Evolutions failures
Discussion
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.
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.
TheHeretic said:
The eye is a good one. Often spouted as perfection, but numerous high street spectacle purveyors suggests otherwise. I'm colour blind as well, bloody stupid eyes.
Ah, but colour blind people tend to have better low light vision (or some such)! It's like people in africa with a predisposition to sickle cell anaemia tend to have a greater resistance to malaria.
Liokault said:
Ah, but colour blind people tend to have better low light vision (or some such)!
It's like people in africa with a predisposition to sickle cell anaemia tend to have a greater resistance to malaria.
It's funny you should mention that. At night it looks like an episode of Most Haunted. It's like people in africa with a predisposition to sickle cell anaemia tend to have a greater resistance to malaria.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
BIANCO said:
Eyes are a good example they have deteriorated over time so we invented glasses, contact lenses and now laser surgery.
Human lifespan is now far greater than it was supposed to be - our body is basically designed to run at decent speed for 35-40 years (ie long enough to bring up children), then die from something.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.
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...?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 said:
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?
First, there's a difference between statistical significance with evolutionary significance. Indeed if such a mutation can occur at 10% and NOT confer the latter, it rather proves the point - unless you mean that in half a million years everyone will be colour blind? Or perhaps colour vision is not important - but I doubt it.Second, mutations can be 'sex linked' - when the affected gene occurs in the part of the chromosome that comprises the difference between X and Y. Hence if a mutation occurs in the bottom right part of the X chromosome in a male, there is no normal gene to counter it. It's more complex than that but that's the general idea.
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.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.
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?
Our eyes are an ongoing evolution, all species are in constant transition.
Our current spectacular lifespan has come about in just the last 5000 years and it has 'out-dragged' the incremental mutation that governs the evolution of the eye.
There is no advantage conferred by CB or LS or SS they are archaic limitations, perhaps if the computer age dictates 'good eyes' for many generations then a tiny mutation may occur to improve things, but the wait is likely to be a few centuries, but it is not perilous so might not even happen at all, but Evolution is rather more than just about peril and although the other pressures are less pronounced they will have an effect.
Perhaps in as little as 1000 years from now we might look back and see (sic) that our present weak eyes were in huge transition, I suspect they are.
Our current spectacular lifespan has come about in just the last 5000 years and it has 'out-dragged' the incremental mutation that governs the evolution of the eye.
There is no advantage conferred by CB or LS or SS they are archaic limitations, perhaps if the computer age dictates 'good eyes' for many generations then a tiny mutation may occur to improve things, but the wait is likely to be a few centuries, but it is not perilous so might not even happen at all, but Evolution is rather more than just about peril and although the other pressures are less pronounced they will have an effect.
Perhaps in as little as 1000 years from now we might look back and see (sic) that our present weak eyes were in huge transition, I suspect they are.
I think that mankind can fettle things that in the past may have been a disadvantage, that the genes for things that would have been reduced in the past continue without the selection that it would have been pressured with in the past. Someone with poor eyesight will no longer be pounced upon by a predator, or whatever, they just get laser survey, or a pair of glasses. I think man is on the verge Of almost stepping out of the selection process by their own ingenuity. Of course, whether this will have a carry on effect elsewhere has yet to be seen.
TheHeretic said:
I think that mankind can fettle things that in the past may have been a disadvantage, that the genes for things that would have been reduced in the past continue without the selection that it would have been pressured with in the past. Someone with poor eyesight will no longer be pounced upon by a predator, or whatever, they just get laser survey, or a pair of glasses. I think man is on the verge Of almost stepping out of the selection process by their own ingenuity. Of course, whether this will have a carry on effect elsewhere has yet to be seen.
It is a common mistake to believe or think that the genetic transition is an entirely survival driven matter, the outrageous plumage of a Peacock can and often is explained as being a way to attract a mate and ensure the next generations existence and for many that seems enough, but it is more subtle than that.The Peacock cannot see himself and his splendid plumage and is likely to be almost entirely oblivious of its startling appearance but it will know that others have something akin to his display and the prime motivator is the desire to compete, to improve, to have better and this envy and striving plays as much a part in transition as any other such as being fast on your feet or in mind.
People want good eyesight and that desire will play a part in acting on the transition of the eye, the effect will be that starting with the same base (the rods and cones are not likely to mutate in number and sensitivity) but they will most likely rejuvenate more precisely and so incrementally human eyesight should/may be of higher acuity for a longer period of time, this will also change by the fact that humans are reproducing later in life and so the transition (when it catches up) will likely be quite abrupt.
This is only my interpretation of natural selection and I'm open to anyone promulgating a better and/or more reasoned argument the other way.
I have no idea why you wrote that from what I wrote. The Peacock plumage is 'artificially selected' by the Pea hen. I realise that it is not all survival based.
Oh well, that will teach me for writing something which was quite self explanatory. Instead I'm told I am making a common mistake.
Oh well, that will teach me for writing something which was quite self explanatory. Instead I'm told I am making a common mistake.
TheHeretic said:
I have no idea why you wrote that from what I wrote. The Peacock plumage is 'artificially selected' by the Pea hen. I realise that it is not all survival based.
Oh well, that will teach me for writing something which was quite self explanatory. Instead I'm told I am making a common mistake.
On reflection I should have only included one part of your answer not all of it, which I think is quite correct, my reply was to this part:Oh well, that will teach me for writing something which was quite self explanatory. Instead I'm told I am making a common mistake.
TheHeretic said:
I think man is on the verge Of almost stepping out of the selection process by their own ingenuity.
Sorry about the ambiguity.Gene Vincent said:
... the prime motivator is the desire to compete, to improve, to have better and this envy and striving plays as much a part in transition as any other such as being fast on your feet or in mind.
People want good eyesight and that desire will play a part in acting on the transition of the eye, the effect will be that starting with the same base (the rods and cones are not likely to mutate in number and sensitivity) but they will most likely rejuvenate more precisely and so incrementally human eyesight should/may be of higher acuity
That's not how it works. Pen Hens have a preference for plumage and so selected males with the best plumage with which to mate. Males with better plumage therefore tend to father more offspring, and so their genes become more common within the populate. Often the characterist that females have a preference for is actually tied to another apparently unrelated characteristic which happens to be linked to the gene for great plumage.People want good eyesight and that desire will play a part in acting on the transition of the eye, the effect will be that starting with the same base (the rods and cones are not likely to mutate in number and sensitivity) but they will most likely rejuvenate more precisely and so incrementally human eyesight should/may be of higher acuity
Just "wanting" a characteristic doesn't make it happen.
For eye sight to improve there would have to be a benefit which made the gene for good eyes more likely to be passed on. Eg 1) thing with poor eye sight gets eaten before it be reproduce. 2). thing with good eye sight is a better hunter and/or better at spotting threats and so how more time to run away or 3). females don't dig glasses
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff