Questions about Evolution (yoinked from different thread...)

midlandsmissus

Mod Note:
Evolution questions (and more) moved from Beruthial's 'dilemma' thread.
Dades


Also, and I'm not being smart, these are questions I would like to hear view points on:

Why do we still have an appendix?

Why do we not have fur? - We are not suitbale to our climate

Why do women have periods? Evolution is supposed to be bettering traits that aid survival. Bleeding copius amounts for five days would attract predators no? Also, could the womb lining not just build up WHEN the egg is fertilised, is seems SO badly organised the way it is!

Why are so many born with serious defects, when evolution is meant to mean that genes which hinder survival become rarer?

Why is childbirth so dangerous, it would result in alot of deaths if not for the medical intervention we have now? Evolution is meant to ensure strength of reproduction.

Thanks!

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do we still have an appendix?

Coz appendices don't really influence our reproductive success one way or the other (though some research suggests it might).

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do we not have fur?

Coz we evolved in the tropics and haven't had time to develop fur. In its absence, we kill wolves, mammoths or create nylon instead.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do women have periods?

Some biologists suggest that it's more energy efficient to keep up a cycle of dispose and regrow, rather than to maintain a continuously ready (or quick-start-ready) endometrium. Still an open question, but the answer has nothing to do with predators.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are so many born with serious defects, when evolution is meant to mean that genes which hinder survival become rarer?

Actually, very few are born with serious defects -- I think the figure is something like one in a thousand.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is childbirth so dangerous, it would result in alot of deaths if not for the medical intervention we have now? Evolution is meant to ensure strength of reproduction.

Up to very recently it did result in a lot of deaths (maternal death is almost unheard of now in this country, though it's still around 2% per child in places like Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and others (see here). While infant mortality, on the other hand, has declined to around 3 per thousand, from around ten times that fifty years ago (see here).

Evolution doesn't care whether lots of mums and kids die, so long as a sufficient number don't. See r/K selection theory for more details on the grisly calculus of different reproductive strategies.

midlandsmissus

robindch wrote: »

Coz appendices don't really influence our reproductive success one way or the other (though some research suggests it might)

.Coz we evolved in the tropics and haven't had time to develop fur. In its absence, we kill wolves, mammoths or create nylon instead.

Haven't had time? How long should it take? How come nearly all other species have fur, (adapting to their environment), except for us?


Some biologists suggest that it's more energy efficient to keep up a cycle of dispose and regrow, rather than to maintain a continuously ready (or quick-start-ready) endometrium. Still an open question, but the answer has nothing to do with predators.

How can dispose and regrow even possibly consume less energy, than an endometrium that would say change say 3 - 4 times over a lifetime to accomodate a fertilised egg?

Also I'm sure as a man you can't realise possibly how much a woman bleeds. Without pads etc. there would literally be a river of blood running down my legs for 5 days. To evolution, how can this possibly be good for survival? E.g. if I was out in nature, Hmm I'm leaving a trail of blood behind me...?

Actually, very few are born with serious defects -- I think the figure is something like one in a thousand.

Why have genes not evolved so far to say, wipe out the possibility of down syndrome?

Up to very recently it did result in a lot of deaths (maternal death is almost unheard of now in this country, though it's still around 2% per child in places like Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and others (see here[/url). While infant mortality, on the other hand, has declined to around 3 per thousand, from around ten times that fifty years ago (see here).

Maternal death is unheard of now in this country due to advances in medicine, not advances in evolution.

Evolution doesn't care whether lots of mums and kids die, so long as a sufficient number don't. See r/K selection theory for more details on the grisly calculus of different reproductive strategies.

Really? But why design it that way in the first place? Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Haven't had time? How long should it take? How come nearly all other species have fur, (adapting to their environment), except for us?

We evolved away from fur because we lived in a hot area. Then some of us migrated to colder climates but by then we had the ability to make clothing from furs and construct shelter so we never needed to grow it back.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Also I'm sure as a man you can't realise possibly how much a woman bleeds. Without pads etc. there would literally be a river of blood running down my legs for 5 days. To evolution, how can this possibly be good for survival? E.g. if I was out in nature, Hmm I'm leaving a trail of blood behind me...?

Women lose a few tablespoons of blood during a normal period, at most. What some people presume is blood is tissue and fluid and this amounts to a maximum of 40-30ml a day on the heaviest days. 100-150mls of fluid would make up an entire period, including pieces of tissue.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

We evolved away from fur because we lived in a hot area. Then some of us migrated to colder climates but by then we had the ability to make clothing from furs and construct shelter so we never needed to grow it back.

So if because, our use of clothes to fend off the cold is the reason we don't grow fur, why did we lose fur in a hot climate, when we presumably used cold drinks,and cold baths to cool ourselves down? We evolved in one climate and not the other?



