Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
Without some sort of selective pressure the number of people born without wisdom teeth would be at most stable. There should be no increase. Hodj mentioned jaw shape (attractiveness of mates) or brain size could drive this change today because having wisdom teeth is not coming with any significant disadvantage to propagating your genes.
On that note why is the Appendix still so popular, that has a built in disadvantage and pressure to select against it.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
We still don't fully understand why the appendix has been retained in its vestigial state for so long. I believe recent hypotheses and research suggests maybe it has some indirect relationship to either digestion or the immune system. Could be wrong, been awhile since I've looked into it.

The appendix is a....rather strange beast. It was used originally to help digest plant fibers.

This article

What Does the Appendix Do?

suggests that it may help regulate helpful gut microbes useful to digestion. This is an area that is seeing a lot of research (the relationship of gut microbes to overall health), so this hypothesis could be nothing more than a reflection of that fad, or it could be a real explanation.

We just don't know, unfortunately. Maybe one day soon we will.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
Hodj's answer was even better anyway. The basic concept that there is a more attractive trait tied to the lack of wisdom teeth offers a legitimate explanation.
 

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,593
11,918
Our ape ancestors had a diet high in fibrous and starch foods, mainly roots, leaves, tubers and the like. Their physiology accounted for this fact. They had extremely long intestines (ever notice how so many large primates have those large extended guts? Example:
rrr_img_132324.jpg
) which helped to break down that fiber and pull the nutrients from it. They also had massive jaws, thick, dense flat teeth, small brain sizes and often large bony protrusions from their skulls which anchored the large mastoid muscles required to chew these heavy, uncooked fibrous plants. Take a look at the gorilla skull in this image, and compare it to that of the homo habilis and the homo erectus, sapiens, and neanderthalensis, to get an idea of what I mean by all this
rrr_img_132331.jpg
Notice how their face is very large, their brain case very small, there's a ridge of bone on top of the cranium which is used as an anchor for the mastoid muscles, the massive mandible and maxilla, and the large, thick flat teeth. Meanwhile all the others are sort of reversed. The face is smaller, the brain case is large, the mandible and maxilla are gracile, the teeth are small, rounded, cusps more and sharper overall.

So we can actually see these changes through comparative anatomy and also in the fossil record.

Gradually, as Africa dried out and became more arid, we moved out of the trees and we began to eat more meat as a result (mostly what we did was scavange the remains of carcasses other animals had left behind). This is where anthropologists believe basic tool making began. If you could shape a stone into a sharp blade, you could cut pieces of meat off carcasses, carry it back to your shelter to eat in safety, etc. This is also when we began to become totally bipedal. Those hominin ancestors who could stand up straighter in the savanna could see further, and therefore could detect predators at a further distance, increasing their rate of survival fractionally over those who could not.

Anyway, this new and increased influx of fatty acids and amino acids, over long stretches of time, like a million years, gradually increased our brain size (our brains increased by as much as 3x over some of our ancestors during this time frame!). As our brain size increased, we learned how to better process our foods by learning how to capture, control and create fire and to cook our foods, which led to better nutrition. Those hominin ancestors with better nutrition obviously had a much stronger selective advantage than those who could not.

All things in physiology come with a trade off. As brain size increased, and access to cooked and highly nutritious foods increased, our physiology began to alter to compensate. Our teeth, jaws, intestinal tracts, and mastoid muscles began to shrink, as we they were no longer required to process these heavy starch and fiber based food stuffs which were the staple foods of our earliest ancestors, which helps offset the physiological changes in the cranium which resulted from larger brain size. So brain case size goes up, the bones of the face, mandible and maxilla, etc. shrank to compensate.

Then along came agriculture, where I talked above about how our skeletal structure began to become much more gracile (thinner, lighter, though still strong), this is reflected in the continued shrinkage of the mandible, hence why we slowly evolving such that our wisdom teeth are becoming vestigial and eventually will probably disappear completely or nearly so. You'd still have the occassional person with a vestigial set of wisdom teeth, just as people are occassionally born with tiny vestigial tails, but these would be considered anomalies at that point.


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.
Great post. Also fuck you, I look damn sexy with my Wisdom teeth pulled out!
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
Without some sort of selective pressure the number of people born without wisdom teeth would be at most stable. There should be no increase. Hodj mentioned jaw shape (attractiveness of mates) or brain size could drive this change today because having wisdom teeth is not coming with any significant disadvantage to propagating your genes.
On that note why is the Appendix still so popular, that has a built in disadvantage and pressure to select against it.
This. I would challenge anyone's assertion that lack of wisdom teeth is propagating through the population. Seems more likely that in the past, therewasa selective pressure against wisdom teeth, but we've effectively halted that in modern society
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
Our ape ancestors had a diet high in fibrous and starch foods, mainly roots, leaves, tubers and the like. Their physiology accounted for this fact. They had extremely long intestines (ever notice how so many large primates have those large extended guts? Example:
rrr_img_132324.jpg
) which helped to break down that fiber and pull the nutrients from it. They also had massive jaws, thick, dense flat teeth, small brain sizes and often large bony protrusions from their skulls which anchored the large mastoid muscles required to chew these heavy, uncooked fibrous plants. Take a look at the gorilla skull in this image, and compare it to that of the homo habilis and the homo erectus, sapiens, and neanderthalensis, to get an idea of what I mean by all this
rrr_img_132331.jpg
Notice how their face is very large, their brain case very small, there's a ridge of bone on top of the cranium which is used as an anchor for the mastoid muscles, the massive mandible and maxilla, and the large, thick flat teeth. Meanwhile all the others are sort of reversed. The face is smaller, the brain case is large, the mandible and maxilla are gracile, the teeth are small, rounded, cusps more and sharper overall.

So we can actually see these changes through comparative anatomy and also in the fossil record.

Gradually, as Africa dried out and became more arid, we moved out of the trees and we began to eat more meat as a result (mostly what we did was scavange the remains of carcasses other animals had left behind). This is where anthropologists believe basic tool making began. If you could shape a stone into a sharp blade, you could cut pieces of meat off carcasses, carry it back to your shelter to eat in safety, etc. This is also when we began to become totally bipedal. Those hominin ancestors who could stand up straighter in the savanna could see further, and therefore could detect predators at a further distance, increasing their rate of survival fractionally over those who could not.

Anyway, this new and increased influx of fatty acids and amino acids, over long stretches of time, like a million years, gradually increased our brain size (our brains increased by as much as 3x over some of our ancestors during this time frame!). As our brain size increased, we learned how to better process our foods by learning how to capture, control and create fire and to cook our foods, which led to better nutrition. Those hominin ancestors with better nutrition obviously had a much stronger selective advantage than those who could not.

All things in physiology come with a trade off. As brain size increased, and access to cooked and highly nutritious foods increased, our physiology began to alter to compensate. Our teeth, jaws, intestinal tracts, and mastoid muscles began to shrink, as we they were no longer required to process these heavy starch and fiber based food stuffs which were the staple foods of our earliest ancestors, which helps offset the physiological changes in the cranium which resulted from larger brain size. So brain case size goes up, the bones of the face, mandible and maxilla, etc. shrank to compensate.

Then along came agriculture, where I talked above about how our skeletal structure began to become much more gracile (thinner, lighter, though still strong), this is reflected in the continued shrinkage of the mandible, hence why we slowly evolving such that our wisdom teeth are becoming vestigial and eventually will probably disappear completely or nearly so. You'd still have the occassional person with a vestigial set of wisdom teeth, just as people are occassionally born with tiny vestigial tails, but these would be considered anomalies at that point.


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.
No offence, hodj, but this is a pretty long gish gallop. You only address the question in the second last tiny paragraph and only gloss over it.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
WTF?

Can someone explain the process on how something like the slow disappearance of our wisdom teeth occurs?
Is one question which requires an explanation of the overall evolutionary history, which is what I went into.

It's not like mates are being chosen for their lack of wisdom teeth or wisdom teeth owners have a lower survival rate.
Is a question we don't have a direct answer for, which is why I stated that we can hypothesize some plausible explanations, and I proposed a couple of plausible explanations.

A gish gallop is a debate technique of throwing out many claims in a row in order to overwhelm your opponent.

We aren't having a debate, so I couldn't gish gallop anyone, because I had no opponents, and wasn't trying to overwhelm anyone with multiple claims.

In fact, I really only have one claim here: Cranial gracialization is a result of dietary and environmental changes that influenced our evolutionary history.

That's a fact, by the way, undeniable and uncontroversially true.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
What good is an anthro degree if you can't use it to provide overly long explanations?
Exactly!

I didn't spend half a decade studying this crap to not get excited when I finally get to talk about it!

In the science thread no less!
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
WTF?



Is one question which requires an explanation of the overall evolutionary history, which is what I went into.



Is a question we don't have a direct answer for, which is why I stated that we can hypothesize some plausible explanations, and I proposed a couple of plausible explanations.

A gish gallop is a debate technique of throwing out many claims in a row in order to overwhelm your opponent.

