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

41–50 of 247 posts

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

#41

Post by coldtea »

lbotos wrote: post #36
sschueller wrote: post #34

How long until humans have an actual "shelve" (indentation) on their pinkie at birth to rest their phone on?

a long time? You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable and I'm not sure any culture is yet?

>You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable

It not only has to be convenient, but also to be sexually selected (partners with that seen as more attractive) or helping with survivability (partners with that live longer and get to reproduce more), which ain't really applicable anyway.

Which is the reason we don't have traits for any other minor "convenience" attribute either, but instead for long standing evolutionary benefits.

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

#43

Post by msm_ »

coldtea wrote: post #41
lbotos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a long time? You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable and I'm not sure any culture is yet?

> You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable It not only has to be convenient, but also to be sexually selected (partners with that seen as more attractive) or helping with survivability (partners with that live longer and get to reproduce more), which ain't really applicable anyway. Which is the reason we don't have traits for any other minor "convenience" attribute either…

Even in case something helps with survivability, the benefit must be strong enough to be selected for. Even today people are dying because of appendicitis, can't imagine the death rate in the pre-modern era.

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

#44

Post by Smaug123 »

ngvrnd wrote: post #42

There is no "why" -- it happened and was not selected against; it may have been adaptive and that is a kind of why, I guess. I think it would be better to be clear about this in science communication.

The article itself is very clear about the sense of the word "why" intended here.

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

#45

Post by hawski »

sschueller wrote: post #34

How long until humans have an actual "shelve" (indentation) on their pinkie at birth to rest their phone on?

I would hope that phones would not remain the last point in the evolution of a personal computing device in so far as to make it able to steer the evolution of humans.

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

#46

Post by jeromegv »

coldtea wrote: post #41
lbotos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a long time? You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable and I'm not sure any culture is yet?

> You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable It not only has to be convenient, but also to be sexually selected (partners with that seen as more attractive) or helping with survivability (partners with that live longer and get to reproduce more), which ain't really applicable anyway. Which is the reason we don't have traits for any other minor "convenience" attribute either…

It’s fascinating that most people don’t get that about evolution. It needs to be a matter of life and death, if it doesn’t, then it has no impact.

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

#47

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

jeromegv wrote: post #46
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably need at least 7-9 generations to select "strong pinky shelf" as desirable It not only has to be convenient, but also to be sexually selected (partners with that seen as more attractive) or helping with survivability (partners with that live longer and get to reproduce more), which ain't really applicable anyway. Which is the reason we don't have traits for any other minor "convenience" attribute either…

It’s fascinating that most people don’t get that about evolution. It needs to be a matter of life and death, if it doesn’t, then it has no impact.

Surely it's more to do with the chances of raising viable offspring. A change that makes a person more desirable to the opposite sex is very likely to be selected for even if it makes the person more likely to die in their 50s.

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

#48

Post by zare_st »

sschueller wrote: post #34

How long until humans have an actual "shelve" (indentation) on their pinkie at birth to rest their phone on?

Never. Individuals with that kind of mutation have to be born per random chance, and then selected via sexual preference.

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

#49

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

whycome wrote: post #8
moffkalast wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem might be size, lots of smaller primates have tails which can be very useful as a fifth arm for holding onto branches. As you get larger, tree foraging becomes less viable and the tail less useful and it would need to be oversized to be able to function properly.

This seems like one of the times I can mention that dolphins and elephants have evolved prehensile penises. Sometimes nature finds a way.

And tapirs
Post reply on HN