Women lose a few tablespoons of blood during a normal period, at most. What some people presume is blood is tissue and fluid and this amounts to a maximum of 40-30ml a day on the heaviest days. 100-150mls of fluid would make up an entire period, including pieces of tissue.

I'm not saying I presume it's all blood. I do know the above, as every woman does. It's not relevant in this context. There would be a mixture including blood, tissue and fluid, for 5 days.

Your last part is relevant as we are talking about quantity.

Where are you quoting that last figure from? It's laughable. It would have to be an average found in some study, at best. A study on how many women? How can it aply to all women so?
Definitely not correct in my case and in alot of other girls I know' cases. One girl at work told me she soaks through three pads in an hour on her period. 150mls total, really?

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think it's a very good question. Why would a common ancestor evolve into both apes and humans, when it could have just evolved into humans?

There seems to be some misunderstanding here in regards to evolution. You describe it in a manner which leads me to believe you imagine there is some authorship or plan for evolution.

Supported by your next post.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Evolution is supposed to...
evolution is meant to...
Evolution is meant to...

Thanks!

Evolution is supposed to or meant to do nothing.

If some creator was guiding the process of evolution then, yes, a lot of biological traits, speciations... etc would probably make more sense from a design point of view. But as evolution isn't guided or controlled we are left with a lot of useless vestigial structures, inefficient legacy traits... etc. Unlike a human designer, evolution has no foresight.

Also, why is there still Monkeys? Come on, you can answer that for yourself.

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Really? But why design it that way in the first place? Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

Wait....wait....are you questioning evolution or intelligent design? All your questions seem to be saying "it's not a very good design then, is it?" You're right. It's not. It's not a design at all.

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There seems to be some misunderstanding here in regards to evolution. You describe it in a manner which leads me to believe you imagine there is some authorship or plan for evolution.

Supported by your next post.



Evolution is supposed to or meant to do nothing.

If some creator was guiding the process of evolution then, yes, a lot of biological traits, speciations... etc would probably make more sense from a design point of view. But as evolution isn't guided or controlled we are left with a lot of useless vestigial structures, inefficient legacy traits... etc. Unlike a human designer, evolution has no foresight.

Also, why is there still Monkeys? Come on, you can answer that for yourself.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I see from this thread that people get annoyed to hear the "why do apes still exist so" question, but surely you should be happy to hear people asking questions? How else are you meant to learn except for asking questions?

I don't think there's meant to be a plan for evolution. I just don't understand. I thought evolution was about adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, and devoloping for the better.


"Why is there still apes"...hmm well for me to better try and figure out an answer for this, you'll have to tell me wht climate and location was our common ancestor meant to have been in?

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Where are you quoting that last figure from? It's laughable. It would have to be an average found in some study, at best. A study on how many women? How can it aply to all women so?
Definitely not correct in my case and in alot of other girls I know' cases. One girl at work told me she soaks through three pads in an hour on her period. 150mls total, really?

When you use a pad you have no idea whatsoever how much fluid you pass. Try using a Mooncup. It holds 15ml and only needs to be changed every 12 hours. Even on your heaviest day you won't fill it 3 times. (If you are losing more than that you need to see a doctor - urgently.) After the heaviest time you will barely fill 1 cup a day. If you fill more than 10 cups in one period you have a medical problem, so yes seriously, no more than 150ml in one period.

midlandsmissus

strobe wrote: »

Wait....wait....are you questioning evolution or intelligent design? All your questions seem to be saying "it's not a very good design then, is it?" You're right. It's not. It's not a design at all.

Alright I should have phrased it - why is it still that crappy system then?

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

When you use a pad you have no idea whatsoever how much fluid you pass. Try using a Mooncup. It holds 15ml and only needs to be changed every 12 hours. Even on your heaviest day you won't fill it 3 times. (If you are losing more than that you need to see a doctor - urgently.) After the heaviest time you will barely fill 1 cup a day. If you fill more than 10 cups in one period you have a medical problem, so yes seriously, no more than 150ml in one period.

I'm sorry iguana but you are wrong in my case and several other cases. I HAVE been to see the doctor, as they have they, and we were just told that they were "heavy periods", and were "common".

It's frightening the amount I bleed. For example if I get my period over night and I'm not expecting it, the sheets will be saturated. Again, my doctor told me alot of women just have extremely heavy periods.

I guess it's alot easier to accept evolution as a man, when I as a woman, just wonder why so many random unneccesary cruelties are inflicted on women.

ColmDawson

It's important to remember that evolution is not to be expected to have made us into some perfect species. Only traits that make us more likely to reproduce will be taken on. After reproduction, evolution 'doesn't care'. As a result, it'd be completely possible for us to evolve a trait that helps us reproduce when we're young, but also makes us likely to die at sixty years old instead of eighty.

