Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KEVLAR60442 OP t1_j9gq5m5 wrote

Reply to comment by GeriatricHydralisk in What are more accepted hypotheses that similarly explain the aspects of hominid evolution that the "pseudoscientific" aquatic ape theory does? by KEVLAR60442

Thank you. This thoroughly helps my understanding.

396

Marsdreamer t1_j9hn9fl wrote

Adding to this, no evolutionary biologists look at traits in organisms today and explain how / why they evolved by how they are beneficial. To do so is teleogical, explanation by the purpose they serve rather than the process by which they came to be. It also ignores that sometimes traits serve no actual purpose. They can arise to fixation randomly or the trait is vestigial for some other functions that are no longer relevant, but now serve a different purpose. A good example is that, in the case of human hairlessness, the reason why is still actually a pretty hotly debated subject because we don't really know.

Generally speaking, in order to confirm a trait's purpose and evolution you have to study the impact on fitness when you remove that trait and you have to use nearest relatives or most common ancestors to show how the trait evolved in the model species in question.

263

_The_Librarian t1_j9hoe30 wrote

For anyone like me that doesn't know, 'teleological' means "Relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise."

183

Lets_Go_Why_Not t1_j9hoxtq wrote

Sexual selection complicates attempts to explain certain evolutionary changes - sometimes, a trait just becomes more attractive to the other gender and, while that trait may represent an underlying superior fitness (beyond the obvious “can have more babies because I’m more fuckable than others”) it also may not. It’s possible that early humans just decided they weren’t down with hairy boning so much.

99

[deleted] t1_j9i08eb wrote

[removed]

2

Marsdreamer t1_j9i2pi4 wrote

Not always. There's a great example of an evolutionary study on a bird species that had incredibly long tails. Like, tails that were so long that they often interfered with flight and made the bird significantly more likely to be caught by predators.

However, the females preferred males with longer tails. So, what essentially happened is that the male birds continued to grow their tails as long as they possibly could until they hit a sort of critical threshold of being maximally attractive for females, but juuuust short enough that it didn't completely hinder their ability to get away from predators and fly.

Researches assayed this by taking feathers and artificially elongating certain male bird's tails (basically bird hair extensions). They noted that these doctored birds had significantly higher mating rates than other birds, but on the flip side, they also got caught (and killed) by predators much more often.

There's tons of examples of this throughout nature, where sexual selection essentially overrides the fitness loss for 'deleterious' traits.

57

kamintar t1_j9iwty4 wrote

You explain this so eloquently and clearly, the mark of true knowledge. Thanks for sharing.

3

Lets_Go_Why_Not t1_j9i1ik4 wrote

They certainly can be, for sure, though sometimes the mechanisms can be blurred - for example, is a sexual preference for greater height in place because taller people are inherently better at something because of the height OR is it simply that people with access to sufficient food and nutrients (through a variety of mechanisms) are taller, thus height is just an indicator, rather than a survival mechanism itself. And that doesn’t even begin to account for sexually selected traits that are theorized to be technically detrimental to day-to-day survival BUT that kind of indicate to potential mates “if I can afford to waste energy on this useless trait, imagine how awesome I am in everything else!” (eg peacock feathers).

In other words, sexual selection can be weird to untangle.

39

hugthemachines t1_j9ixhfq wrote

That is very interesting considering how often I hear people explaining attraction for certain attributes connected to better survival of the off spring.

1

Lets_Go_Why_Not t1_j9iywvl wrote

Ultimately, being able to attract the interest of a partner is directly connected to better survival in that offspring that are actually born have a better chance of surviving than those that never have the opportunity....it's just the thing that attracts that partner may not contribute to survival after they are born.

6

codyish t1_j9idhaz wrote

So much this. I can't believe how many highly educated and smart people, some in biological sciences, can't accept that many traits appear for no reason and don't disappear because they have no reason to. My advisor used to say, "evolution doesn't have to help you to happen; it just can't kill you or make others not want to fuck you".

66

CarpeCol t1_j9j6djk wrote

There are some traits that have no impact on survival or reproduction, but are expressed because the genes for that trait are found very close to the genes for another trait that does impact survival or reproduction. This can result in the first trait being passed to the next generation along with the second trait.

29

danby t1_j9jy3dw wrote

A problem here is how we teach evolution; that traits (and by extension) genes are selected. But the reality is in any given environment only a subset of traits are under active selection pressure. Most genes are free to drift by chance and appear and disappear.

I have somewhere of the order of 20-24k genes. I live in an environment where we estimate that 2000-4000 humans gene show adaptations to settled agriculture and cities. Less than half of human genes are estimated to be house keeping (i.e. required by all cells)

8

punninglinguist t1_j9ilw5a wrote

Can you give some examples of the kinds of explanations that are still accepted in the field? Like, "Here's a trait that [some animal] has. Here's the uncontroversial scientific consensus on how it evolved."?

2

avcloudy t1_j9iyv30 wrote

This is going to feel a little bit targeted, but it’s important: understanding is a story we tell ourselves that feels satisfying. Explanations being plausible contributes nothing to their truth value. The poster above goes over it briefly, but the correct way to test an aquatic ape hypothesis is to look at the adaptations other animals who are aquatic/nonaquatic have and compare. Looking at our adaptations in a vacuum and trying to find an explanation, even if you aren’t picking and choosing is bound to find just-so explanations that are plausible but nearly certainly wrong.

17