The Ancient_sl
shitlord
- 7,386
- 16
It's relative to the context of the dissertation he posted earlier.He still needs to explain how it impedes modern reproductive success. It doesn't
It's relative to the context of the dissertation he posted earlier.He still needs to explain how it impedes modern reproductive success. It doesn't
You're wrong. And the point about natural selection not really being a factor anymore was precisely my point. For a gene to propagate and eventually dominate, there needs to be a reproductive benefit, otherwise it's just random. We've transcended thatUhh, hate to break it to you, but natural selection hasn't been the primary driver of human evolution since at least the advent of agriculture.
Right.
Our skeletal anatomy continues to gracialize, our jaws continue to shorten, this is related to cultural concerns, sexual selection, access to proper nutrition and the like, and is far less about natural selection at this point in time.
Uh, no, again, reproductive success really isn't driving human evolution anymore. The majority of people reproduce, our populations are sky high. We do have fewer children than previous generations.
The high population, the number of matings, who is mating with whom and why, all these are much more influential factors today for human evolution than who makes it to reproductive fitness age (most people).
His dissertation earlier was irrelevant to modern humansIt's relative to the context of the dissertation he posted earlier.
I don't think he knows what he's trying to argue at this point.Jive Turkey are you arguing that evolution is no longer ocurring in humans due to the absence of natural selection?
No, but I'm arguing that certain selective pressures are no longer relevant with modern medicine. The point that pretty much everyone -wisdom teeth and not- reproduce at the exact same rate ismypoint and supportsmyargument, not hisJive Turkey are you arguing that evolution is no longer ocurring in humans due to the absence of natural selection?
Yes. This has been my point all along. Lets say half of them have wisdom teeth and half don't. What is your evolutionary motivation for the gene lacking wisdom teeth to eventually push out the gene for wisdom teeth?I don't think he knows what he's trying to argue at this point.
Jive Turkey, there are 7 billion people on this planet today.
The vast vast majority of them will attain reproductive age, and will reproduce.
Do you agree with this statement, yes or no?
Okay, but his earlier statement was that wisdom teeth could be tied to selective pressures that are.No, but I'm arguing that certain selective pressures are no longer relevant with modern medicine.
The alleles for reduced mandibular length are dominant in the population due to the heavy selection pressure for them over the past hundreds of thousands to millions of years of selection for those traits thanks to our diets and other factors mentioned previously.As for sexual selection in regards to this issue, we could hypothesize several explanations, such as people are unconsciously selecting for larger brain capacity or there is a sexual selection advantage in terms of attractiveness of facial features in individuals who lack wisdom teeth versus those that don't, etc.
But really, its just more about the fact that, as our nutrition increased, our craniums and other anatomically relevant system altered to compensate. That linear trajectory continues today, the alleles which guide development of cranial features are already present in the population, and already pretty well dominate in it, so they're just getting shuffled and reshuffled around and the progression continues. Mutations which go in the other direction are selected against in part because they are now anomalous and the extremely large population drowns out their impact and drives them further towards extinction, so forth.
You were wrong. I don't need to explain how it impacts modern reproductive success. Because it is explained by other factors that don't have to do directly with survival of the fittest.He still needs to explain how it impedes modern reproductive success. It doesn't.
Brain capacity increased due to increases in amino acids and fatty acids from foods dense with those types of nutrients (meat and fish).Okay, but his earlier statement was that wisdom teeth could be tied to selective pressures that are.
Although now I'm wondering about the whole thing. In my experience it's the dumber people having more kids, so where is this pressure for increased cranial cavity?
Although that right there might be a grim explanation for the brain shrinkage point on the list.
There are several different conclusions as to why this is: One group of researchers suspects our shrinking brains mean we are in fact getting dumber. Historically, brain size decreased as societies became larger and more complex, suggesting that the safety net of modern society negated the correlation between intelligence and survival. But another, more encouraging theory says our brains are shrinking not because we're getting dumber, but because smaller brains are more efficient. This theory suggests that, as they shrink, our brains are being rewired to work faster but take up less room. There's also a theory that smaller brains are an evolutionary advantage because they make us less aggressive beings, allowing us to work together to solve problems, rather than tear each other to shreds.
It's a flimsy argument and he has since stated that pretty much everyone reproduces at the same rateOkay, but his earlier statement was that wisdom teeth could be tied to selective pressures that are.
I'm not arguing for survival of the fittest! The opposite! And youdoneed to explain how it impacts modern reproductive success because that's the mechanism by which genes are selected for and propagate through the population.Then natural selection aka survival of the fittest, is no longer the primary driver of human evolution generation to generation.
Instead, sexual selection, cultural selection, and other factors are.
Which is exactly what I said when I said this
The alleles for reduced mandibular length are dominant in the population due to the heavy selection pressure for them over the past hundreds of thousands to millions of years of selection for those traits thanks to our diets and other factors mentioned previously.
