# What inaccurate or flawed history, science, etc. lessons was I taught in school as a kid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 18, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924 "2010-05-18T19:38:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/281 "2010-05-24T18:14:19Z")
**Chronos** said: > [@](#): > > That may even have been me. The first time I encountered the concept of Newtonian fluids was in a discussion on this board, where I did in fact think “Newtonian” meant “not relativistic or quantum”. I don’t remember radioactivity being part of it, though. Well, I am relying on my memory, so I may be slightly off. I don’t recall who the poster was. **MLS** said: > [@](#): > > However, most of the time an appendix does no harm. So _most of the time_ there is no selection pressure against an appendix, but _ **some of the time** _ there _is_? I.e., as was stated, there is a selection pressure _against_ the appendix. > [@](#): > > Also, if you think about it, a slightly thinner appendix, on its way to becoming non-existant, would actually be more likely to get infected as its smaller diameter would be easier to block when inflamed. There is a theory that an appendix actually has a purpose as a place for the beneficial gut bacteria to hide out in so they can repopulate the guts if their kind gets killed off by some other infection. As fascinating as those theories are, they have no bearing on the point that **Blake** was making. **Blake** was responding to the assertion that there was **no** selection pressure against an appendix. There is - appendicitis, which up until the discovery of antibiotics was fairly lethal. (I’m not able to give numbers or percentages here, so leaving some wide wiggle room.) > [@](#): > > Regarding menopause, it has also been theorized that continuing to live for several years after giving birth to one’s last offspring vastly increases the possibility that this child will survive to reproduce. In addition, the presence of at least some older women will enhance the ability of all the tribe’s offspring to survive to reproductive age. Human children are unique in requiring such a long time to be able to survive on their own. Yes, you list possible selection pressures _for_ menopause, but ignore that **Blake** was addressing the assertion that there was **no** selection pressure _against_ menopause. **Little Nemo** said: > [@](#): > > They did collaborate. Fascinating stuff, and you are right, it is largely ignored. **RickJay** said: > [@](#): > > Because parts of the ship itself are not in your way. From any position on the deck of the ship, your view is obscured. From the crow’s nest, it’s not. That just means you can see all directions with less moving around, that doesn’t actually help one see farther. **ed malin** said: > [@](#): > > i’m not sure that humans evolved to have modern lifespans. modern lifespans may be entirely an indirect result of brain and hand evolution that allows us to alter our environment, eliminating predators and disease, providing a steady food supply, and making rational choices that override instincts for example. There are two concepts to keep separate. One is a biological life clock or extent, how long the body can keep running before it falls apart. The other is the likelihood of how long one will live. Typically the first is called “life span” and the second is called “life expectancy”. Life span is biologically determined and inherent in body function. Life expectancy takes into consideration disease, accidents, violence, stupidity, etc. For example, modern _life expectancy_ took a big jump with the advent of germ theory and sanitation, mostly by the great reduction in infant mortality. But the length of time the human body can hold together is still somewhere in the vacinity of 100 years. What you are talking about appears to mix life span with life expectancy. I do not see how altering our environment and eliminating predators and disease affects our bioligical expiration date, but it is an integral part of the likelihood of how long one will live. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/282 "2010-05-24T19:28:13Z")
It should be noted that there are references in the Old Testament (in the semi-historical portions, not the mythical parts with people living 900 years) to the span of man being 70 or 80 years, and several of the Egyptian pharaohs are believed to have lived into their 70s. The ancient Egyptians and Hebrews certainly didn’t have anything near the sort of medicine that we do, but if they managed to survive through diseases, war, etc., they still lived just as long as us. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/283 "2010-05-24T23:04:52Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > No problem, America is just a shortening of United States of America. And if we want to talk about the continent we can talk about North America and South America. And maybe on some occasions Central America. I don’t mind the usage (much). However, **DCnDC** seemed to have mistaken the usage of “America” in the sentence “Columbus discovered America” to mean “Columbus discovered the USA”. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/284 "2010-05-24T23:53:33Z")