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I guess it's alot easier to accept evolution as a man,

Please don't presume to speak for women. I've been having periods for half of my life, I've been pregnant, I've miscarried, and none of that has made me question evolution even slightly.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm sorry iguana but you are wrong in my case and several other cases. I HAVE been to see the doctor, as they have they, and we were just told that they were "heavy periods", and were "common".

It's frightening the amount I bleed. For example if I get my period over night and I'm not expecting it, the sheets will be saturated. Again, my doctor told me alot of women just have extremely heavy periods.

Find a better doctor and insist on being taken seriously. You are being fobbed off, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO LOSE SO MUCH FLUID MONTHLY. It could be symptomatic of a bigger problem and needs to be investigated. It could easily be something as simple as a hormone imbalance which can be corrected with the correct birth control pill or it could possibly be more serious but you won't know until you have it properly investigated.

A lot of doctors fob women off when they have problems with their periods, it's a backward attitude but sadly very common. Don't take "it's normal" as an answer as what you describe is not. At the very least you should think about getting a mooncup and measuring what you lose each month and what way you lose it (ie, all on certain days - consistently over the week). If you are losing more than 150-200ml get a doctor to run the proper tests. (Try reading this article, obviously you can't know what is wrong from that but it might give you some information you can arm yourself with before going back to your doctor. http://womenshealth.about.com/od/abnormalbleeding/a/causemenorrhagi.htm )

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Alright I should have phrased it - why is it still that crappy system then?

What's crappy about it? Mammals haven't gone extinct yet. Job done as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution isn't magic. It can't do anything just for convenience sake. Passing a little human out of your body is going to hurt. But unless it prevents new humans being born, evolution will have no effect whatsoever on it. It just doesn't work like that.

Here's a really straight forward and easy to understand explanation of evolution, if you are interested.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution.htm

iguana

ColmDawson wrote: »

As a result, it'd be completely possible for us to evolve a trait that helps us reproduce when we're young, but also makes us likely to die at sixty years old instead of eighty.

In fact there aren't there only three species which have a significant lifespan after childbearing age. Humans and two types of whale, Killer and Pilot.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

Please don't presume to speak for women. I've been having periods for half of my life, I've been pregnant, I've miscarried, and none of that has made me question evolution even slightly.



Find a better doctor and insist on being taken seriously. You are being fobbed off, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO LOSE SO MUCH FLUID MONTHLY. It could be symptomatic of a bigger problem and needs to be investigated. It could easily be something as simple as a hormone imbalance which can be corrected with the correct birth control pill or it could possibly be more serious but you won't know until you have it properly investigated.

A lot of doctors fob women off when they have problems with their periods, it's a backward attitude but sadly very common. Don't take "it's normal" as an answer as what you describe is not. At the very least you should think about getting a mooncup and measuring what you lose each month and what way you lose it (ie, all on certain days - consistently over the week). If you are losing more than 150-200ml get a doctor to run the proper tests.

But Iguana they did send me for tests and found nothing wrong. I'm just wondering how do you know it is not normal? Because I know a girl at work who is the exact same as me, has been for all the ultrasound tests, and again nothing is wrong.

I would say what you have said to me back to you, "please don't presume to speak for women", when determining what is normal and what is not for periods.

How would you know? From my own experience women vary drastically, some have very heavy and some have very light periods.

midlandsmissus

strobe wrote: »

What's crappy about it? Mammals haven't gone extinct yet. Job done as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution isn't magic. It can't do anything just for convenience sake. Passing a little human out of your body is going to hurt. But unless it prevents new humans being born, evolution will have no effect whatsoever on it. It just doesn't work like that.

Here's a really straight forward and easy to understand explanation of evolution, if you are interested.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Would you explain to me more about intelligent design? I just always seem to be thinking "why the hell is it this way, it all seems so cruel, badly organised and inefficient". It actually really frustrates me, mainly aspects to do with being a woman.

E.g. why do we have a hymen? More pain for us?

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I thought evolution was about adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, and devoloping for the better.

But "better" is subjective. If a creature survives that is all that matters. If it lives a life of torturous pain and agony, but manages to easily survive and procreate then it will probably stay that way for a long time.

Even if 90% of that species dies with each successive generation, the species may still never change.

Evolution doesn't care how well you survive, or how efficiently you survive, these are human requirements. You either survive or you don't. Adapt or don't.

Monkeys still exist because our common ancestors didn't all reside in one large group and undergo the same conditions. Some evolved down a path that eventual led to their extinction, some evolved to better suit a life in a treed environment, others evolved to better suit a life in a plain/savannah environment (the lineage that led to us) even then, it is hypothesized, that our brains only developed to it's current abilities due to being put under constant stress from frequent and sudden climate change. These conditions could easily of killed us off and we could of went the way of the neanderthals, but we adapted and survived.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

Please don't presume to speak for women. I've been having periods for half of my life, I've been pregnant, I've miscarried, and none of that has made me question evolution even slightly.



