Evolution is way too messy for small advantages to have much of an impact. Otherwise our spines wouldn't be such a fucking mess.
-
-
Replying to @KanStaandPijpen
No, it's not. This is how we refine where variation exists and it does with foreskins. They're not like spines trying to cope with us standing up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Then explain why our foreskins would adapt to small advantages over the long run, whereas our spines are still ill-adapted to bipedal stance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KanStaandPijpen
Because variation in foreskin length exists enabling them to grow longer or shorter but no human had a spine suited to bepedalism so it had to adapt imperfectly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KanStaandPijpen
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I read it. The spine should then have a much greater impetus in changing than a foreskin that was functional as-is, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KanStaandPijpen
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KanStaandPijpen
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KanStaandPijpen
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.