Jennifer Peng

The claim can be made that the frequency of left-handed individuals will vary across populations

across time. If this is true, then the following assumptions must be met: there must be variation across

populations in terms of handedness, some of this variation must be inheritable, there must be excess

reproduction and more offspring will be produced than will survive, leading to the the consequence of

these assumptions being that change will occur across generations.

There is variation within the human population in terms of handedness in that there are left-

handed and right-handed individuals. As seen in data set 1, handedness is a characteristic that has varied

between individuals as early as 400,000 years ago. In a study done by Sarah Medland and colleagues,

Medland proves that at least some of the variation in handedness in the humans is due to inheritance. Data

set 2 shows that genetically identical monozygotic twins show a higher correlation in handedness than

dizygotic twins. Monozygotic twins showing a greater correlation in handedness suggests that at least

some of the variation among individuals in handedness is due to variations in genes that are inheritable.

The fact that handedness is at least partially a result of variation in genes among individuals is not by

itself enough evidence to prove that the frequency of handedness evolves due to natural selection.

More humans are born in a generation than will survive to reproduce. This is because of the fact

that not all humans survive until a reproductive age and not all humans will reproduce. In terms of

handedness, whether an individual is right-handed or left-handed can be linked to their ability to

reproduce. According to John Aggleton and colleagues, left-handedness seems to decrease an individual's

likelihood to reproduce, finding that the average life span on a left-handed individual was two years

shorter than a right-handed individual. In data set 3C, a marked increase in deaths occurs for left-handed

individuals in their thirties and forties. This age range is when most individuals are likely to reproduce

which further restricts the left-handed population. Though the data seems convincing enough in showing

that left-handed individuals have a lower chance of survival, Aggleton's data sample was of three

thousand cricket players and not of the general population. Any conclusions made from these data cannot

be extended to the general population without further evidence showing these same trends.
 Given the previous conclusion that left-handed individuals are less likely to survive and

reproduce, one would expect that left-handed individuals would be rare within a population. However, in

cultures with high homicide rates due to incidents of hand-to-hand combat, the percentage of left-handed

individuals is abnormally high. In data set 4, Charlotte Fourie and Michel Raymond found that increasing

homicide rates saw similar increases in left-handedness within a society. These differences in homicide

rates compared to the proportion of left-handed individuals could be attributed to the fact that left-handed

individuals may be more likely to survive these hand-to-hand fights and reproduce, aiding the process of

natural selection. Being left-handed could provide a tactical advantage over right-handed opponents who

may not be used to fighting left-handed individuals. Though the data does seem to point towards left-

handedness being a characteristic that evolves via natural selection, it is not entirely convincing. There is

not a concrete conclusion about how left-handedness affects survival. For example, data set 3B leads the

audience to believe that there is no difference between the survival of left-handed and right-handed

individuals while data set 3C shows that left-handed individuals are less likely to survive and reproduce.

Overall, it is inconclusive as to whether handedness is a trait that evolves due to natural selection.

Another characteristic of humans that could be evolving due to natural selection is height.

Though society has viewed taller individuals as the ideal body type, recent findings have suggested that

being taller may not be all that advantageous. The height of populations should slowly decrease across

time because being taller may equate to health problems that are not associated with shorter individuals.

Natural selection could be the mechanism behind this because there is vast variation within the human

population in terms of height, as seen in any group of people. Some of this variation is heritable, as found

in a study done by Peter M. Visscher on Australian twins and siblings where the heritability of height is

found to be around eighty percent. According to Thomas Samaras and Harold Elrick, there are different

rates of survival between shorter and taller individuals because taller individuals are more susceptible to

health problems like various cancers because of their larger size which means larger organs and such.

Therefore taller individuals are less likely to survive and reproduce, theoretically causing taller

individuals to become less common in populations across time as a result of natural selection.