2 Questions

aaqucnaona

This sentence is a lie
Valued Senior Member
1. Is there any indication that flowers can be affected by selective pressure within an individual plant's lifetime, genetic/hertiable or otherwise?
2. Most other species would consider us hopelessly flat-faced and neoteny has indeed flattened our snouts, yet why do we have a protruding and downward facing nose?
 
Also, why is there [in humans] a fascination with sparkly objects like stars and jewels? Is this exhibited in other species as well?
 
Also, why is there [in humans] a fascination with sparkly objects like stars and jewels? Is this exhibited in other species as well?

I know that crows like brightly colored and shiny items. Of course Bower birds are famous for there courtship collections.

Bower Bird courtship area:

Satin+Bowerbirds+bower.JPG


Wood Thrushes like cellophane to include in there nests - the seem to seek it out.:shrug:
 
2. Most other species would consider us hopelessly flat-faced and neoteny has indeed flattened our snouts, yet why do we have a protruding and downward facing nose?

1) Keeping an airway open during nursing
2) Keeping rain and dirt out of our nasal cavities
 
1. Is there any indication that flowers can be affected by selective pressure within an individual plant's lifetime, genetic/hertiable or otherwise?

Chimeras in plants might qualify.

THE ORIGIN OF CHIMERAS
Chimeras arise when a cell undergoes mutation. This mutation may be spontaneous or it may be induced by irradiation or treatment with chemical mutagens. If the cell which mutates is located near the crest of the apical dome, then all other cells which are produced by division from it will also be the mutated type. The result will be cells of different genotypes growing adjacent in a plant tissue, the definition of a chimera.

If the location of the cell at the time of mutation is in a region where little further cell division will occur, then the likelihood of detecting this mutation by visual inspection of the whole plant is low. Furthermore, if the mutation results in a genotype which is not very different morphologically from the rest of the plant, then the likelihood of identifying the plant as a chimera is also low. A mutation which results in colorless rather than green cells (variegation) is easily detectable, whereas a mutation which results in greater sugar accumulation in the cells would not be observed.

2. Most other species would consider us hopelessly flat-faced and neoteny has indeed flattened our snouts, yet why do we have a protruding and downward facing nose?

I suspect that this change would have come about when our species began to walk upright.

The downward facing nostril would be beneficial in keeping out dust and debris as we evolved toward more visual dependency and perhaps less on the olfactory, although it remains one of our most acute senses.

Given that our nose serves as a filter as well, it is easier for condensed moisture and mucous to drain from this positioning of the nostrils.

Just my first thoughts upon reading your questions. :)
 
1. Is there any indication that flowers can be affected by selective pressure within an individual plant's lifetime, genetic/hertiable or otherwise?

Can you please clarify what you mean by this? How can we judge something as a selective pressure if we don’t look at passage of traits through generations?
 
Can you please clarify what you mean by this? How can we judge something as a selective pressure if we don’t look at passage of traits through generations?

Like which flowers [by height on the plant, colour, amount of nectar,ect] are being pollinated, eaten, allowed to reach the fruit stage, is popular food at the fruit state, etc.
 
I think that whatever you mean, "selective pressure" it's not exactly the appropriate term for it.

I have the impression that you're wondering whether flowers react to environmental cues/stimuli in order maximize reproduction. And/or perhaps to "inform" the next generation of such environmental factor (genetic imprinting).

I don't know the answer though, that's an interesting possibility.




2. Most other species would consider us hopelessly flat-faced and neoteny has indeed flattened our snouts, yet why do we have a protruding and downward facing nose?

Well, not all of us, but mostly Europeans, and some northern Native-Americans (I'm not sure if it's an independent development or miscegenation with Europeans though), albeit it does exist in some Africans without coming from European admixture, I guess.

I don't think there's necessarily a single explanation, or that anyone really knows, may be impossible to know. It may one of the following, or even a mix of all or some of them, I guess:

  • an adaptation for cold climates and/or some other climatic situation
  • perhaps something related with improving olfaction
  • protection from germs (which perhaps would fit in the climate category, somewhat indirectly)
  • sexual selection*
  • a "random walk" of phenotypic variation

My guess is that random walk is the main factor, or at least a very important contributing/starting factor for any other possible explanation. Natural or sexual selection would work better with such variation being present to begin with. I have the impression that without a good "head start" advantage coming of randomness, such noses must have had even less than a nose of advantage, if you forgive me for such pun.