These other selective factors can still impact the rates at which these alleles appear in the population.
Ergo, when you said
You were wrong. I don't need to explain how it impacts modern reproductive success. Because it is explained by other factors that don't have to do directly with survival of the fittest.
Still my point. This explains why the characteristic appeared in the first place and why itexiststoday, but says nothing about the success of that gene in today's populationsThe alleles for reduced mandibular length are dominant in the population due to the heavy selection pressure for them over the past hundreds of thousands to millions of years of selection for those traits thanks to our diets and other factors mentioned previously.
No, you explicitly stated that wisdom teeth must not be being selected against in modernity since I didn't detail to you how reproductive success impacts the rate at which genes for wisdom teeth production are being passed generation to generation.I'm not arguing for survival of the fittest! The opposite!
No, I didn't. I said pretty much everyone will reach reproductive age and reproduce.It's a flimsy argument and he has since stated that pretty much everyone reproduces at the same rate
I'm saying the populations will remain relatively stable because there is no survival of the fittest or selective pressure against wisdom teeth anymore.NO SELECTIVE PRESSURE. How is that an argument for survival of the fittest? I'm saying that gene is moot at this pointNo, you explicitly stated that wisdom teeth must not be being selected against in modernity since I didn't detail to you how reproductive success impacts the rate at which genes for wisdom teeth production are being passed generation to generation.
Irrelevant. This is the same padding of the argument you were doing earlierThis also ignores the fact that the genes which direct development of those teeth could be perfectly fine, and perfectly present, but the fact that the genes for the mandible are driving shorter mandibles, and thus resulting in less overall space in the mouth to accomodate those wisdom teeth.
In the past it impacted reproductive viability,but not anymore. How many people have you heard of that weren't able to reproduce at the same rate as people lacking wisdom teeth because theirs got impacted??In this case you would see exactly what we see, which is that wisdom teeth develop mostly okay, but they become impacted and have to be removed otherwise they cause abcesses and other illnesses which can impact reproductive viability.
Then you need to explain why people without them have greater reproductive success, or better yet,citesomething showing that they doNo, I didn't. I said pretty much everyone will reach reproductive age and reproduce.
and wisdom teeth would have zero affect on whether it was 10 kids or 1That statement includes no statement on how often each of those individuals actually does reproduce. Clearly one couple could have 10 kids, and another only have 1, and that would be a difference in reproductive rates.
The way some people on this board are unable to follow an arguement blows my fucking mind sometimesAt this point you're just swinging for fences and generating strawmen.
Its time for you to stop posting.
SEXUAL SELECTION IS STILL A FORM OF SELECTION PRESSUREI'm saying the populations will remain relatively stable because there is no survival of the fittest or selective pressure against wisdom teeth anymore.NO SELECTIVE PRESSURE.
Citation required. Impacted wisdom teeth cause abcesses and infections, very close to the brain.In the past it impacted reproductive viability, but not anymore.
Irony. It always strikes at the best times.The way some people on this board are unable to follow an arguement blows my fucking mind sometimes
Its already been stated that we aren't sure all the factors involved at this time, but that plausible explanations are things like favorable sexual selection for smaller, more gracile faces.Then you need to explain why people without them have greater reproductive success, or better yet, cite something showing that they do
Quoting again for emphasisThere was a time when our jaws could comfortably accommodate all 32 teeth, including the third molars. You have to go back about 100 million years ago, though, to the prehistoric version of man. Instead of walking upright, this guy got around on all four limbs, with a massive protruding jaw leading the way.
Early man's jaws were larger and more prominent because teeth played a vital role in survival. With the front appendages occupied with balance and running, teeth were prehistoric man's means of catching, dismembering and consuming prey. Our ancestors subsisted on a tough and chewy diet of leaves, roots and raw meat. Having 32 teeth's worth of chewing ability was a huge advantage at this point, especially because early man didn't visit the dentist with the regularity we do today; third molars might have played an important backup role when teeth were lost or worn down.
Then evolution had its way with prehistoric man, and teeth weren't so important anymore. Hominids began walking upright, and arms took on a greater role in obtaining food. After that, brains became larger and jaws became shorter. Researchers still aren't exactly certain which came first, though in 2004, a team from the University of Pennsylvania announced they had discovered a gene called MYH16. Mutations in this gene lead to shorter jaws, which may have been the factor which allowed early man's brain to grow [source: Wilford]. However it happened, the change lessened the amount of space available to teeth in the mouth.
As our heads and jaws were changing, some cultural shifts were taking place as well. Around the same time, man was creating the first tools, including cooking utensils (designed, of course, by primitive prototypes of Food Network hosts). With bigger brains, man got wise to fire and its ability to soften food. Overall, man's diet became much more processed; compared to the roots and raw meat our ancestors ate, we might as well be eating strained applesauce. In fact, we wouldn't necessarily need any teeth at all to survive today, though dining out would be a dull affair. As it is, though, we definitely decreased our reliance upon the third molar.
