Well, no. We don't need our little toes either and they are actually going and our foreskins might be too now we have underwear. No need to cut either off tho.
Have a look at the info I sent. We had foreskins way before we were human and they always served the same function. Changes in them to become longer & more complex are small but driven by something. Our spines did not serve the function they do now. We move completely differently
-
-
I read it. The spine should then have a much greater impetus in changing than a foreskin that was functional as-is, right?
-
Impetus? Evolution doesn't work by what it is most needed to do apropos of nothing. Variation needs to exist and certain traits be beneficial before it can make changes within a population.
-
I have a duplex renal system and so does my mother. It caused both of us problems in pregnancy so we could only have one child. My daughter did not inherit it and so it has been naturally selected out. If it had been beneficial, we'd have had more children & passed it on.
-
That isn't natural selection. That's just being lucky in not passing it on. If you hadn't been able to reproduce, it would have been NS'ed out.
-
That is natural selection. It made us only able to have one child who had a 50% chance of inheriting it. If we'd been able to have more children, there would be more copies of it now. Instead, it came to an end with the first child who didn't inherit it.
-
Natural selection works by the number of offspring a trait enables you to have and to survive. Someone who can have 10 healthy kids has ten times the biological fitness of someone who can have one & passes on 10X as many copies of their fitter genes.
-
I agree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.