
protein.
This
would
be
an


example
of
the
value
of
M
being
high,
but
D
being
offset.
This
would
create
a
class
of


tall
people,
and
short
people.




 Initially
as
a
population
increases,
the
resources(M)
would
have
to
be


distributed
to
the
increasing
population.
If
D
remains
constant,
then
the
value
of
M


for
each
person
would
decrease,
and
thus
their
stature
would
decrease.
However


modern
society
has
created
environments
that
provide
a
surplus
of
the
resources


that
affect
stature,
and
thus
M
is
almost
at
n
for
most
members
of
the
society,
thus
it


currently
appears
that
as
population
increases,
stature
increases.




 I
assume
that
affective
population
size
implies
a
society
that
is
self‐

sustaining.
The
affective
population
for
maximum
stature
would
be
for
M=n
for


every
member
of
the
population.
On
an
island
there
are
a
limited
amount
of


resources
available,
and
thus
the
value
of
M
is
not
is
not
going
to
increase
as
the


population
increases.

Therefore,
as
the
population
on
an
island
increases,
the
values


of
M
remains
constants,
and
D
remains
constant,
then
the
stature
of
the
population


will
have
to
decrease.
If
D
varies,
then
only
the
deprived
portion
of
the
population

will
shrink,
or
die
of
malnutrition.
This
shrink
in
stature
could
account
for
dwarfism


in
areas
that
are
able
to
sustain
a
population,
if
the
resource
of
M
is
low,
or
hindered


by
a
cultural
practice.



Island
example

M
=
20,
D
=
even



Initial
population
 P
=
4
 Mn
=
M/P
=
20/4
=
5


 
 
 If
Mn=5


 Then,

 Sn
=
5.5ft


 
 
 SAVE
=
5.5ft



Future
population
 P=8
 Mn
=
M/P
=
20/8
=
2.5


 
 
 If
Mn
=
2.5
 Then,

 Sn
=
4.25ft


 
 
 SAve=4.25ft