Opponents of evolution place greater weight on the dietary shift and dental hygiene in lessening our reliance on wisdom teeth, discounting the role of our evolving jaws and brains. But when you line up a prehistoric jaw and a modern jaw, the space is clearly smaller. Can evolution explain the shift? And if our evolutionary history has lessened the need for wisdom teeth and created conditions inhospitable to third molars, will we ever lose them completely?
For many of us, it may seem like our wisdom teeth didn't get the memo that our evolved jaws are lacking space. But some people never develop wisdom teeth; in fact, these teeth don't appear in about 35 percent of the population [source: Spinney]. Are we on an evolutionary track to losing them altogether?
Some experts say it's possible these teeth will eventually disappear [sources: Flam, Usbourne]. Still, there are a few unknowns in the equation. Scientists aren't sure of the role that DNA plays in creating teeth at the third molar position [source: Colf]. Third molars develop entirely after birth, the only teeth to do so. Because these teeth aren't present at birth, it may be harder for nature to select against them [source: LePage].For wisdom teeth to form, the tissue that starts the process of tooth building has to migrate back in the mouth to interact with the back jaw tissue. If this migration doesn't happen, then no tooth will grow there.
There may also be some environmental factors at work, including disease or head trauma, that stop the tissue migration [source: Silvestri, Singh]. It could also come down to differences in how various cultures use their jaws. For example, in the 1970s, researchers tied the larger jaw that was present in Eskimo women to their tradition of chewing leather to soften it. In parts of East Asia, it's more common to find people with fewer wisdom teeth, if any [source: Vines]. If people of a culture have reached the point where they don't use a trait, they may lose it.
But some scientists are beginning work on stopping the teeth from appearing altogether, so that we might bioengineer these teeth out of existence before evolution does it for us. Because there's a window of time in which there's no third molar, it might be possible to administer a laser or a chemical agent that would prevent the tooth growth. Preliminary studies have shown some success in dogs and rats [source: Silvestri, Singh].
Currently, the lack of wisdom teeth doesn't produce any great evolutionary advantage, particularly with the abundance of oral surgeons who can remove the wisdom teeth that do emerge. That makes it hard to say exactly how the trait might adapt in the future. Certainly, oral surgeons probably have their fingers crossed that these teeth continue to appear for a good long while. The rest of us will have to make do with lots of ice cream and the continuous exchange of surgery stories. Sure, those wisdom tooth lackers may claim they're more highly evolved because they don't have to go through a few days of misery, but what do they talk about at boring parties?
So when the jaw shortens, due to a variety of selective pressures, eventually the tissue required for third molar development won't even be present, and if that tissue is not present, then the wisdom tooth cannot grow.For wisdom teeth to form, the tissue that starts the process of tooth building has to migrate back in the mouth to interact with the back jaw tissue. If this migration doesn't happen, then no tooth will grow there.
And you've fabricated the idea that sexual selection is even a factor in this case. Try posting bigger fonts next time. Bigger words make a better argumentSEXUAL SELECTION IS STILL A FORM OF SELECTION PRESSURE
I need to cite the fact that an infection of the jaw 20,000 years ago was more likely to be fatal (by a long shot) than it is today? NahCitation required. Impacted wisdom teeth cause abcesses and infections, very close to the brain.
I know. Hence that gene existing in the first place. And had we still been running around wearing fucking mammoth skins and not having access to modern medicine, the gene for a lack of wisdom teeth would be beneficial and eventually spread throughout the population and you'd have a point[/quote]You're also making a huge error because you're not realizing that modernity is only the last 10k years, and prior to that we had as much as 100 million years of natural and other forms of selection generating the gene pool we have today.
irrelevant.And you're also missing the fact that,as I demonstrated in response to Tuco yesterday, the rate of genetic change in populations is linearly correlated with the frequency of those genes in the population size andto the size of the overall population as well.
time to start grasping the mechanisms of evolutionLike I said. Its time to stop posting.
I think this may be where we're at here.
A huge quote that addresses the argument with a paltry "Some experts say it's possible these teeth will eventually disappear", then goes on to support my argument in the final paragraphThe Evolution of Wisdom Teeth - Are people without wisdom teeth more highly evolved? | HowStuffWorks
Quoting again for emphasis
So when the jaw shortens, due to a variety of selective pressures, eventually the tissue required for third molar development won't even be present, and if that tissue is not present, then the wisdom tooth cannot grow.
Ergo, here is your viable pathway to losing wisdom teeth via shortening of the mandible as a result of selection pressure both natural, artificial, sexual and otherwise.