I don’t necessarily believe that’s what happened. When I was in school Columbus was treated with the kind of reverence that implied that he was directly involved in the establishment of the country. It was a kind of surprise when a teacher finally got around to specifying that he never actually set foot on any land that is now part of the mainland of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/285 "2010-05-25T00:43:48Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **ed malin** said: > There are two concepts to keep separate. One is a biological life clock or extent, how long the body can keep running before it falls apart. The other is the likelihood of how long one will live. Typically the first is called “life span” and the second is called “life expectancy”. Life span is biologically determined and inherent in body function. Life expectancy takes into consideration disease, accidents, violence, stupidity, etc. For example, modern _life expectancy_ took a big jump with the advent of germ theory and sanitation, mostly by the great reduction in infant mortality. But the length of time the human body can hold together is still somewhere in the vacinity of 100 years. > > What you are talking about appears to mix life span with life expectancy. I do not see how altering our environment and eliminating predators and disease affects our bioligical expiration date, but it is an integral part of the likelihood of how long one will live. point taken. i was only speaking of ‘life expectancy’. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/286 "2010-05-25T02:42:14Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > I don’t mind the usage (much). > > However, **DCnDC** seemed to have mistaken the usage of “America” in the sentence “Columbus discovered America” to mean “Columbus discovered the USA”. Oh, OK I get you. Yeah, in that case Columbus discovered the American continent is probably a better way to phrase it. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/287 "2010-05-25T16:19:36Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > To say the Civil War was predominantly about slavery is a gross oversimplification, and ignores a lot of what was going on at the time. The Civil War wasn’t just about slavery or about state rights, it was mostly about control. Well, after 40 years of reading on the subject, I’d say "To say the Civil War was predominantly about slavery is a gross _but insightful_ simplification _correcting a lot of lies and revisionism_, and _cuts to the chase about_ a lot of what was going on at the time. The Civil War wasn’t just about slavery a_nd of course was never about_ states’ rights _except where they impinged on slavery_, it was mostly about _a struggle for political_ control _between two regions which had become polarized by slavery, the economic differences slavery had exacerbated, the emotional need to justify slavery, and a rational anger at the continued efforts to promote and expand slavery. Also some tariffs that affected manufacturing and angered people who preferred slavery to a manufacturing economy._ The word that keeps coming up in the root of, the middle of, the end of, and all through all those reasons is slavery. > [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The underlying control issues and the decades of hatred and bitterness that had led up to the war get ignored when history books teach that the war was all about human rights. That would be sad indeed. But to date I’ve never seen a history book that ignores the hatred and bitterness and teaches that the war was all about human rights. Instead, the ones I see teach that the hatred and bitterness _over slavery_ (a more specific issue than human rights) and the struggle for control _due to slavery_ caused the war. But don’t take my word for it. Only four of the seceding states issued formal declarations of cause: [http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html](http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) Each of the declarations mentions slaveholding, “property,” a code word for slaves, and/or slavery – in some cases it’s the only “right” specifically mentioned, and it’s clearly the dominant consideration in all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Porlock\_Junior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@Porlock\_Junior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Porlock_Junior)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/288 "2010-05-25T17:56:14Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > The problem is rather that you U.S. Americans have appropiated the term “America” for your country’s name. > > It was (and, to me and to most Latin Americans, still is) the name of the continent, not the name of a country. And, since Cuba and Hispaniola are considered to be a part of that continent, he did “discover” America. No, the English did it, about the time that their adventurous brethren overseas got restless. I don’t know the exact chronology; but check the references to “Americans” in Boswell’s Life of Johnson. BTW Johnson liked Americans as much as he did any other foreigners: Not. Didn’t object to their accents, which by evidence in the Life was not obviously different from something you might find in England, but in fact he had one honorable reason for disliking the practices of the colonists: slavery. He was against it. Oh and a note of thanks to the English for the useful term that they coined for Association Football, because “soccer” nicely sets that sport apart from Rugby football (rugger, by that same English convention), “American” or Canadian football, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Porlock\_Junior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@Porlock\_Junior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Porlock_Junior)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/289 "2010-05-25T17:59:18Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Oh, OK I get you. Yeah, in that case Columbus discovered the American continent is probably a better way to phrase it. Oops. Pedant time again. Did he ever set foot on the continent? My recollection is that he did not. “In the Americas” would work, even if he did think they were the Indies. ---