Find a better doctor and insist on being taken seriously. You are being fobbed off, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO LOSE SO MUCH FLUID MONTHLY. It could be symptomatic of a bigger problem and needs to be investigated. It could easily be something as simple as a hormone imbalance which can be corrected with the correct birth control pill or it could possibly be more serious but you won't know until you have it properly investigated.

A lot of doctors fob women off when they have problems with their periods, it's a backward attitude but sadly very common. Don't take "it's normal" as an answer as what you describe is not. At the very least you should think about getting a mooncup and measuring what you lose each month and what way you lose it (ie, all on certain days - consistently over the week). If you are losing more than 150-200ml get a doctor to run the proper tests. (Try reading this article, obviously you can't know what is wrong from that but it might give you some information you can arm yourself with before going back to your doctor. http://womenshealth.about.com/od/abnormalbleeding/a/causemenorrhagi.htm )

ps. I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage.

Galvasean

Didn't go out of my way to explain to you about our common ancestor in that After Hours thread?
Didn't I post a link on your profile to make sure you wouldn't miss it?
Didn't I say feel free to ask more questions?

*sob*

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't go out of my way to explain to you about our common ancestor in that After Hours thread?
Didn't I post a link on your profile to make sure you wouldn't miss it?
Didn't I say feel free to ask more questions?

*sob*

You must forgive me, I actually forgot until theis thread reared it's head!

Thanks for the effort.

/goes off to read link now

Galvasean

Speaking of Attenbourough, his new series First Life (which chronicles the earliest stages of life on Earth - might be beneficial to the OP) is doing the rounds on TV at the moment. You can buy the DVD and (hardcover, fully illustrated) book on Amazon for about €30, which is agreat deal because the book alone is €27 in Eason.

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm sorry iguana but you are wrong in my case and several other cases. I HAVE been to see the doctor, as they have they, and we were just told that they were "heavy periods", and were "common".

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But Iguana they did send me for tests and found nothing wrong. I'm just wondering how do you know it is not normal?

Which one is the lie?:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would say what you have said to me back to you, "please don't presume to speak for women", when determining what is normal and what is not for periods.

There is a big difference between claiming that having periods makes women ridiculously foolish about science and biology and knowing what is a normal amount of fluid to pass during a period and that passing more than that is very possibly a problem.

ETA; My period is 120-150ml at the moment. That is actually considered heavy, 80-100ml is normal. the reason why a period heavier than 150ml is likely to be a symptom of a problem is that the vast majority of our uterine lining and tissue is reabsorbed back into the body. If your period is heavier than that it means you aren't reabsorbing the tissue you should be. The reason why humans have a "bleed" is most likely because our foetuses require so much lining our bodies can't reabsorb it all so we get rid of the excess. I'm not kidding, I'm not trying to be smart or sarky or to freak you out. If you are losing as much as you think you are it is unlikely that there isn't something causing that excess loss. And that something should be diagnosed and treated. And doctors in this country are notorious for not taking menstrual issues seriously. On the otherhand many women believe they are excessively heavy until they start using a menstrual cup and actually see what they lose and are surprised at how little it really is.

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You must forgive me, I actually forgot until theis thread reared it's head!

Thanks for the effort.

/goes off to read link now

Yay!

If you've any follow ups might as well post 'em here. Think that After Hours thread is dead n' buried.

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Would you explain to me more about intelligent design? I just always seem to be thinking "why the hell is it this way, it all seems so cruel, badly organised and inefficient". It actually really frustrates me, mainly aspects to do with being a woman.

E.g. why do we have a hymen? More pain for us?

Yeah well, what I was getting at was, the fact that is seems so "badly organised and inefficient" would be an argument against life being designed (intelligently by an omnipotent being) rather than an argument against it having evolved, which is just a series of accidents that work, or sometimes don't, pretty much. If the accidents that work either don't interfere with you reproducing or improve the chance of you reproducing then there will be more of those genes around because you will have more kids and so they will pass them on to more of their own kids. If they do interfere with the chance of you reproducing then those genes are less likely to get passed on through reproduction, obviously, so a lot of the time will disappear from the gene pool.

Why would a creator (particularly and omnipotent one) design these things that either offer no advantage or even provide a disadvantage? Would anyone design a car with too much weight on the right side if they knew it would make it crash more often?

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't go out of my way to explain to you about our common ancestor in that After Hours thread?
Didn't I post a link on your profile to make sure you wouldn't miss it?
Didn't I say feel free to ask more questions?

