Aging & Evolution

[Marmora Man]

I am of an age where hair has disappeared from my head and is, instead, growing from nose, nostrils and ears. Why?

What evolutionary purpose do these contrasting hairy effects serve?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

They trap the cold air and warm it up - you can't afford a shock at your age!

[Moos]

Marmora Man, from a purely, coldly, soulless evolutionary point of view, nothing about you serves any purpose. Your purpose was to provide your genes to your offspring, and protect them until they were old enough to protect themselves.

(In contrast, Marmora Woman retains a purpose - she will be able to lend her expertise to her sons' women-folk as they raise small children, although she is less useful than their own mothers would be as she will not be quite as certain as they will be that they are protecting their own genetic descendents)

Your loss of head hair is a by-product of the testosterone that made you a desirable mate in the first place. Your hair is no longer needed, as your genes no longer care if you catch a cold and die, so the retention of head hair is no longer important. I believe (but am reaching here) that the ongoing growth of your body hair is the leftover secondary sexual characteristic that again marked you out as manly in the first place.

All of this is why I like to think there is more to life and its purpose than the purely genetic explanation.. but that's for another discussion. Needless to say, I don't share your genes' view on your obsolescence.

[legalbeagle]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I believe (but am reaching here) that

> the ongoing growth of your body hair is the

> leftover secondary sexual characteristic that

> again marked you out as manly in the first place.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Bird don't make nest in bare tree".

[waynetta]

ASK your barber to save your hair clippings. In later life these can be made into a stylish wig and will match your remaining hair perfectly.

[Moos]

What? Did I kill this thread?

Oh well. That'll teach me. I'm going back to frivolity where I belong.

[Brendan]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All of this is why I like to think there is more

> to life and its purpose than the purely genetic

> explanation..

So rather than resign oneself to the unfortunate consequences of an often unpredictable and nonsensical process it is better to put it down to intelligent design directed by a deity who by that very reasoning must be a right bastard because after 40 years hard graft he makes the hair fall off your head and pubes grow out your nose.

[Moos]

Is that view being ascribed to me? Thank goodness I didn't get to read the pre-edited version.

I'm not an 'intelligent design'-er. We have to put in the caveat that future generations may find a better explanation but at the moment evolution is the best explanation of how everything works.

I just think that there's more to life and its purpose than the workings of genetics.

[Loz]

[lights blue touchpaper. stands back]

Darwin's theory of evolution says that the 'fittest' (i.e. those that can best succeed in a given environment) survive and breed. If you look at all the 'successful' people, in the western world at least, they are the ones that will have the lowest reproduction rate.

Is the human race de-evolving?

[mockney piers]

Really? I would have thought the ability to survive as species with a lower reproduction rate is a sign of things getting better rather than worse.

[Moos]

You're looking at it from a human perspective where you need to think like a gene. Your genes don't give a shit if you live in misery and die at the age of 30 - they define success by solely your ability to mate and reproduce. That was my point in responding to MM in the first place - he asked for a genetic explanation, but the explanation (although I think valid) basically renders him completely ineligible to be alive at all any more.

So the pauper who has 15 children, 6 of whom live to adulthood, is far more successful than Bill Gates with his miserable 2 kids, or the total non-achiever Wolfgang Mozart with no children at all.

Do we define success, happiness, humanity in genetic terms? Of course we don't. It's not enough.

[Moos]

cross-posted with mockers

[Huguenot]

I don't think we're anti-evolutionary (cross post with M & MP), the time scale is too short.

It's more likely that we're in the middle of a population bubble that's on the cusp of collapse. Winning societies will be those that manage to intelligently manage their resources to sustain themselves beyond the crash.

This means learning the relevant lessons about consideration, rationalism, energy management, nimbyism and social responsibility.

Those are mainly the estate of 'successful' people (as you describe them).

I see no evidence that Britain is scoring an awful lot of points in any of those areas at the moment, so I wouldn't assume that we'll be a 'winning' society.