* There's even a somewhat freakish theory that such noses, plus the beard, mimick penises. But that's not necessary. It seems that some of our sexual preferences are shaped by imprint of populational averages and traits of the parent of the opposite sex. So the "random walk" mechanism would tend to be reinforced by sexual selection almost inevitably. But so would be any other eventual advantage for such noses.
 
Originally Posted by aaqucnaona: Also, why is there [in humans] a fascination with sparkly objects like stars and jewels?
Sorry, can't answer; looking at something sparkly... :m:
 
:D I apologize again. Just being silly. :rolleyes: The fact is I think I do have an answer to this one. It's not so much 'fascination' with sparkly things, but sparkly things do get a creature's attention in one way or another. Hence the use of aluminum pie plates, old CDs, or tinsel in fields to keep away birds. Scarecrows had a long and glorious reign, but the modern, smart farmer uses shiny things to freak out winged things and keep their seeds safe.
 
The "aquatic ape" theory suggests that our downward-facing noses are an adaptation that is useful for swimming. The theory itself is quite controversial, though.
 
The evolution of the human nose is a curiosity.

First I'm wondering if it coincides with the loss of the full coat of hair. Second, this idea of coincidence makes me wonder if it's an inconsequential change that rides on the same gene along with some other adaptation such as losing hair.

Some other answers I saw online were attempting to explain it as a functional change to increase warmth and moisture of the airways. That to me doesn't correlate too well with adapting away from arboreal life, or from losing hair, which indicates the protohuman was keeping warmer.

Considering the advantages of fur and the way other critters have other adaptations for seasonal and climate differences through long and short hair, shedding, etc., I was also thinking about the amount of time apes spend grooming and debugging (literally, you code monkeys :p ).

Loss of fur could coincide with spending more time in contact with the dirt, changes in the social structure and access to fellow nitpickers (present company excluded). If parasites and "hygiene" are a cause, then this leads to the question of how defenses against various parasites changed for the protohuman. My next thought was that of bald carrion eaters. Is it an adaptation similar to that for eating massively infested rotten meat? If so, is the nose then related to all of this in some more subtle way? It seems that the nose stores some powerful semi-beneficial bacteria (staph and strep seem to protect against other invasive forms).

Another thing I was thinking about was ground habitats such as cave dwelling. In the shade these ancestors may have needed an adaptation for exposure to dust, mites and fungal spores, without adversely impacting the advantages of the immune response. So even a slight roof over the nares could help. We seem to stand apart from animals in the wild with regard to allergies, and some indoor causes are known to plague us.

Sexual selection for a nose would amplify all of this. Maybe something as simple as having a persistent cold or allergies would hinder mating.

One last idea. When we exhale though the nose, as when eating or drinking, since it's difficult not to, there a slight back pressure which the chimps wouldn't experience. This would potentially help with sensing the quality of the thing we're eating or drinking. This goes back to the way our eating habits changed from, say, eating termites to cleaning up after a kill (in the way hyenas do after a big cat has finished or dragged away the main part of the carcass). At some point it may have been necessary to distinguish flavors and the odors of food in a way that doesn't apply to the noseless ancestor.
 
The evolution of the human nose is a curiosity.

First I'm wondering if it coincides with the loss of the full coat of hair. Second, this idea of coincidence makes me wonder if it's an inconsequential change that rides on the same gene along with some other adaptation such as losing hair.

Some other answers I saw online were attempting to explain it as a functional change to increase warmth and moisture of the airways. That to me doesn't correlate too well with adapting away from arboreal life, or from losing hair, which indicates the protohuman was keeping warmer.

Considering the advantages of fur and the way other critters have other adaptations for seasonal and climate differences through long and short hair, shedding, etc., I was also thinking about the amount of time apes spend grooming and debugging (literally, you code monkeys :p ).

