Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
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.
You recognize how flimsy this argument is, right? And that it's the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
ChTMiBGUYAAiqov.jpg:large
cool meme
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
And you've fabricated the idea that sexual selection is even a factor in this case.
Lol okay.

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? Nah
No, you need to grasp that because an infection in the jaw 20k years ago was more likely to be fatal than it is today is what causes the modern allele frequencies to occur at the rates they do today.

irrelevant.
You say this, then follow with this

time to start grasping the mechanisms of evolution


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 paragraph
That post is an overview of the entire topic.

Sorry you failed to grasp that.

You recognize how flimsy this argument is, right? And that it's the only thing you have to hang your hat on?
Do you understand the difference between someone saying "We know this to be true" and "We hypothesize this as a potential explanation"?

Do you understand that implicit in the latter is an acceptance that we don't have all the answers, yes or no?
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
No, you need to grasp that because an infection in the jaw 20k years ago was more likely to be fatal than it is today is what causes the modern allele frequencies to occur at the rates they do today.
Really, man? How many times have I said the same thing. Yes, there were selective pressures 20k years ago that selected for a lack of wisdom teeth resulting in the variety we see today. But since those pressure no longer exist with the modern medicine and dentistry, there's no reason to think that gene should be any more successful than the gene for wisdom teeth. That's it. You tack on some crap about sexual selection which I think you know is a crap argument, but you also know it's theonlyargument.


Do you understand the difference between someone saying "We know this to be true" and "We hypothesize this as a potential explanation"?

Do you understand that implicit in the latter is an acceptance that we don't have all the answers, yes or no?
Do you understand that the entire point of my post was to state that there is no reason that a lack of wisdom teeth should still be selected for and therefor wisdom teeth are probably not 'on their way out'? If you think that's a reasonable argument, you're doing a lot of writing trying to prove me wrong
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Really, man? How many times have I said the same thing. Yes, there were selective pressures 20k years ago that selected for a lack of wisdom teeth resulting in the variety we see today. But since those pressure no longer exist with the modern medicine and dentistry, there's no reason to think that gene should be any more successful than the gene for wisdom teeth.
So you don't understand how genes move to fixation and extinction in populations, and why a gene that is present in higher proportion in the population, in the absence of a selective pressure driving it down, will continue to move towards fixation, even if the original pressure which promoted it to a place of higher frequency in the population ceases to be.

Do you understand that the entire point of my post was to state that there is no reason that a lack of wisdom teeth should still be selected for and therefor wisdom teeth are probably not 'on their way out'? If you think that's a reasonable argument, you're doing a lot of writing trying to prove me wrong
I understand that you think this is the case.

I also understand why your presumption is incorrect. I've tried to explain it to you multiple times, but the arrogance of your ignorance is making it very difficult to get through to you right now.
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
When something has no actual effect on the survival of a species, it is generally regulated to being "vestigial" because it is not an important aspect of survival. It isn't so much that wisdom teeth are on their way out; it's that a lot of genetic constructs that do not have wisdom teeth are coming to the fore entirely because the requirement of having wisdom teeth isn't key to any form of survival in modern times. So having them isn't on the way out; it's that "requiring" them is no longer a thing.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
Anyway, this is going nowhere. Hodj might be able to dazzle some of the other posters here with boat loads of irrelevant information, but the fact is, he has yet to explain why the gene for a lack of wisdom teeth would still be positively selected for in today's society. Apart from 'maybe people without them are hotter and fuck more'. Which is really his argument.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
and why a gene that is present in higher proportion in the population, in the absence of a selective pressure driving it down, will continue to move towards fixation, even if the original pressure which promoted it to a place of higher frequency in the population ceases to be.
The 35% then?
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
This is going nowhere because you can't seem to grasp that there is more to selection pressure than just who dies before they reproduce.

Mostly because you don't know what you're talking about, and you're talking to someone who actually has a degreespecifically focused on the evolution of the human skeleton.

The 35% then?
Ignoring the mandibular shortening part of the equation.

You're terminal on this issue.

Time to stop doubling down and save some face.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
This is going nowhere because you can't seem to grasp that there is more to selection pressure than just who dies before they reproduce.

Mostly because you don't know what you're talking about, and you're talking to someone who actually has a degreespecifically focused on the evolution of the human skeleton.
Thanks Reza Aslan
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
46,815
78,428
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.
Serious question: Isn't sexual selection, cultural selection and other factors all parts of natural selection?
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
What has been?
Hardy-Weinberg principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hardy-Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences.These influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive.Because one or more of these influences are typically present in real populations, the Hardy-Weinberg principle describes an ideal condition against which the effects of these influences can be analyzed.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Serious question: Isn't sexual selection, cultural selection and other factors all parts of natural selection?
Yes, we're using the term natural selection here colloquially to designate selection that is caused by dying before you reach reproductive age and/or reproduce. Not in its umbrella sense that includes these other forms of selection. This is common parlance in academia as well. We'll often refer to sexual selection as its own form of selection, but technically it falls under the rubric of natural selection. Only artificial selection falls outside the umbrella of natural selection in the strict academic definition of the term, though.

I was going to add this to my last post and didn't, then you posted this question before I hit reply, so I should have just left it in the last post.
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
I think it has more to do with non-survival related characteristics being part of the selection process. A big beefy dude has roughly the same survival chances in modern society as your average Rero...er, neckbeard. So characteristics that would normally be associated with survival percentage are not considered nearly as important as they were back when the physical prowess of an individual determined how much food that person acquired on the daily.

So natural selection leans more towards specific survival tools while current selection leans more towards social affinity tools. Which are not really the same in a modern context.