**Author:** ![Porlock\_Junior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@Porlock\_Junior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Porlock_Junior)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/290 "2010-05-25T18:53:57Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Well, there might have been plenty of time for that to happen, but it bears no resemblance to what actually _did_ happen. Protestants had not adopted heliocentrism, and Catholics never “pondered” adopting geocentrism. As I’ve noted, it’s hard to find a trend, and I don’t think there was one, for a religious split in the matter early on. But it’s of interest to note that the University of Rostock, in Protestant Germany, was the earliest place known to have taught Copernican ideas. > [@](#): > > Geocentrism was the default position, and had been for at least two thousand years, backed by observation (both casual and systematic), common sense, and sophisticated scientific and mathematical theory. The evidence that had been offered in support of heliocentrism by 1616 was extremely weak, and there was a good deal of seemingly strong evidence against it (I don’t mean the Bible, I mean real scientific evidence, such as the fact that no sign of the stellar parallax motions predicted by Copernicus could be detected by the most careful measurements). This is inaccurate. In fact, the system of Aristotle and Ptolemy was conclusively refuted by 1616 --in fact, after 1611 when Galileo revealed the solution to the anagram in which he had hinted at the phases of Venus. These, as observed by the new-fangled telescope, were simply impossible in a simple geocentric system. Tycho’s weird geocentric variant allowed for them, if one was willing to accept a system that Galileo and Kepler (indepenently) _and Clavius_ all considered absurd. It is also unjustified to say that the lack of observed stellar parallax was strong evidence. It’s not as if Galileo ignored this, as one sometimes hears from people who have never bothered to look at the Dialogue and read the pages devoted to the matter. It is not as if Galileo were the first person with the brains to apply Euclidean geometry to show that nothing would be observable if the stars were far enough away; that honor perhaps belongs to Archimedes, though he uses it casually enough in the Sand Reckoner that he doesn’t seem to be making a new claim. > [@](#): > > In 1616 you could probably have counted all the supporters of heliocentrism in the world on the fingers of two, hands, and there were really only two living heliocentrists of any prominence: Galileo and Kepler (Descartes was about 20, and probably not a heliocentrist yet). Furthermore (and ironically), the reasons that originally seem to have convinced Galileo and Kepler of the truth of heliocentrism were mostly just wrong. Kepler believed because of his attraction to Hermetic mysticism, and his wacky theory about the Platonic solids being between the planetary orbits; Galileo (so far as I can tell) believed because he thought, quite wrongly, that the motion of the Earth explained the ocean tides, and perhaps because he had begun to form a conception of angular momentum, but had falsely concluded from this that “natural” (i.e., unforced) motion was circular. Did Kepler’s idea of the Platonic solids lead to heliocentrism, or did he seem to find that pattern when already looking at the data with a heliocentric view? I haven’t seen evidence, but the first seems pretty implausible. What we do know for certain is that already in 1609 he’d published his theory of elliptical orbits, completely abandoning the Platonic stuff. As of 1616 his original reasons were a historical curiosity, not a part of the debate. It does appear that the tides were part of Galileo’s basis for deciding that the Earth moved. Again, by 1616 there was much more to the debate, and Galileo’s ideas had gained a lot of interest and sympathy. Heliocentrists were so far from rare that a priest had to be punished for trying to reconcile the idea with Scripture. And one must always mention that most of what you hear about Galileo’s tidal theory is wrong or misleading; you would never guess from Internet stuff that the central part of his theory is a valid observation without which the real tides in the real world would be inexplicable. The motive force he invoked was, of course, wrong. UPDATE: Oh, and the idea that he believed in some odd “circular inertia” is controversial, not an established finding. If you want to know why, consider Galileo’s famous derivation of the parabolic trajectory, compounded of the downward acceleration he knew so well with miotn in straight line. Lots more to it than that, of course. > [@](#): > > It is no doubt true that, in the wake of Galileo’s trial, in 1632, Catholics were inhibited, for a while from making any arguments for heliocentrism (in 1633, Descartes, who was Catholic, was about to publish his heliocentric work, _[Le Monde](http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/mike/texts/descartes/world/worldfr.htm)_, but quickly withdrew it when the news of Galileo’s condemnation reached him), whereas Protestants were still freely able to do so. As was the case in the Catholic Church before Galileo stirred things up, most Protestants did not regard astronomical theory as having much religious relevance, one way or the other. It may also be noted, as I have done in this thread, that nobody but philosophers had much reason to care either way until 1610, when the failure of the old system started to thrust itself on everyone’s attention. > [@](#): > > My impression, however, is that it really was not very long before the case in favor of heliocentrism was strong enough that it became a _de facto_ acceptable view even in the Catholic world, and efforts to suppress it were probably quietly abandoned long before the anti-heliocentric policy was officially overturned. It’s probably hard to establish this either way; but it’s suggestive that there was almost no work based on the Copernican system published in Italy between 1616 and 1700. