A practical question about evolution

[Big_TJ]

Evolution speaks about changes in species to allow them to better adapt to their environment, and that the changes can accumulate overtime, which can result in the forming of new species.

OK. So, I have been to Michigan - Flint to be exact; but I also visited Detriot. I have also visited Connecticut and Massachusett (?) One thing I noticed with these areas is that they are very cold and at times, it constantly snows. I noticed that this also happen in areas within Russia, Canada, England, etc. Almost everyone who live in these areas wear snowcoats to help to keep them warm. My question is this: If evolution deals with the changes in species (humans in this case) to allow them to better adapt to their environment, why are persons in the areas mentioned above (and other areas like that) not evolving thicker skins or furry skins (such as bears) to allow them to better adapt to those cold environment?

 

[Storm]

My guess would be because they've already adapted with clothing.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Those areas could create super breeds of furry men by only allowing the furriest of the furry to mate.

 

[MSizer]

Evolution is a very slow process. It takes tens of thousands of generations at minimum to produce noticable changes. If we assume that the average generation is roughly 20 years, we could say that 20 years X 30 000 generations would be about 60 000 years before we'd see any changes that we recognize. Also, as storm said, since we have coats, the environmental pressures that would normally coax natural selection are muted. Furthermore, since we have modern means of transportation that allow us to move quite easily to different climates, the genes that survive in one area, say a cold enviroment like Canada, are only a car ride away from the tropics, where those genes for cold weather are no longer beneficial. So the fact that we move around so much from generation to generation means that we aren't giving evolution enough time in any specific environment to take place.

 

[MissAlice]

Evolution is a slow process and if you notice in the midwest it's not cold all the time. If we were to adapt to one climate it would be hard for us to adapt to another. Ice age for instance didn't last forever and like animal herds, humans are never satisfied in where they're at. It would take a considerable amount of time and isolation for humans to create they're own gene pool.

I have to agree with Storm in that were smart enough to cover it all lol. On a serious note though there are some guys that're hairy enough to look like they could adapt to such weather...

 

[CarlinKnew]

If the less furry citizens were freezing to death, natural selection would weed out their genes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My question is this: If evolution deals with the changes in species (humans in this case) to allow them to better adapt to their environment, why are persons in the areas mentioned above (and other areas like that) not evolving thicker skins or furry skins (such as bears) to allow them to better adapt to those cold environment?

Are people with thicker or furrier skin surviving and passing their genes on at a higher rate than people with thinner and less furry skin in those environments?

If one doesn't understand the mechanisms involved in evolution, it can be a very confusing thing indeed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My guess would be because they've already adapted with clothing.

Good answer.

When you're wandering around Michigan in winter, there's no evolutionary advantage to going naked with layer of insulating blubber as opposed to wearing a coat. You won't survive any better and you won't have more offspring (okay, maybe you would in the UP, but probably not in the Mitten. )

Also:

- there's the issue of time. Most of the people in Michigan, Russia or Canada have only been there for a few generations.

- winter doesn't pose that much of an evolutionary pressure for humans. Even if it's -20 outside, it's a cheery +20 (or 72 for the Americans) indoors where we are most of the time. And, as Storm pointed out, we've got coats.

- populations aren't isolated. Northerners can easily intermingle and interbreed with Southerners. Because of this, the whole population tends to rise and fall together. To the extent that cold weather is an evolutionary pressure in the north, hot weather is in the south, so the two pressures probably cancel each other out because they're both acting on the same population.

If you look at people who have been in cold climates longer (the Inuit immediately come to mind), in circumstances where the environment did create considerable pressure, and where they had limited interactions with other groups, they do seem to be better adapted, on average, than we are for their traditional lifestyle.

 

[Man of Faith]

The fact that humans are the only animal to wear clothes is a devasting blow to the ToE. If we evolved from animals with fur, we shouldn't need clothes. I can understand that humans want to be modest, and that is a seperate issue concerning selfawareness which is another devasting blow to the ToE, but males only need to be modest with pants, not shirts. We should be seeing our ape ancestors wearing pants before we stopped having fur.