*sob*

Would you believe I did actually miss that on the thread altogether, it was that fast moving.

Thanks for a nice detailed answer.

What other species have common ancestors?

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What other species have common ancestors?

well, it could well be the case that every species has the same common ancestor if you go back far enough.

A quick example, all modern birds' (everything from sparrows to ostriches to penguons) common ancestor is Archaeopteryx, or at the very least something very much like it.

Not sure if that's the sort of example you're looking for?

midlandsmissus

Thank you Iguana, After your edit, I can see you are trying to be helpful, I can assure you I have had tests though. Nothing was found to be wrong after an ultrasound.

I was getting periods every 2 weeks for a stage in my teens aswell, and they just put me on the pill for it. Maybe you're right and they just don't take it very seriously in this country. Maybe I should go back.

P.S Galvasean haha, girly things and dinosaurs in the same thread, what a thread!

Galvasean

Less talk about private girly stuff, MOAR monkies and dinosaurs! :pac:

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

well, it could well be the case that every species has the same common ancestor if you go back far enough.

A quick example, all modern birds' (everything from sparrows to ostriches to penguons) common ancestor is Archaeopteryx, or at the very least something very much like it.

Not sure if that's the sort of example you're looking for?

So is it that everyhing develops differently really due to it's environment? I can't think of the right questions to ask. Can you just tell me some other usefull things about evolution?

iguana

strobe wrote: »

Why would a creator (particularly and omnipotent one) design these things that either offer no advantage or even provide a disadvantage? Would anyone design a car with too much weight on the right side if they knew it would make it crash more often?

To punish us for that greedy, disobedient Eve woman who's apple eating was so heinous all her female descendants must suffer.:(

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I don't think there's meant to be a plan for evolution. I just don't understand. I thought evolution was about adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, and devoloping for the better.

Evolution is about keeping you alive long enough so that you reproduce, thus keeping the genes that produced you and your ability to survive long enough to reproduce ticking over for another generation.

If your genes were not able to keep you alive long enough to reproduce they disappear into the sands of time because with no children you have no one to continue your genetic line.

The fact that you go through your life in unbearable period pains is not relevant to this unless it some how stops you surviving or reproducing. And aside from the odd urge from the boyfriend to kill his girlfriend when she is on her period in general periods do not kill the woman.

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Anyway, believe me I don't feel like I need to prove my medical history to you. This is ridiculous! I find it more amazing that you are not even considering the heavy period/nothing wrong scenario a possibility.

I've edited that reply to include more info. As it happens I'm actually concerned about you, I have what's considered a "normal" heavy period and it never goes beyond 150ml. (I often double ovulate and my cycle can run to 6 weeks at a time.) I know too many women who have been fobbed off by doctors who are arrogantly dismissive about women who are experiencing real problems with their cycle and suffered needlessly for years/decades and two people I know eventually found out that their fertility was damaged by something preventable but undiscovered. Have you had blood tests? You may have a hormonal balance which is causing a lack of re-absorbtion. An ultrasound wouldn't have shown this up.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

I've edited that reply to include more info. As it happens I'm actually concerned about you, I have what's considered a "normal" heavy period and it never goes beyond 150ml. (I often double ovulate and my cycle can run to 6 weeks at a time.) I know too many women who have been fobbed off by doctors who are arrogantly dismissive about women who are experiencing real problems with their cycle and suffered needlessly for years/decades and two people I know eventually found out that their fertility was damaged by something preventable but undiscovered. Have you had blood tests? You may have a hormonal balance which is causing a lack of re-absorbtion. An ultrasound wouldn't have shown this up.

As I have edited mine, we just keep missing it before we reply .

If you check my post now, I added that I was getting periods every 2 weeks for a time aswell and was just put on the pill. I've often had such extreme pain aswell that I've literally been rolling around the toilet floor at work. I was told that this was normal. Thanks for your help, you've convinced me now that I should go back. I was really fobbed off the last time.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Less talk about private girly stuff, MOAR monkies and dinosaurs! :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tt9P2qWfWg

Am I doin it right?

iguana

Galvasean wrote: »

Less talk about private girly stuff, MOAR monkies and dinosaurs! :pac:

Can we combine it? Bearded Emperor Tamarin monkeys have an interesting reproductive system. They ovulate twice per cycle and almost always give birth to fraternal twins. To get the optimal benefit from this female BET monkeys mate with 2 males during their fertile period. Then when the twins are born neither father knows which, if either, baby is his but must do all he can to help the mother and babies survive just in case one or both is his. The males form a love/hate relationship and must co-operate to help the mother look after her twins, each "father" taking one baby when the mother goes foraging. She indicates she wants them to come take the babies by sticking her tongue out at them.

