|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5868 days) Posts: 12 From: Schererville, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate,
Not neceassarily. Consider the possibilities that (a) it was a side-effect of an adaptation for a non-neutral trait, which is what I suggested; or (b) it got fixed at some time before the human population was small and undispersed. We also need to consider that what we are talking about is a juvenile hair pattern, rather than bareness. It is unlikely that the juveniles were unfit. Vellus hair - Wikipedia
quote: While babies could be protected from cold by mom cuddling, this would be unlikely in prepubescent juveniles. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Neoteny\paedomorphy\tomatoe quibble. Meaning is the same in the end. No, it isn't. The two are distinctly different in the genetics behind them, the protein changes that produce them and the overall effect on the organism one should expect. In Neotony the changes usually result at the production end of the signals producing adult features and form, whereas paedomorphy results from alterations to the response to existing signalling. Neotony means that childlike features in one area are very likely to correlate with childlike features in another because they both have the same cause; paedomorphy doesn't share this feature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Mr Jack.
Mr Jack writes: In Neotony the changes usually result at the production end of the signals producing adult features and form, whereas paedomorphy results from alterations to the response to existing signalling. Neotony means that childlike features in one area are very likely to correlate with childlike features in another because they both have the same cause; paedomorphy doesn't share this feature. Here's what I found from Encyclopedia Britannica:
quote: Basically, I think it means paedomorphosis is the phenotypic result of either or both of the two concepts you described (increase in sexual development vs decrease in somatic development). -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Yeah, I wouldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for biological terminology. Paedomorphosis can refer to changes in individual features or to the entire organism; neoteny refers to change in the entire organism. Humans are not neotenous; they are paedomorphic for certain traits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Mr Jack.
Mr Jack writes: Yeah, I wouldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for biological terminology. Encyclopedia Britannica is just the source I chose to cite because the definition was concise and straightforward. Their way of presenting it seems to be pretty pervasive, though. For example, here is an online database associated with an evolutionary biology textbook from Blackwell Publishing. Most of what I could find says that either neoteny is a type of paedomorphosis, or that paedomorphosis is a symptom of multiple genetic conditions, which are referred to as neoteny (slowing of somatic maturation) or progenesis (speeding up of sexual maturation). I haven't seen anything like the production/receptor dichotomy you were talking about earlier, but I admittedly haven't put a lot of effort into it yet. Anyway, I see the distinction you're making with your argument, and I'm really just quibbling the terminology here. It's no big deal. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mr. Jack,
No, it isn't. The two are distinctly different in the genetics behind them, the protein changes that produce them and the overall effect on the organism one should expect. And yet the end result is the same: juvenile features arrested in development and preserved in the adult form.
Neotony means that childlike features in one area are very likely to correlate with childlike features in another because they both have the same cause; paedomorphy doesn't share this feature. So this would mean that the correlation of juvenile hair with other childlike features would mean that neotony is the correct term, rather than paedomorphy, yes? Which does not surprise me given the source of the neotony comment ... this claim has been around for a while. And it is common for further development of an organism to halt once sexual maturity has developed. Interestingly I get a number of responses to googling "fficial&client=firefox-a]-->neoteny in humans-->fficial&client=firefox-a">neoteny in humans Neoteny - Wikipedia
quote: Ooo, it looks like it could be both ... And, as the process that results in the paedomorphy is neotony, then it is more accurate to refer to it as neotony. End result: sexual selection for juvenile appearance in sexually mature females has resulted in juvenile hair being arrested in development into mature hair in women. It doesn't matter what you call it, the result is still the same. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : no smilies Edited by RAZD, : mre accurate Edited by RAZD, : again with the no smilies -- I don't know why this is not the default! (or at least stay checked once checked) we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ken Fabos Member (Idle past 1268 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
Is it even clear that this characteristic is the result of sexual selection or even developed gradually rather than rapidly as a result of a mutation? It seems unlikely to me that fur-less individuals amongst the furry would be viewed as more attractive; the trait would be more reminiscent of babies than juveniles on the verge of sexual maturity until enough fur-less juveniles had been around awhile - and they'd shown themselves to possess greater 'fitness'. Do most people think fur-less dogs look more attractive than their fully coated counterparts? Unless it's not attractiveness that the most important aspect of 'sexual selection' but the ability of (mostly) males to intimidate and dominate others in order to get the best and most females. Even so, would the earliest of them consider the fur-less to be the most attractive choice or even recognise that trait as the reason for their own success?
Maybe more importantly, did the changes to our sweat glands precede or post-date the fur-lessness; either alone may not add much advantage to heat dissipation, which may not show itself to be an obvious advantage until both are present. Advantage with respect to ecto-parasites seems likely to at least be immediate; my own hypothesis that finer, sparser hairs are more sensitive to low threshold tactile impulses would fit with this - parasites would not have the fur to hide them and individuals would have greater sensory awareness of their presence. Together this could lead to dramatic reduction of metabolic load from parasites and produce healthier individuals - who could then go on to oust the furry alpha male and get to be choosy. I have to say that I'm beginning to think that it could have been as much pure luck as fitness or attractiveness that led to the earliest forms of this, that it began as a maladaptive trait that the cleverness of proto-humans overcame; the real advantage could have been in the way they overcame it, such as by use of built shelters, fire and clothing. Rather than a warming climate it could have been a deep cold period, that swung the advantage towards the ones who stooped to draping skins over themselves for warmth and to disguise their ugliness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024