 

[Storm]

The fact that humans are the only animal to wear clothes is a devasting blow to the ToE. If we evolved from animals with fur, we shouldn't need clothes. I can understand that humans want to be modest, and that is a seperate issue concerning selfawareness which is another devasting blow to the ToE, but males only need to be modest with pants, not shirts. We should be seeing our ape ancestors wearing pants before we stopped having fur.

No, it's really not. We evolved in hotter climes, and by the time we migrated to colder, we were technologically advanced enough to make clothing.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, it's really not. We evolved in hotter climes, and by the time we migrated to colder, we were technologically advanced enough to make clothing.

Did the apes we evolved from not have fur either? I suspect there are still animals in hot climates with fur.

 

[MissAlice]

The fact that humans are the only animal to wear clothes is a devasting blow to the ToE. If we evolved from animals with fur, we shouldn't need clothes. I can understand that humans want to be modest, and that is a seperate issue concerning selfawareness which is another devasting blow to the ToE, but males only need to be modest with pants, not shirts. We should be seeing our ape ancestors wearing pants before we stopped having fur.

Oh look an ape with a pair of trousers, a shirt, a set of spectacles and a pipe!

Now we must treat them as our superiors..

Btw, not all women wear tops and not all men wear pants in some societies....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did the apes we evolved from not have fur either? I suspect there are still animals in hot climates with fur.

Sure... and more to the point, there are animals in hot climates (and temperate climates as well) without fur.

 

[MSizer]

The fact that humans are the only animal to wear clothes is a devasting blow to the ToE. If we evolved from animals with fur, we shouldn't need clothes.

No, because we evolved in temperate climates. In fact, if we look at human hairlessness more closely, it actually points to evolution by leftover traits from our furrier days. Goosbumps are cause by muscles wich contract and draw hair follicles so that the hairs stand upward. We don't have the fur anymore, but we still have the mechanism to fluff it up, which furry mammals do when they get cold. Funny, goosebumps occur when we're cold.

I can understand that humans want to be modest, and that is a seperate issue concerning selfawareness which is another devasting blow to the ToE, but males only need to be modest with pants, not shirts.

And this is becuase of what? Your evidence for such a subjective claim?

We should be seeing our ape ancestors wearing pants before we stopped having fur.

Yup, and we still do. Hairy guys who still have some minimal fur in their genes (and some girls too) wear pants.

 

[Big_TJ]

The fact that humans are the only animal to wear clothes is a devasting blow to the ToE. If we evolved from animals with fur, we shouldn't need clothes. I can understand that humans want to be modest, and that is a seperate issue concerning selfawareness which is another devasting blow to the ToE, but males only need to be modest with pants, not shirts. We should be seeing our ape ancestors wearing pants before we stopped having fur.

This is be flat-out wrong! I am not sure you understand TOE.

 

[Big_TJ]

My guess would be because they've already adapted with clothing.

so our invention of clothes stopped a biological process dead in its track?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so our invention of clothes stopped a biological process dead in its track?

Not really. Evolution is still at work in us. We're still subject to random mutations, and if a mutation is beneficial, it still tends to increase in frequency in successive generations.

 

[Gunfingers]

The process didn't stop. It still selects traits that are able to survive. In this case the trait of being intelligent enough to wear coats in the winter is selected. Most all humans have this, so most everyone is selected.

 

[challupa]

The fact that humans are the only animal to wear clothes is a devasting blow to the ToE. If we evolved from animals with fur, we shouldn't need clothes. I can understand that humans want to be modest, and that is a seperate issue concerning selfawareness which is another devasting blow to the ToE, but males only need to be modest with pants, not shirts. We should be seeing our ape ancestors wearing pants before we stopped having fur.

Humans and modesty is a cultural thing. There are many tribes in warm climates that still do not wear very many clothes if any at all. This seems to be more of an issue for those raised in the Abrahamic religions though because they think it immodest instead of understanding it is just practical.

Oh, and if you think clothing is a blow for ToE, you obviously don't have a clue what ToE is.

 

[MSizer]

Not really. Evolution is still at work in us. We're still subject to random mutations, and if a mutation is beneficial, it still tends to increase in frequency in successive generations.

Exactly. Since we have coats to keep us warm, we don't die early in cold weather if we don't have fur. Therefore, there's no concentration of "fur genes" since those of us who don't have the "fur genes" are still able to survive and reproduce and pass on the "no fur genes".