That's good evolving!:D

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So is it that everyhing develops differently really due to it's environment?

Pretty much. Evolution basically responds to a need, so to speak. For example, when the climate/environment changes the individuals who are best suited to said environment survive and breed better than those less suited. The more suitable individuals pass their genes onto the next generation, so their traits which proved beneficial remain.
There is also what is refered to as an 'evolutionary arms race' where two interacting species basically (for a lack of a better phrase) 'try to out evolve each other'. Example; some herbivores start evolving thicker hides because it makes them less likely to be killed by predators, the predators in turn are evolving stronger jaws to bitethrough the thickening hides. Eventually you might have a new species of herbivore with strong armour (like an armadillo for example) being predated on by a predator with vice like jaws. In instances like this evolution is responding to a changing scenario, like changing climate except it is responding to other evolving creatures who interact with it.

strobe

iguana wrote: »

To punish us for that greedy, disobedient Eve woman who's apple eating was so heinous all her female descendants must suffer.:(

Well, apple thieves are worse than carcinogenic paedophile Hitlers, you have to admit.

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Less talk about private girly stuff, MOAR monkies and dinosaurs! :pac:

It is relevant anway.

Thanks very much for all your info Galvasean, it has explained alot to me, but it was actually Iguana who really got through to me there.

I don't know if I was thinking more intelligent design/evolution or what, but I always really hated it all, because as I've said, I've been in alot of pain for a large portion of my life, and I would think, "Why is evolution such a big pile of crap that I am just this lifeform here today going through so much pain for my whole existence". Is that what I have evolved to?

I lnow that probably doesn't even make sense from an evolution point of view, as in, "what's evolution ever done for me" , but coming from my point of view, it was holding me back.

That maybe I'm not meant to just put up with a random s%itload of pain just because I'm a woman, is helpful to me learning about evolution.

So thanks to the two of you.

Rockn

*this has probably been said because I started writing this reply aaages ago*
Evolution isn't "supposed to" do anything. Saying our early ancestors could have evolved into humans is silly because evolution doesn't plan ahead. It doesn't look to the future and say, "hmmm humans or apes, let's go for both!" When we reproduce we pass on our genes. There's a chance the genes can mutate which might lead to changes that benefit us (ie. help us reproduce). If it does then those genes will spread throughout the population ie. evolution happens. The kind of changes that would benefit us depend on our current environment, predators, competition etc. And those things change over time. What would have been good 10,000 years ago may not be much use now. So of course you end up with less than optimal animals. The reason we still have an appendix is because it would take a huge change for an entire organ to just disappear. And even if a person was born without an appendix it wouldn't be of much benefit to them.

Fur- Changes happen randomly and only stick around if they're useful at the time. It might be nice to have fur in cold climates and maybe gills if we live at the coast but we don't just get what might be good for us. There is no plan for the perfect animal. And there are always trade-offs. Peacocks, for example, have huge tails for courting but their tails also make it easier for predators to get them. So they've had to come to some balance between being eaten and getting laid (bad pun). Imagine if some people grew fur. It keeps them warm in the winter but maybe other people aren't attracted to furries and they have a hard time finding a partner. Hahaha. You've got to consider these other factors when deciding if some evolutionary change is good or not.

All animals you see are a work in progress, constantly being updated a tiny bit at a time. It's like looking at an old house that has had lots of work done over the years and asking, "why are there fireplaces in each room when it has central heating?".

You should read a good book on evolution like "The Selfish Gene". It would answer all your questions.



*mentally blocking out all the period stuff*

The Mad Hatter

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think it's a very good question. Why would a common ancestor evolve into both apes and humans, when it could have just evolved into humans?

Because evolution never goes in a straight line.

Try to disavow yourself right now of the notion that we're "more evolved" than apes - we're not. We're smarter than them, certainly, but we'd have an extremely hard time living in any environment other than the very comfortable one we're used to.

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Really? But why design it that way in the first place?

It wasn't designed, it just happened that way.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

Presumably because it's an unnecessary biological expense to have a pain system with an 'off switch'. Alternatively, not enough time has passed in order to evolve one, given that mums don't die from pain and the memory of the pain doesn't really seem to discourage them from having more kids (in fact, there appears to be an evolutionary mechanism which suppresses memory of the pain). In this case, there's simply no selection pressure to evolve a resistance to pain so it's probably never going to happen.

As I said above, evolution doesn't "care" about how much pain mums have during birth, nor how many mums and kids die overall, so long as a number sufficient to maintain the species don't die.

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Really? But why design it that way in the first place?

It wasn't designed, it just happened that way.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

Presumably because it's an unnecessary biological expense to have a pain system with an 'off switch'. Alternatively, not enough time has passed in order to evolve one since birth began to be a significantly painful event. But given that mums don't die from pain and the memory of the pain doesn't really seem to discourage them from having more kids (in fact, there appears to be a biological mechanism which suppresses memory of the pain). In this case, there's simply no selection pressure to evolve a resistance to pain so it's probably never going to happen. Especially, since death rates are now very close to zero and birth rates are falling.

As I said above, evolution doesn't "care" about how much pain mums have during birth, nor how many mums and kids die overall, so long as a number sufficient to maintain the species don't die.

CerebralCortex

ColmDawson wrote: »

It's important to remember that evolution is not to be expected to have made us into some perfect species. Only traits that make us more likely to reproduce will be taken on. After reproduction, evolution 'doesn't care'. As a result, it'd be completely possible for us to evolve a trait that helps us reproduce when we're young, but also makes us likely to die at sixty years old instead of eighty.

Antagonistic pleiotropy I think it might be called.

liamw

Rockn wrote: »

You should read a good book on evolution like "The Selfish Gene". It would answer all your questions.

+1

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So is it that everyhing develops differently really due to it's environment? I can't think of the right questions to ask. Can you just tell me some other usefull things about evolution?

The problem is you still seem to be viewing evolution as some sort of conscious process. Evolution by natural selection is a blind process. There are no objectively 'good' or 'bad' mutations, this is merely subjective.

The environment drives the genetic drift. Adaptations get selected simply because the adaptation makes the individual more likely to reproduce.

One thing that everyone seems to be missing in this thread is that not all mutations are 'available' to a given species. I didn't think about this until I read 'The Extended Phenotype'. There are some limitations on what can evolve. So perhaps gene A persisted in the gene pool, not because it is better than gene B, but because B never had the potential to be a allele.

Sam Vimes

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Really? But why design it that way in the first place? Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

You seem to be under the impression that evolution should be recognising its environment and adapting to fit it, e.g. "learning" that child birth does not need to be painful from epidurals and so eliminating the pain. You've got it the wrong way around. The changes happen first and are completely random and the environment "tells" the organism if these changes are "good" or not by either killing it or not.
E.g. giraffes didn't grow longer necks because their genomes somehow recognised that there were good leaves on higher branches, random mutations gave some of them longer necks and these allowed them to get these higher leaves that their shorter necked brethren couldn't reach. Longer necked ones lived where shorter necked ones died, hence longer necked giraffes.

In the case of the pain of child birth, someone could be born one day who has a random mutation that makes child birth painless but with medical technology meaning that the people who have painful child births survive anyway, this new mutation doesn't give the woman any survival advantage and so the gene won't spread across the whole species. Her lucky off-spring will always carry the mutation and so have painless child births but the people who are unlucky enough not to have it will always experience pain.

The important point is that the existence of epidurals does not "cause" the evolution of painless child births; that's not how evolution works. We as a species would only evolve this trait when a random mutation gave one person the natural ability to have painless births and where this mutation gave the person a survival advantage that allowed the gene to spread

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Antagonistic pleiotropy I think it might be called.

New one on me -- thanks!

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Longer necked ones lived where shorter necked ones died, hence longer necked giraffes.

There's a new(ish) area of study in biology called epigenetics which is, broadly speaking, the study of how environment influences genetic expression - how individual genes get turned on or off by internal or external factors.

It seems that Lamarck might have been onto something after all, though the way it happens, and the levels of epigenetic influence are anything but clear.

nozzferrahhtoo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I don't think there's meant to be a plan for evolution. I just don't understand. I thought evolution was about adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, and devoloping for the better.

Yes and no. Take your example of painful childbirth…

There is no mind or plan with evolution. It does not sit there and think to itself “Humans would be improved by pain free child birth” before it then sets to work on the task, scribbling on a drawing board with a thoughtful tongue sticking out of its mouth a little to one side.

Firstly, mutation etc has to hit on a change. Then that change has to be propagated successfully. Pain free child birth would not occur in one step, it would have to be many steps and each one of them would have to be selected for and maintained.

Ask yourself what kinds of changes would be required to achieve it. They are not insignificant changes and they could be anything from massive changes in the size of the head of the baby, or massive changes in the waist and hips width of human females, to many more things.

Each change would have to happen and be selected for without any plan or target to arrive at a conclusion of pain free child birth.

Against this background the changes in each step would have to either be beneficial or costless. Ask yourself what the “cost” of each change would be, in terms of the energy and behaviour of the creature caused by those changes. A massive increase in the waist or hip sizes of the human female would be very costly. Compare then these costs with the benefits obtained.

Many seemingly beneficial traits are lost for no reason if you do not consider the “cost”. A good example are sightless fish. Why did they lose their eyes? Surely having eyes is a benefit, even if 98% of your time is spent in environments so dark that you can not usually use them.