[Loz]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're looking at it from a human perspective

> where you need to think like a gene. Your genes

> don't give a shit if you live in misery and die at

> the age of 30 - they define success by solely your

> ability to mate and reproduce. That was my point

> in responding to MM in the first place - he asked

> for a genetic explanation, but the explanation

> (although I think valid) basically renders him

> completely ineligible to be alive at all any more.

>

>

> So the pauper who has 15 children, 6 of whom live

> to adulthood, is far more successful than Bill

> Gates with his miserable 2 kids, or the total

> non-achiever Wolfgang Mozart with no children at

> all.

>

> Do we define success, happiness, humanity in

> genetic terms? Of course we don't. It's not

> enough.

But Moos, I am thinking like a gene, but I'm also considering the outcome. The point of evolution is pass down the best genes for the environment. You sort of skirt on this by noting that Gates and Mozart had a much less of an effect on the gene pool that the pauper.

Let me put it another way. Most of the more intelligent end of the spectrum are arguably the successful ones in society. The less intelligent, generally the less successful. But, the more intelligent/successful are not breeding. Are we getting less intelligent? Darwin would suggest we are. Studies indicate quote the opposite - IQ scores are constantly having to be rejigged to hold the mean at 100 (The Flynn Effect).

For instance, I am rather short sighted. Nature would have seen me off by age 12, eaten by something or other. But, instead I wear glasses/lenses and have made it happily to middle age and I am holding down a decent job mainly because I am literate and numerate.

Maybe the human race has surpassed evolution.

[Moos]

The point of evolution is pass down the best genes for the environment.

Is it? It's been a while since I read a book on evolution, so maybe I need to brush up. But that suggests an intelligent design approach, doesn't it? That genes want to somehow improve the environment by working happily within it. I thought that evolution worked on a pure and simple approach of maximum reproduction based on reproducing the traits that are good at reproduction. You have survived because you have come from genes of people intelligent enough to think up things like glasses and therefore make to adulthood, mate and reproduce. So your brain is a successful evolutionary trait, but 'the most successful people in the western world' are not necessarily successful in evolutionary terms.

However, I've run out of evoluationary knowledge and will have to see what someone else can come up with.

[Loz]

I thought that evolution worked on a pure and simple approach of maximum reproduction based on reproducing the traits that are good at reproduction.

It's not just reproduction; it's survival as well. For instance, the Peppered Moth. It also shows that evolution is not usually a long drawn out process, but a series of short bursts of change/survival caused by environmental change.

[Brendan]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is that view being ascribed to me? Thank goodness

> I didn't get to read the pre-edited version.

>

> I'm not an 'intelligent design'-er. We have to

> put in the caveat that future generations may find

> a better explanation but at the moment evolution

> is the best explanation of how everything works.

>

>

> I just think that there's more to life and its

> purpose than the workings of genetics.

Fine, fine. Ruin my joke if you must.

[Moos]

Yes, I do understand that evolution can work remarkably quickly in response to changes in the environment, it's fascinating isn't it? Thanks vm for the peppered moth link, was very interesting to read.

But I am still not seeing support for survival beyond reproductive age. Obviously survival to get to adulthood, reproduce and perhaps keep on reproducing for a few seasons for good measure is supported by evolution. However, I'd be interested to see whether there is evidence for species' evolution to support survival beyond reproductive age. I did give a speculative example in my first post, but it remains linked to the survival of the second generation - one theory why women are thought to live longer than men is that as secondary child-carers they remain functional to the family.

[Moos]

Sorry Brenda - over-sensitive. Last time I admitted to someone I believed in God they said 'well, I just think medicine is more efficacious than prayer'. Er, what?

[Brendan]

Cor, they were using big words to say something stupid.

[Ted Max]

Well, that's CofE vicars for you.

[Brendan]

Fucking hippies.

[HAL9000]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, I do understand that evolution can work

> remarkably quickly in response to changes in the

> environment, ... peppered moth ...

Just being pedantic: the peppered moth is an example of rapid natural selection rather than rapid genetic evolution - it must have taken a very long time for the peppered moth to evolve into a single species with two colour schemes.