all my ancestors had kids at 18. all my friend's ancestors had theirs at 36. I have less facial hair than my friend, do not like boxing, and read more, but am less instinctive and athletic. Over the past 2000 years his family has had half the number of generations as mine. Am I further down the evolutionary line? Or just jealous of his hairy chest??
Does this theory make any sense?
2006-12-29 23:05:57 · 11 answers · asked by amdby 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
sorry, I didn't mean "advanced", as in superior, I guess I meant "evolved". I suppose my supposition was that we've evolved from hairy apes, and that we'll end up not having body hair as we've made it redundant thru wearing clothes and having heated homes. Of course it's all hypothetical: I have no idea about my ancestors, and I don't know if my friend has a hairy chest or not!
2006-12-30 01:12:08 · update #1
Thanx for the answers, esp to Martyn who seemed closest to getting somewhere with this. It was a serious question: pity it brought out the teenage homphobic d-ck heads who want a slap, or more probably, a first sexual experience . I was more perturbed by Angel's supportive but very very condescending addition. A good intentioned attempt at tact which failed spectacularly.
For the question, I still reckon there is something in it.
2006-12-30 08:46:49 · update #2
Interesting question that. If you hypothetically imagine that every single one of your friends' ancestors waited until 36 to have children (unlikely!) and that all yours had had them at 18 then yours would indeed have been exposed to a greater number of mutation events, but this doesn't mean that they are necessarily more 'advanced'.
Firstly, since evolution doesn't have an ultimate aim, and you can't really consider one organism to be more advanced than another. Something like E.Coli may well have evolved a long time before humans, but that doesn't mean it's less advanced; it does what it does very well, and in terms of sheer numbers is more 'successful' than humans.
Secondly, you can't assume that becoming less hairy is an evolutionary progression; it may just be that by chance you happen to be a less hairy individual; imagine that the situation was blue vs brown eyes - neither is more advanced, they are just different.
There are also other factors to consider; degree of inbreeding, selective pressures within the two families, environmental effects etc. which could all be contributing to the perceived effects.
It is true that things that have a shorter life cycle do tend to evolve more rapidly though (fruit flies, bacteria etc.) so if the two populations (your family and your friends) were isolated in some way and yours continued to reproduce at a greater rate, then yours would be more likely to experience significant evolutionary change (i.e. change in allele frequency over time) than his within the same period of time.
Basically, your characteristics do not necessarily indicate a evolutionary difference, though it is possible. Don't be jealous though; you sound more pleasant than your friend!
2006-12-30 00:15:01 · answer #1 · answered by Nom De Guerre 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
haha (^ ^) made my day
you know ALL your ancestors? You should become paleoanthropologist, we sure could learn something from you.
To answer your last question: NO!!
What does the 2000 last years weigh in the billion years of evolution which eventually lead to you? Your hairless chest is maybe the result of some of your ancestors thinking a hairless chess is nice. Or it's just plain chance. I don't have a hairy chest. My father does. So what?
Furthermore, your question implies that hairlessness implies being more "advanced" in evolutionary terms (whatever that may mean). I don't know how you come to this conclusion. Is an Elephant more advanced than a bear? Well, no, they are all the result of billions of years of evolution. Exactly as is your friend.
2006-12-30 00:11:26 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. Zaius 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, ignore the gay accusations. Your preference for or lack of a hairy chest does NOT determine your sexuality.
Second: I lack wisdom teeth..they never developed. Does this make me more evolutionarily advanced? Who knows. There are wide variations within a species. All the families you refer to in your question are all part of the same species, and it is the variation within the species which helps ensure the survival of the species. So viva la difference!
Keep on thinking!! Clearer questions will come with practice :-))
2006-12-30 01:48:35 · answer #3 · answered by Ellie S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What your ancestors did is not really an indicator of what you will become. Everyone is an individual - you may become the first millionaire in the family. Your friend may have a totally different family history, so yours will be totally different from his.
2006-12-29 23:16:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
hi Jo i'm in all probability going to upset some people (returned Lol). even if if, I completely accept as true with eliminating the little ones from the lesson. I have not got any issue with little ones being pronounced that deviants from the conventional guy/woman dating exist. i do no longer agree that it is nice for the little ones to verify that it is a organic dating or a classic one. i do no longer care what those people do at the back of closed doors yet beware all and sundry who tries to tension their ideals down the throats of my young little ones. i do no longer think that gay and lesbian couples must be allowed to undertake or foster. it is sparkling that if an observed baby asks mummy why her better half is likewise of the comparable intercourse, then mummy is going to respond "because of the fact it is organic". The consistent exposure to this might for sure persuade a stronger form of those little ones that they are in all probability lesbian or gay themselves (no remember if or no longer they have been or no longer). And please dont get me started on the scottish lesbian couple who're suing the well being provider for no longer giving them IVF medical care. So in answer on your question, I shall attempt my utmost to opposite any teachings of attractiveness that the universities might coach on tnis concern. i'm going to verify that my young little ones settle for that those people exist and that given the fact they save it to themselves then they're left to their very own contraptions, yet i'm going to additionally coach therm what reaction must be the norm no remember if it is inten ded to have it rammed down their throat.
2016-12-31 07:27:05 · answer #5 · answered by gerda 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Listen hairless wonder - there are definately differences in ancestors / genetics : I for instance live next to bunch of primates, whose knucles drag along the ground. As for your lack of hair - you are merely underdeveloped : as you mature you will become hairier - for now, just wet your whiskers in milk and let the cat lick it off.
2006-12-29 23:31:45 · answer #6 · answered by Evo 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a good thing to figure out stuff. A person is more advanced if they have the ability to logically include God into reality. How can you see in a dark skull?
2006-12-30 02:25:58 · answer #7 · answered by spir_i_tual 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Please don't be jealous of someone who has more facial/chest hair than you. I think chest and back hair is gross. You should consider yourself LUCKY that you are NOT a hairy disgusting person! I bet you are beautiful.
2006-12-29 23:10:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you rambling on about? It is all about chest hair?
It comes clear: You friend is masculine. You are feminine. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but you are gay.
2006-12-30 01:10:59 · answer #9 · answered by Nightrider 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, by the sounds of things, it's just that your friend is not gay, and you are.
2006-12-29 23:17:52 · answer #10 · answered by savs 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