evolutionary question

Well the thing is, better night vision isn't something that's going to change the whole species over the course of a few generations. There may well be a few individuals with spectacular night vision (i know there are some with the ability to see a wider range of the spectrum), but since in this day and age that's not really going to be a deciding factor of if you survive long enough to procreate/make you more attractive to a mate then it might just slowly trickle into the gene pool, or that trait might die out.

But yes, i kind of get your point. Intelligence is a valuable evolutionary trait.
 
I think what people are forgetting here is that the environment and the genes are interacting through the phenotypic expression of the genes rather than the genes themselves. Therefore, whilst some phenotypic expressions seem superfluous to us now due to advances in technology they are actually underpinned and expressed from genes that have fundamental roles elsewhere either in embryology or in a completely different body system.

Gene -------> Expression of Gene/s ie Phenotype <-----> Environment
^
----------------------------------------------------------- Environment

Edit: annoying space deletion give utterly **** diagram.
 
EdGey said:
Are there any other animals that are selective with who they mate with?

On a slightly different note... I sometimes wonder if we are affecting our own natural course of evolution by creating things to suit our needs.

For example... will we in time developed thicker skin which is perhaps even armour like? Or will our ability to create protective clothing prevent it because that box has already been ticked, if you like.
Click to expand...

What like calluses?
scar tissue thickens up in areas where it gets worn/damaged often, if you had thick skin all over you'd be finding it hard to move and require extra sustenance.
 
PermaBanned said:
But yes, i kind of get your point. Intelligence is a valuable evolutionary trait.
Click to expand...

Only in some circumstances, intelligence is a big "gamble" so to speak. It makes our births incredibly risky by comparison, our brains take vast amounts of oxygen and energy to keep going nd require a very long time for us to mature plus most things that are dumber than us do just fine if not better.
 
Tefal said:
Only in some circumstances, intelligence is a big "gamble" so to speak. It makes our births incredibly risky by comparison, our brains take vast amounts of oxygen and energy to keep going nd require a very long time for us to mature plus most things that are dumber than us do just fine if not better.
Click to expand...

It's not the only trait that matters, no, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good one to have. Would you not say that compared to other mammals we've been quite successful?
 
You only have to be as intelligent as your enviroment requires. There is a quite low point of diminishing returns. People don't just evolve more and more intelligence for no reason, after they are adapted to an enviroment it stops. I doubt humans are any more intelligent now than 20,000 years ago.

There is one exception though and that is ethnic Jews. Their culture highly valued intelligence so the more intelligent people held the highest status and had the most kids. And today Jewish people hold more Nobel prizes than any other group. They basically had a form of eugenics. Other groups still mostly go by animalistic things like physical appearance.

You could say they had to adapt to an enviroment - the enviroment of being nationless. They had to form a niche to survive in other nations as traders, money changers and the like. The most intelligent ones survived the best whereas the ditch diggers had nothing to offer over the host nations people.
 
The chemical part of attaction is to do with producing offspring with the best immune system I believe? Looks wise, it's all just window dressing really isn't it? We want to impregnate women who look nice so that in turn our children will look nice to further spread our genes with their attractiveness.
 
Deformation is generally an indicator of disease, poor genes or poor nutrition. Thus people aren't attracted to the deformed.

Hence why we don't like uggo's.

/thread
 
kwerk said:
You only have to be as intelligent as your enviroment requires. There is a quite low point of diminishing returns. People don't just evolve more and more intelligence for no reason, after they are adapted to an enviroment it stops. I doubt humans are any more intelligent now than 20,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Too many errors to even start to correct. :eek:
 
Xordium said:
Too many errors to even start to correct. :eek:
Click to expand...

Once an animal is adapted it stops evolving, like sharks did millions of years ago. There needs to be a new pressures to result in new adaptations.

When apes left the jungle that was a new pressure, then they left the tropics for northern climates and the pressure of an annual harsh winter, then what after that? Social pressures? The only evidence for that is with Ashkenazi Jews who are about 10 IQ points above the rest of Caucasians/Asians.

We're definitely not any smarter than the Greeks or Romans and if we're not smarter than them, then why would we be smarter than the Sumerians or even those frm 20,000 years ago? What is the evolutionary pressure since then?
 
kwerk said:
Why aren't men sexually attracted to ALL fertile women? all?
Click to expand...

this is proof you are not from this planet,

take any healthy woman with nice boobs and hips to a bar and ask all the guys "would you poke her as a one off no string attached" most guys would (they might not want to marry her, and they may well say she looks like a dog)..

an attractive guy could ask 10 women for a poke and get turned down by them all,

an unattractive but other wise non freak woman could ask 10 guys for a poke and get 10 pokes
 
edscdk said:
this is proof you are not from this planet,

take any healthy woman with nice boobs and hips to a bar and ask all the guys "would you poke her as a one off no string attached" most guys would (they might not want to marry her, and they may well say she looks like a dog)..

an attractive guy could ask 10 women for a poke and get turned down by them all,

an unattractive but other wise non freak woman could ask 10 guys for a poke and get 10 pokes
Click to expand...

really

mezu5.jpg
 
I think really it comes down to evolution not being some kind of decisive force with a goal in mind but rather something that happens to come out of whichever random genes survived the best.
In this example, the genes of the males who chose a higher proportion of 'unattractive' women died off because the offspring of the uglies weren't fit to survive. Those that did survive came from males who chose the 'attractive' women more often.

In this case I'm assuming attractive women are attractive because they're more suited for child-bearing...

I think a lot of people think of it the other way round in that we do something in order to spread our genes, as if there is actually some kind of purpose to evolution. whereas in reality I think that there is no such purpose or causality. That's just how it has to turn out because anyone that genetically doesn't exhibit such behaviours would have died out long ago.
 
Last edited:
Raising a human child to maturity isn't easy and so couples that stay together for many years are more successful at raising the next generation - many animal and bird species do the same. You are genetically programmed to be monogamous. If you are going to be attached to one woman for many years raising this child you have just as much interest in selecting the best mate as the woman does.

Also people should remember preference for a mate is not just about strength or child bearing capacity, it's also about how not like you they are - as genetic diversity gives the best chance for healthy fit offspring.

Hence blonde hair and blue eyes is an attractive quality - it's rarer. You often hear people say they like women from this country or that, or this accent or the other - you're just expressing a natural preference for otherness.
 
kwerk said:
Why aren't men sexually attracted to ALL fertile women? If the goal is to simply pass on your genes, there is no downside to procreating with as many women as possible; fat ones, ugly ones, old ones.
Click to expand...

There's no goal at all. A species is successful if it is not dead. That's about it. It's possible for an individual with the first example of a particularly desirable mutation to be killed in a freak accident, meaning a mutation that would make it easier for these creatures to survive will never get propagated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom