Evolution question. If you put a small group of people in Isolation and they multiply for about 50,000 years?

but you make them, for example, swim 20 hours a day and they continue this habit for generations after generations and remain isolated from the outside world...would they eventually evolve into some kind aquatic beings so to speak? Would that create genetic mutations and turn them into something else? I know this sounds very ridiculous but I like science a lot and I've always been curious about these things.Evolution question. If you put a small group of people in Isolation and they multiply for about 50,000 years?
Evolution can be defined as a genetic change in a population overtime. Fitness is the ability of an organism to produce offspring. A mutation is any change in the genetic material, DNA.





The act of swimming itself does not cause a genetic change. So if you swam everyday you would not develop webbed fingers and gills.





You would expect that some of the individuals in your isolated population would be better swimmers than others. Why? Some would swim better because of genetic variations in the human population.





If being a better swimmer gave an individual a fitness advantage, then they would produce more offspring. As a result, each successive generation would accumulate genes that improved swimming.





Additionally, if a mutation provided a fitness advantage then that genetic change would be passed on to future generations. However, because evolution is without guidance, after 50,000 years what these humans would look like is a mystery.Evolution question. If you put a small group of people in Isolation and they multiply for about 50,000 years?
In only 50,000 years, the change would be very small. Most likely they would just evolve slightly bigger, webbed hands and the same with feet. They would also probably develop better lung capacity and other features that would be advantages. If you gave them 1 million years, you would probably end up with a new species very similar to humans. Given 50 million years, you would most definitely end up with a very unique, aquatic species.
What you are suggesting is the Lamarck theory. It has long since been proved wrong. Lamarck believed that such characteristics which were beneficial could be inherited into the following generations. Like giraffes reaching for high leaves would cause their necks to be longer with each generation. One of the other answerers is quite correct, a lot of non webbed feet people would have to die in order to have an advantage to pass on, by default.
May be you can sprinkle fairy dust while at it so they can all fly.
A very good question, it is no way ridiculous. It spurs the thought. I think your test situation has almost allready been proven as fact.


There is a type of new that lives in caves, they have eyes, but they have no sight, as they have no need for it.


The same species of newt that lives all over the world have eyes that function. So evolution made an adjustment to one section of a species becuase of the enviroment.


I have no idea if the humans would become Aquatic, its possible.
No.. because for evolution to happen the people who don't adapt will have to die so they cant breed.





Example: lets take your example... say these people have to swim in order to get their food... if they don't swim good enough they will starve and die. Thus.. only the good swimmers will live and pass on the good swimming geans to their offspring.


After many, many....very many years like this.. it is safe to say that the people will most likely have larger lungs to hold more air.. and better upper body strength.. but mutations like gills or what not?... no.


Maybe SLIGHTLY webbed feet and hands but only after hundreds of years of this.
The weak swimmers would drown, so you would get better swimmers. People whose skin can better stand up to water better would also have an advantage. If survival was based on a specific task that took swimming skill, not just being in the water, you might see some changes in the shape of the limbs. Expect subtle, not radical changes
I think that your reasoning is slightly off. For example, a giraffe did not grow a long neck in order to reach the high trees. In evolutionary terms, a species will evolve as random traits are born that help in the procreation of the species (make it more successful). If the trait is more successful (helps it survive in a particular habitat, etc.) then it will have more offspring who have these traits, and so on. Putting humans next to water will not make them grow gills and fins simply by being next to water.
I think: only if the ability to swim better is helping them survive. If they had to swim to get food, or escape predators then it would.





Occasionally, people are born with webbed toes and fingers. I've heard that anyway. And I'm not completely sure if it is a genetic mutation, but assume that it is for my example. (And assume that it would make one a better swimmer.) Let's say that this group of people needs to be able to swim well to survive.





If the webbed fingers and toes mutation occurred in the isolated people, it would probably be more likely to be passed on because the people that could swim better to get food or get away from predators would survive more often and pass on the gene to the next generation. The ones that did not have it would be more likely to starve or be eaten before they could pass it on. Think ';survival of the fittest.'; The ones that are best able to survive are ';naturally selected'; and pass on the trait.





But, now say that this mutation occurred in people who were forced to swim 20 hours a day, but were still fed and did not get killed for being poor swimmers. It wouldn't really make a difference because the people without webbed fingers and toes would still survive to pass on their genes. And interbreeding would occur. And the rate of occurrence of webbing would remain the same as it is now. No change in the genetic makeup of the group would take place.
No - the island populations who live reaping the oceans have not adapted in this way.
You example talks about 50,000 years that鈥檚 a great deal of time. Lets see the Eskimo people needed only 2000 years to develop a thick skin much thicker than any other nation, so you will see your people have a thick skin and an oily one that to protect the epidermis from negative effect of long stay in water. The other thing is that they will have shorter but thicker bodies this will be seen in the third or forth generation and even the first one will have more developed upper part of the body as this part of our body is flexible and easy to shape.





The Chukcha natives in Russian Siberia have very high and thick bodies because they used to travel a lot for food their average height is over 6.5鈥?and it took them only abt 1500 years to create this from an European type nation.





What will happen if we take time to pass who knows, they will adapt for sure but this depends also on if the will survive as a small and closed community can be wiped out by such even flu with fever.