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/291 "2010-05-25T19:25:39Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Well, after 40 years of reading on the subject, I’d say "To say the Civil War was predominantly about slavery is a gross _but insightful_ simplification _correcting a lot of lies and revisionism_, and _cuts to the chase about_ a lot of what was going on at the time. The Civil War wasn’t just about slavery a_nd of course was never about_ states’ rights _except where they impinged on slavery_, it was mostly about _a struggle for political_ control _between two regions which had become polarized by slavery, the economic differences slavery had exacerbated, the emotional need to justify slavery, and a rational anger at the continued efforts to promote and expand slavery. Also some tariffs that affected manufacturing and angered people who preferred slavery to a manufacturing economy._ I’d say that’s pretty close, except for the last sentence. The tariff didn’t anger just those who preferred slavery. It angered yeoman farmers who owned no slaves at all. (It meant they had to pay a premium for manufactured goods that could otherwise have been purchased cheaply from England.) Was the tariff a genuine _casus belli_? Nah, not standing alone. I think the wealthy slaveowners just used the tariff issue to “sell” secession to non-slaveowners. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/292 "2010-05-25T19:42:05Z")
> [@Porlock\_Junior](#): > > Oops. Pedant time again. Did he ever set foot on the continent? My recollection is that he did not. “In the Americas” would work, even if he did think they were the Indies. The other, less contentious way to describe it, is that Columbus discovered “The New World”. Pretty much sums up his accomplishment. Before him, nobody thought there was anything over here, unless they had obsure Icelandic knowledge or were in on the Basque fishing trade secrets (another delightful legend). After Columbus, all of Europe knew there was “something” here. It just took a few voyages for it to sink in that it was not India or China. I.e. Giovanni Caboti (John Cabot) was exploring Newfoundland and the Gulf of St Lawrence on behalf of the British crown, IIRC, by 1497, thanks to the publicity over one Mr. C. Columbus. Remember, a lot of the exploration, even to the “Northwest Passage” fiascos of the 1800’s, were over the fact that Portugal had a stranglehold on the original spice trades with India; and that a shorter, faster, less “managed” route than around Africa would make a huge dent in the cost of some goods. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/293 "2010-05-25T20:01:02Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > I’d say that’s pretty close, except for the last sentence. The tariff didn’t anger just those who preferred slavery. It angered yeoman farmers who owned no slaves at all. (It meant they had to pay a premium for manufactured goods that could otherwise have been purchased cheaply from England.) Was the tariff a genuine _casus belli_? Nah, not standing alone. I think the wealthy slaveowners just used the tariff issue to “sell” secession to non-slaveowners. I recall hearing a statement like ‘Secession would not have survived a popular vote in most of the South’. Anybody have info to support/deny that? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/294 "2010-05-25T20:04:08Z")
> [@Porlock\_Junior](#): > > No, the English did it, about the time that their adventurous brethren overseas got restless. I don’t know the exact chronology; but check the references to “Americans” in Boswell’s Life of Johnson. BTW Johnson liked Americans as much as he did any other foreigners: Not. Didn’t object to their accents, which by evidence in the Life was not obviously different from something you might find in England, but in fact he had one honorable reason for disliking the practices of the colonists: slavery. He was against it. > > Oh and a note of thanks to the English for the useful term that they coined for Association Football, because “soccer” nicely sets that sport apart from Rugby football (rugger, by that same English convention), “American” or Canadian football, etc. The English (the people) also made English (the language) the de facto international language. The US gets the blame for lots of the effects of English Colonialism. We’ve been the popular villain more recently. