Evolutions failures

[Derek Smith]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/98733...

Nothing new, just going on about impacted wisdom teeth and backs.

It got me thinking.

I'm becoming hard of hearing, through using firearms when younger.

I've discovered that if I cup my hand around my ear in a certain way I can hear every bit as well as I could in the old days, if not better. Mind you, when I do it, no one talks to me 'cause they don't want to be seen talking to an idiot.

But over the years - I'm now 66 - my ears have grown. I'd not noticed this until I saw a photo of me when 32 and a current photo side by side.

Now if my ears are going to grow, why couldn't they have grown in a way that directs sound into my ears?

I accept that evolution might, just might, have had something to do with hands being able to be used to increase hearing, but it'd be nice if it was automatic.

[Derek Smith]

Simpo Two said:

For your ears to evolve, they would have to confer an evolutionary advantage. In other words, a Smith would have to be born with a mutation that makes its hearing better. They can hear the lion step on a twig and take refuge, while their normally-eared cousins don't and therefore get eaten before they can breed. Gradually, the gene for better hearing spreads through the population.

At the same time of course, the clumsy lions starve because their food runs away, and they die out... so you end up with super-stealthy lions preying on super-sharp eared Smiths... Darwin et al.



Things that happen as you live - eg you lift wieghts and grow big muscles - are not hereditary.

I'd have to have damn good ears to hear my nearest lion step on a twig - London Zoo's 40 miles away.

Actually, there is a problem with cupping your ears. You can't hear anything that's going on behind you. I'd be in a pub - sober - and the background noise renders me all but deaf to speech. If I cup my ears, well ear, I'm all but deaf in one, then I can hear conversation in front on me but if someone behind me says anything then I've got no idea.

My colour blindness was mentioned in a biology lesson, someone suggesting that I should have died out long ago. I'd said that half the males in my family are/were partially colour blind as well. The teacher said that it must confer an advantage in some ways. He suggested that as the ice age was so recent it might have something to do with snow. Global warming is a bit of an irritation to me.

However, I do have good night vision. I used to cycle across the Downs at night - to and from work - and I could see perfectly well in 1/4 moonlight. A work colleague who said he'd have a go couldn't see a thing.

[Derek Smith]

Simpo Two said:

Teacher is being excessively Darwinian I think - some mutations just happen and don't have a survival value either way. Whether colour blindness and night vision are linked, I don't know - but low light is done by the rods so perhaps you have more rods and too few cones...?

10% is a very high proportion. Further there is a significant difference in the rates of men and women. Seems to me to be some significance?

Now I don't want this thread to end in a discussion of my rods, thank you very much.

[Derek Smith]

Matthew-TMM said:

Derek Smith said:

My colour blindness was mentioned in a biology lesson, someone suggesting that I should have died out long ago. I'd said that half the males in my family are/were partially colour blind as well. The teacher said that it must confer an advantage in some ways. He suggested that as the ice age was so recent it might have something to do with snow. Global warming is a bit of an irritation to me.

However, I do have good night vision. I used to cycle across the Downs at night - to and from work - and I could see perfectly well in 1/4 moonlight. A work colleague who said he'd have a go couldn't see a thing.

I used to enjoy unlit cycling over the Downs, having peripheral vision and seeing further ahead beats a bright light any day. Dad and I cycled from Woodingdean to Lewes one bonfire night, Dad had to use his light as he couldn't see a thing without it, though he does wear glasses which I'm told aren't so helpful in poor light. I was told at school (suddenly seems a while ago now!) that blue eyes are good for night vision but sensitive to bright lighting, while brown eyes aren't so good at night but better for bright light, how true this is I don't know.

Interestingly the colour balance is slightly different between my eyes, the left one seems slightly better for red, orange and yellow while the right one is better for green and blue. Why is that I wonder?

I used to cycle between Rottingdean and Lewes nick and police HQ. Every day I had a 1/4 mile on roads before I got onto a bridleway and then it was all dirt until the end of Juggs Road in Lewes. The only problem was Kingston Ridge, downhill as much as up. I fell off in both directions.

I used to cycle at night and had three lights at the front of my bike, one of which I put on the back after changing the lens to red. It was apparent that I had good night vision. Mind you, I rode into the side of a cow once that I hadn't seen so perhaps not as good as I thought.

[Derek Smith]

Re: peacocks:

The title of the thread is a little ironic. Can evolution have failures?

[Derek Smith]

TheHeretic said:

Derek Smith said:

Re: peacocks:

The title of the thread is a little ironic. Can evolution have failures?

Yes. The extinct critters. They evolved, but went the wrong way.

But that would make dinosaurs, one of the most successful bunch of critters, a failure, yet by any measure they were a success for some weeks I believe.

On top of that, has evolution got targets? If not then how do we know that it failed?

[Derek Smith]

Simpo Two said:

It remains to be seen who will win the next few thousand years of evolution - 'civilised' man or nature in the raw.

Is there really any doubt? We are all doomed.