Loss of fur could coincide with spending more time in contact with the dirt, changes in the social structure and access to fellow nitpickers (present company excluded). If parasites and "hygiene" are a cause, then this leads to the question of how defenses against various parasites changed for the protohuman. My next thought was that of bald carrion eaters. Is it an adaptation similar to that for eating massively infested rotten meat? If so, is the nose then related to all of this in some more subtle way? It seems that the nose stores some powerful semi-beneficial bacteria (staph and strep seem to protect against other invasive forms).

Another thing I was thinking about was ground habitats such as cave dwelling. In the shade these ancestors may have needed an adaptation for exposure to dust, mites and fungal spores, without adversely impacting the advantages of the immune response. So even a slight roof over the nares could help. We seem to stand apart from animals in the wild with regard to allergies, and some indoor causes are known to plague us.

Sexual selection for a nose would amplify all of this. Maybe something as simple as having a persistent cold or allergies would hinder mating.

One last idea. When we exhale though the nose, as when eating or drinking, since it's difficult not to, there a slight back pressure which the chimps wouldn't experience. This would potentially help with sensing the quality of the thing we're eating or drinking. This goes back to the way our eating habits changed from, say, eating termites to cleaning up after a kill (in the way hyenas do after a big cat has finished or dragged away the main part of the carcass). At some point it may have been necessary to distinguish flavors and the odors of food in a way that doesn't apply to the noseless ancestor.

Intresting theories AI. I still cant think of any certain reason why we should have lost our fur either. Do you have an links to studies on our fur loss and nose evolution?
 
@aaq --

The most common theory I've heard is that the fur simply wasn't needed anymore once we started walking upright and thus was done away with as a useless expenditure of resources(which is something that is virtually always selected against).
 
The "aquatic ape" theory suggests that our downward-facing noses are an adaptation that is useful for swimming. The theory itself is quite controversial, though.
Especially in the light of all the new evidence, specifically Ardipithecus, a biped who nonetheless retained one prehensile toe on each foot to escape upward from predators. It turns out that we evolved in the forest, not the savannah, which in itself argues against the aquatic ape hypothesis. In addition, they keep filling in the gaps in our history so they become shorter. This makes it increasingly unlikely that we spent tens of thousands of generations adapting to an aquatic environment and then tens of thousands more going back the other way.
 
The Evolution of Nasal Turbinates and Mammalian Endothermy
Willem J. Hillenius
Paleobiology, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 1992), pp. 17-29
Published by: Paleontological Society

Abstract:
Complex nasal turbinal bones are associated with reduction of respiratory water loss in desert mammals and have previously been described as an adaptation to xeric conditions. However, complex turbinates are found in virtually all mammals. Experimental data presented here indicate that turbinates also substantially reduce respiratory water loss in five species of small mammals from relatively mesic environments. The data support the conclusion that turbinates did not evolve primarily as an adaptation to particular environmental conditions, but in relation to high ventilation rates, typical of all mammals. Complex turbinates appear to be an ancient attribute of mammals and may have originated among the therapsid ancestors of mammals, in relation to elevated ventilation rates and the evolution of endothermy.
 
fraggle said:
It turns out that we evolved in the forest, not the savannah, which in itself argues against the aquatic ape hypothesis.
No, it argues in favor of the wading ape compared with the others available.

The likelihood that we became bipeds before we began to venture into the savanna, that we came down from the trees into water rather than open land, was and is a key difference between the standard hypotheses and the wading ape one - the discovery refuted the conventional hypotheses extant at the the time, and forced a major revision of the proposed evolutionary pressures and circumstances in every possibility advanced to that time except the wading ape one, which it matched perfectly.

And you have been corrected on that three times now, once before with links and stuff.

Also, why is there [in humans] a fascination with sparkly objects like stars and jewels? Is this exhibited in other species as well?
Many: from raccoons to corvids, fish to octopods.
 
@aaq --

The most common theory I've heard is that the fur simply wasn't needed anymore once we started walking upright and thus was done away with as a useless expenditure of resources(which is something that is virtually always selected against).

There are several reports that suggest that pre-humans lost their fur so they could increase body-cooling (via perspiration). Apparently, pre-humans are great runners, and would run down game for many kilometers. Even though faster, they would eventually become heat-stressed, and the slower pre-humans would catch up. Finally, the prey becomes completely heat-exhausted, while the pre-humans are still running strong. We see that today that humans are great runners, and can run down game over many kilometers of chase.
 
Back
Top