Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 247 posts

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#181

Post by temporalparts »

npstr wrote: post #170
KennyBlanken wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely is human genetics this simple. For ages geneticists thought large swaths of the human genome were "junk" and over time more and more of it has been proven to have a purpose or function, it just wasn't readily apparent for various reasons. Think of the human genome as sort of the ultimate dependency hell...

Nature does not refactor. There's the laryngeal nerve somewhere in the neck of mammals that has to go around a blood vessel. On Giraffes, this runs all the way down the neck, around said blood vessel, than back up, all that just to connect two places in the upper neck that are inches apart. Evolution writes the ultimate spaghetti code. More info: https://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintelligent-des...

Nature rarely* refactors. Sometimes random mutations refactors, which leads to efficiencies which leads to evolutionary advantages.

If nature doesn't refactor, then why are there so many crabs?

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#182

Post by gigglesupstairs »

jezzamon wrote: post #62
tzs wrote: post #60

Probably good that we lost them. Judging by photos [1] of some of the rare cases of humans who were born with tails human tails wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. Although perhaps human tails that are the result of something going awry might not be a good indicator of what human tails would be like if we had kept them. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263034/

If we kept tails both the tails and our sense of what is attractive would be under evolutionary pressures so they probably would be normal to us!

Exactly. I still find noses and ears to be such noticeable protrusions once I let go of my knowledge of human faces.

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#183

Post by linux2647 »

xeonmc wrote: post #175
npstr wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature does not refactor. There's the laryngeal nerve somewhere in the neck of mammals that has to go around a blood vessel. On Giraffes, this runs all the way down the neck, around said blood vessel, than back up, all that just to connect two places in the upper neck that are inches apart. Evolution writes the ultimate spaghetti code. More info: https://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintelligent-des...

God must be a frontend developer.

Or hacked it all together in Perl: https://xkcd.com/224/

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#184

Post by fnordpiglet »

kelnos wrote: post #180
fnordpiglet wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect our tailed ancestors slept, locomoted, and defecated.

I think we'd definitely have to rethink our toilets, though. Don't want your tail hanging in there while you're doing your business.

In much of the world (weighted by humans) people use squat toilets. So, problem is solvable by installing one after your CRISPR tail procedure.

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#185

Post by kirubakaran »

npstr wrote: post #170
KennyBlanken wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely is human genetics this simple. For ages geneticists thought large swaths of the human genome were "junk" and over time more and more of it has been proven to have a purpose or function, it just wasn't readily apparent for various reasons. Think of the human genome as sort of the ultimate dependency hell...

Nature does not refactor. There's the laryngeal nerve somewhere in the neck of mammals that has to go around a blood vessel. On Giraffes, this runs all the way down the neck, around said blood vessel, than back up, all that just to connect two places in the upper neck that are inches apart. Evolution writes the ultimate spaghetti code. More info: https://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintelligent-des...

https://youtu.be/cO1a1Ek-HD0?si=H6X6ICZQLbq_s41C

The famous Richard Dawkins video about that (4min long)

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#186

Post by zo1 »

ChainOfFools wrote: post #176
tormeh wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if it was covered in pubes. That would definitely be worse.

I'm not sure that would be as much of a problem as one might think, considering that many if not a majority of males today do just fine with their faces covered in pubes.

And also the people with a head-full of "pubes". People and cultures adapt.

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#187

Post by xeonmc »

temporalparts wrote: post #181
npstr wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature does not refactor. There's the laryngeal nerve somewhere in the neck of mammals that has to go around a blood vessel. On Giraffes, this runs all the way down the neck, around said blood vessel, than back up, all that just to connect two places in the upper neck that are inches apart. Evolution writes the ultimate spaghetti code. More info: https://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintelligent-des...

Nature rarely* refactors. Sometimes random mutations refactors, which leads to efficiencies which leads to evolutionary advantages. If nature doesn't refactor, then why are there so many crabs?

Clearly refactored for memory safety.

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#188

Post by Grimblewald »

npstr wrote: post #170
KennyBlanken wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely is human genetics this simple. For ages geneticists thought large swaths of the human genome were "junk" and over time more and more of it has been proven to have a purpose or function, it just wasn't readily apparent for various reasons. Think of the human genome as sort of the ultimate dependency hell...

Nature does not refactor. There's the laryngeal nerve somewhere in the neck of mammals that has to go around a blood vessel. On Giraffes, this runs all the way down the neck, around said blood vessel, than back up, all that just to connect two places in the upper neck that are inches apart. Evolution writes the ultimate spaghetti code. More info: https://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintelligent-des...

noodly its appendage, sphagetti its code, in its image we are made, amen.

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#189

Post by loud_cloud »

npstr wrote: post #170
KennyBlanken wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely is human genetics this simple. For ages geneticists thought large swaths of the human genome were "junk" and over time more and more of it has been proven to have a purpose or function, it just wasn't readily apparent for various reasons. Think of the human genome as sort of the ultimate dependency hell...

Nature does not refactor. There's the laryngeal nerve somewhere in the neck of mammals that has to go around a blood vessel. On Giraffes, this runs all the way down the neck, around said blood vessel, than back up, all that just to connect two places in the upper neck that are inches apart. Evolution writes the ultimate spaghetti code. More info: https://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintelligent-des...

"Octopus throat runs through brain" and the "blood supply in FRONT of the retina cones n rods" were the other 2 that are often mentioned.

Re: Scientists have traced human tail loss to a short sequence of genetic code

#190

Post by stult »

xeonmc wrote: post #187
temporalparts wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature rarely* refactors. Sometimes random mutations refactors, which leads to efficiencies which leads to evolutionary advantages. If nature doesn't refactor, then why are there so many crabs?

Clearly refactored for memory safety.

Hence C laws
Post reply on HN