51–60 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Blue eyes, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A leg has rigidity due to its endoskeleton, as well as strong muscles with good leverage, which when conditions are right gives it insane strength as it can act as a mechanical lever. Since a tail does not have a rigid endoskeleton, it can not act well as a lever. It's functionally a rope attached to your butt. Like even if you go full kangaroo mode and make the tail more muscular than the legs, making the tail rigid…
But the lack of ridigity also means that it's actually quite hard to control someone through it. If you grab someone's leg, especially near the foot/ankle, you are relying on the rigidity of the joints to be able to control their torso (and therefore their ability to fight back). The most disadvantageous position to be in is to have someone behind you, while they fully control your ankle/foot. Now you can't fully tur…
A flexible tail doesn’t have that disadvantage to the grabber, especially if longer than a leg.
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.
> But while the new study explains the “how” of tail loss in humans and great apes, the “why” of it is still an open question.
Title is still clickbait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
‘It’s complicated’. Blue eyes, for example.
Monkeys have tails to swing and walk in trees.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
‘It’s complicated’. Blue eyes, for example.
Don't blue eyes support the "sexual selection" over "life or death" view of evolution though? Blue eyes don't provide any benefits to the owner other than possible sexual selection and surprisingly, they evolved before fair skin (which does provide a benefit for people in northern latitudes to produce enough vitamin D).
Is it a choice? Evolution has both "life and death" and "sexual selection" aspects.
And "sexual selection" itself is tied to "life and death" - it just concerns the life and death (or rather: existence or non-existence) of the offspring and not the person.
So, in any case, it has to be big enough to affect whether the person gets an advantage in living more themselves, or gets an advantage for having children come to life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't blue eyes support the "sexual selection" over "life or death" view of evolution though? Blue eyes don't provide any benefits to the owner other than possible sexual selection and surprisingly, they evolved before fair skin (which does provide a benefit for people in northern latitudes to produce enough vitamin D).
> Don't blue eyes support the "sexual selection" over "life or death" view of evolution though? Is it a choice? Evolution has both "life and death" and "sexual selection" aspects. And "sexual selection" itself is tied to "life and death" - it just concerns the life and death (or rather: existence or non-existence) of the offspring and not the person. So, in any case, it has to be big enough to affect whether the pers…
I was replying to jeromegv's earlier comment of:
> 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.
A tail is grabbable. I'd think in primate fighting, a tail would be big negative. It could be grabbed. Can you imagine Chimp fights if they had tails that could be held on to and the owner dragged around.
Hair is much worse in that regard, as the tail would be positioned too low to practically grab (it would asking for a knee to the face or punches to the back of the head or spine if you tried). I think the driver is more likely to be bipedality. A tail doesn't provide a lot of benefit for balance or rearside whisker utility when moving on two legs, and would interfere with sitting and lying postures. I think humans a…
There’s only one way to find out! Who wants to join my ‘prehensile tails for humans’ (and other great apes with cash) startup?
Capitalism, wow!