But no, the cost of maintaining eyes is high. You are more vulnerable to injury with them, the chemicals required to build and maintain them are complex, and that is just the eyes. The Brain is one of the most difficult to maintain organs, and the presence of eyes requires a brain to be maintained that can receive, process AND respond to the input from them. The “cost” of having eyes was higher than the benefit and so evolution removed the eyes.

The “cost” of our brains is high too, but the benefit we gain from them outweighs the costs. The brain has slowly enlarged and become more complex. This however has necessitated a change in gestation of children and has resulted in, among other things, a larger head at birth. This is where your pain comes from, and the “cost” of that pain is worth paying for the mental prowess we gain from our brains.

Your issue is you are thinking like a subjective designer. You think something is "better" and so evolution should do it that way. This is simply not how it works. There could be 1000 better ways to do something. This does not mean that A) evolution will hit on it or the cost of doing it the "better" way is beneficially proportional to the gain of doing that way.

nozzferrahhtoo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What other species have common ancestors?

Well if you subscribe to the Theory itself then all species have common ancestors. It merely depends on how far you go back in time to find it. It is easier to go back to our common ancestor with other great apes for example than it is to go back far enough to find the common ancestor between yourself and the cucumber in your salad.

In the same way both you and I have common ancestors within the human chain we have common ancestors with every other living thing. If we were siblings then they would be our parents, but we are not. Go back enough generations however and we would find one.

The study and discovery of common ancestry is one of the most exciting in the study of biology. Common ancestors have been predicted, mocked in cartoons, and then discovered for real so many times. The most famous is the common ancestry between whales and land mammals. The cartoons of what a half whale half land mammal would look like were indeed very funny, but they dried up very quickly when just that very thing was found.

The power to predict those fossils before even finding them is one of the strongest sources of evidence for Evolution. Prediction is very important in Science and when you predict incredibly detailed things and then find them, it is a very strong support for your Theory.

Capt'n Midnight

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do we still have an appendix?

Why do we not have fur? - We are not suitbale to our climate

Why do women have periods? Evolution is supposed to be bettering traits that aid survival. Bleeding copius amounts for five days would attract predators no? Also, could the womb lining not just build up WHEN the egg is fertilised, is seems SO badly organised the way it is!

Why are so many born with serious defects, when evolution is meant to mean that genes which hinder survival become rarer?

Why is childbirth so dangerous, it would result in alot of deaths if not for the medical intervention we have now? Evolution is meant to ensure strength of reproduction.

Thanks!

appendix
at one stage they removed them from children while doing other surgery - they don't anymore because of the effects
if your gut gets flushed out because you have the runs the bacteria there can repopulate the gut later on

fur
we are one of the best long distance hunters on the planet, we can chase kangaroos , gazelle and other fast herbivores to exhaustion. being furless can have advantages in hot climates if you are are an endurance hunter
fur pattern is also good for short time in the water, we don't have water proof fur like otters, we have lots of fat compared to other primates more like seals really
climate is why we use clothes (a tool if you like)
patagonian natives could withstand extreme cold while being nearly naked, their body temps dropped more than other humans, people do adapt
I remember a case where an Icelandic trawler sank and the only person who survived was 22 stone, he was able to swim to shore because of the extra insulation

Like beavers and few other species we have a history of modifying the enviroment to suit ourselves in the short term, but groups of humans have evolved to meet local conditions.

and one reason why we may have lost fur is that we are born premature compared to other primates, furless and less facial development, this also means it's childbirth is easier than it would otherwise be

they've discovered apes in swamps that behave in a way that loosing fur and standing upright might be advantageous

there are people who are covered in hair on all their body

periods
pedators weren't really a big issue for animals that live in trees / groups / were top predators themselves - when food is in short supply they aren't an issue either
try attacking a female baboon and see how far you get - our ancestors were bigger , had larger groups and were much faster on the ground and could use water as an escape route too

defects
a lot of the older defects turn out to have some advantage
sicle cell anemia vs malaria
cystic fibrosos vs cholera
but more importantly from the view point of evolution it's only a defect if it stops those genes reproducing. One theory says that there is a genetic disposition to make people more attracted to men , if women have it they produce more children and that offsets the fewer children born to men who were more attracted to other men ( it's a theory )

childbirth
suppose the benefits of large brains and better benefits give a survival advantage over being stillborn

Overall
inheritable traits that don't reduce your survival or breeding potential won't be forced out.
if a gene is neutral then inheritance is random (attached ear lobes, colour of eyes, ability to wiggle ears , freckles - assuming they have no other effect)

you have to remember that evolution doesn't just mean nature red in tooth and claw , there are subtlier effects ,as Nietzsche said "that which does not kill me makes me stronger"

all the same it would have been nice to hang on to a decent sense of smell and a tail