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/295 "2010-05-25T20:30:58Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > I recall hearing a statement like ‘Secession would not have survived a popular vote in most of the South’. Anybody have info to support/deny that? I can tell you that’s true in Georgia, at least. The way it was handled in Georgia was through a secession convention. Voters elected delegates to the convention county-by-county, and they could choose between delegates who announced themselves as pro-secession or anti-secession. By a slim margin the majority of individual votes were cast for anti-secession delegates (42,744 to 41,717). However, owing to the geographic distribution of those votes, a majority of delegates to the convention wound up being pro-secession (and of course Georgia wound up seceding). (A bit like how Al Gore actually got a majority of the popular vote in the 2000 election, but would up losing because he got fewer Electoral Votes.) [Cite.](http://ngeorgia.com/history/secession.html) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/296 "2010-05-26T00:47:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It should be noted that there are references in the Old Testament (in the semi-historical portions, not the mythical parts with people living 900 years) to the span of man being 70 or 80 years, and several of the Egyptian pharaohs are believed to have lived into their 70s. The ancient Egyptians and Hebrews certainly didn’t have anything near the sort of medicine that we do, but if they managed to survive through diseases, war, etc., they still lived just as long as us. Didn’t see the point of this right away. But it does speak to the difference between Life Span and Life Expectancy. All recorded history is limited to the agricultural era and later though. No modern medicine, but pretty steady food supply. I’ve wondered about significant evolution since the dawn of farming (if it was a dawn, maybe it was a very gradual change). But there could have been a lot of genes that diminished with a change of diets, and other related conditions. ---
**Author:** ![kfraser34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@kfraser34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kfraser34)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/297 "2010-05-26T01:22:13Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > [Leonard Neeble](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mendelsohn,_the_Boy_from_Mars), is that you? I gotta agree with Irishman… I don’t understand the allusion… But I’ve never read the actual book… just the Wiki page linked… ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/298 "2010-05-26T01:36:51Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > Didn’t see the point of this right away. But it does speak to the difference between Life Span and Life Expectancy. All recorded history is limited to the agricultural era and later though. No modern medicine, but pretty steady food supply. I’ve wondered about significant evolution since the dawn of farming (if it was a dawn, maybe it was a very gradual change). But there could have been a lot of genes that diminished with a change of diets, and other related conditions. Firstly HGs suffered \*less \*from starvation and famine than agriculturalists, in large part because HGs restricted their population size through killing infants. The first few generations of agriculturalists had a pretty good life, but very rapidly population increased to exploit the available food, and the option of travel that HGs used to avoid famine vanished as people became sedentary. Within about 500 years of the adoption of agriculture people became both chronically malnourished and regularly dying of famine, IOW agricultural people only had a pretty steady food supply for about 20 generations, nowhere near enough to affect evolution. Secondly there are still plenty of people in Australia that are direct descendants of people who never, ever practised agriculture. And guess what their lifespan is? About 70 years. Thirdly recorded history may be post industrial, but archaeological evidence can tell use the ages that prehistoric people died. Adult life expectancy was about 50, lifespan about 80. Not much different to agriculturalists. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/299 "2010-05-26T02:19:07Z")
> [@TV\_time](#): > > (7) BullS\*&^ - anything taught by Kansas schools as science. That’s political correctness. The missing category is ‘Crap the teacher believes, often of the nature of urban legends or general wingnuttery.’ ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/300 "2010-05-26T03:42:24Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Firstly HGs suffered \*less \*from starvation and famine than agriculturalists, in large part because HGs restricted their population size through killing infants. The first few generations of agriculturalists had a pretty good life, but very rapidly population increased to exploit the available food, and the option of travel that HGs used to avoid famine vanished as people became sedentary. Within about 500 years of the adoption of agriculture people became both chronically malnourished and regularly dying of famine, IOW agricultural people only had a pretty steady food supply for about 20 generations, nowhere near enough to affect evolution. > > Secondly there are still plenty of people in Australia that are direct descendants of people who never, ever practised agriculture. And guess what their lifespan is? About 70 years. > > Thirdly recorded history may be post industrial, but archaeological evidence can tell use the ages that prehistoric people died. Adult life expectancy was about 50, lifespan about 80. Not much different to agriculturalists. Interesting info. How do we know the details of the early agriculturalists? It seems chronic famine could eliminate a few genes, but I think humans had pretty well distributed their genes by then. Do you know if the Bush people of Southern Africa were in the same category as the Australians? I’ve heard, without these people have unique traits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924.md?page=16)