We aren't having a debate, so I couldn't gish gallop anyone, because I had no opponents, and wasn't trying to overwhelm anyone with multiple claims.

In fact, I really only have one claim here: Cranial gracialization is a result of dietary and environmental changes that influenced our evolutionary history.

That's a fact, by the way, undeniable and uncontroversially true.
I wasn't being a dick (and yes, I was being liberal with my use of gish gallop). But it was a lot of information thrown at the board that really didn't answer the question (the important part of the question being how wisdom teeth could possibly disappear inmodernhumans). The answer of which seems to be: wisdom teeth probably aren't disappearing in modern humans.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
Exactly!

I didn't spend half a decade studying this crap to not get excited when I finally get to talk about it!

In the science thread no less!
Again, I didn't mean to be a dickhead. I can appreciate your enthusiasm and in any other circumstance, your previous post would get nothing but a thumbs up from me
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I wasn't being a dick (and yes, I was being liberal with my use of gish gallop). But it was a lot of information thrown at the board that really didn't answer the question (the important part of the question being how wisdom teeth could possibly disappear inmodernhumans). The answer of which seems to be: wisdom teeth probably aren't disappearing in modern humans.
Uh, the question was first how does wisdom teeth disappearance occur, and the second question was why is it still occurring now.

I answered both. The first with what we know. The second with what we can conjecture.

If you think we aren't still evolving out of our wisdom teeth, I'd suggest you look into the fact that something like 70-80% of people do not fit the criteria for retaining their wisdom teeth, and the fact that something like 5 plus million people a year in the US alone are getting their wisdom teeth pulled due to their potential for impaction, and rethink your position.

I found this pretty interesting.

Why Some People Lack Wisdom Teeth
My wife is like a quarter Native American, and like I said, two of hers didn't even fully develop. They were just like little hard round rocks in her jaw.

They were a real bitch to extract too, as a result.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
8,280
10,219
I know this is tangential to your dumb ass event goers, but I for one am super excited about how quickly humans can evolve when genetic therapy comes into play.
I witnessed an interesting (for various degrees of "interesting") discussion on a panel on CRISPR/CAS9 in Feb. It was at the annual meeting of biology research directors for the french NIH, and the entire gist of the argument was "we don't need genetic engineering when we have embryo selection".

Yes. The head of the human biology ethics committee for France (ok, France, bite me) was arguing that genetic engineering is "completely unnecessary" (his words), and simply doing DNA analysis and discarding unsuitable embryos is good enough when it comes to the most obvious use of genetic engineering. Engineering germ line = bad. Modifying small blocks of cells = ok.

I don't know about ethics committees in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't at least as cautious as that.
The number 3 is significant. There's a few studies floating around about the fact that we're starting to see an increase in early-onset diabetes children. Those children are suffering from autoimmune diabetes (in which a very active immune system attacks some pancreas cells). As usual in biology, it's a compromise: efficient immune system vs diabetes. As we're starting to mitigate diabetes, then the compromise is flip-flopping from "weaker immune system is OK because at least you don't die before reproduction of blood sugar problems" to "better immune system first; who cares about pancreas anyway".

It's still not much of an evolutionary change because it is geographically limited (developed nations) and chronologically limited (last two generations), but it is probably going to be one of the myriad factors changing our species.

And it is one of the things that will/might cause problems in our evolution, because while natural selection has no problems doing those cold-earthed calculations, if you are deciding about children, it's hard to decide "let's give my children diabetes; they'll be better off against the risk of flu death".
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
If you think we aren't still evolving out of our wisdom teeth, I'd suggest you look into the fact that something like 70-80% of people do not fit the criteria for retaining their wisdom teeth, and the fact that something like 5 plus million people a year in the US alone are getting their wisdom teeth pulled due to their potential for impaction, and rethink your position.
This is completely irrelevant. how many of those 5 million are being prevented from passing on their wisdom teeth genetics? How many are having less reproductive success because of their impacted wisdom teeth? Rethink your position
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,689
8,967
He's talking about jaw size he just wasn't clear.
He still needs to explain how it impedes modern reproductive success. It doesn't.

When humans were still running around in the wilderness, but after changes in diet rendered wisdom teeth obsolete, there would be a net negative to retaining them. Infection and dental impactions would have an actual affect on reproductive success. But that isn't the case anymore.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
This is completely irrelevant. how many of those 5 million are being prevented from passing on their wisdom teeth genetics? How many are having less reproductive success because of their impacted wisdom teeth? Rethink your position
Uhh, 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.

He's talking about jaw size he just wasn't clear.
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.

He still needs to explain how it impedes modern reproductive success. It doesn't
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).