Biological Energy Redistribution?

Because that's still evolution.

Mutations in genes result in individuals that are more prone to injury and illness. They reproduce less. The mutation is choked off. That's evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By definition, anything that harms reproduction will not be the thing that proliferates in the population genetically. There are some exceptions, for instance if that gene is expressed in different ways in different people. For instance, genes that may lead to homosexuality may proliferate rather than disappear, because in most cases they cause increased heterosexual reproduction. Genes that cause disease may not decrease if there is an effective medical treatment for it. Babies heads may get bigger due to the prevalence of c-sections.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reproducing and surviving few but healthy offsprings and reproducing and surviving many unhealthy offsprings, both support evolution but still there is a difference. Former can lead to long existance but later to extinction. Whenever any evolution happen, it should be a deduction to origionality so should have its own advantage along with disadvantage. I can not say, how true health and existance should be defined, if origionality or evolutionary?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok then I feel it will be better called as advantageous and disadvantageous evolution.

 

Give an example of disadvantageous evolution.

 

Species do not produce unhealthy offspring. They simply produce offspring that may or may not survive to reproduce themselves.

Any trait can lead to success and/or extinction.

should? There is no should.

Advantage as well as disadvantage? There is no balance in nature.

 

Losing coat due to cloths. Diversion of physical to mental. Many genetic predisposed diseases. In some sense, even cooking may be.

 

Do you mean all offsprings take birth with same health status?
Whether any reason to any exitinction is not genetically predisposed? Whether it is just environmental based within lifetime of anyone?

 

It seems that some 90 % of all living species that ever lived, are now extinct. Lately with the help of mankind.

Natural selection is an implacable probabilistic function.

 

You think people wearing clothes resulted in them evolving furless bodies? Seriously?

 

Well actually, is this issue settled? I cam across the following: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/ which suggests that less hair combined with artificial means of keeping warm (clothes, fires) may have provided an advantage by reducing the prevalence of skin-borne parasites.

But reading it I am struck by the lack of an agreed theory of why humans lost most of their body hair.

 

A positive adaptation to the African climate in which humans evolved. We also sweat. Fur gets in the way of that. Humans can run down an antelope in full summer heat until the thing overheats and collapses.

 

The only way this could make sense is if
- first they started wearing full-body clothing over their fur,
- then they started getting ill from the clothing and dying early,
- and they continued to wear the clothing despite the presence of rashes and lesions and other vectors for disease,
- dying so early, in fact, that they died before managing to breed
- to such an extent that the populations with less fur were out-competing their fur-bearing brethren
- until the population only consisted of hairless types.

 

Just for fun since we are speculating, there is a theory that we evolved to run down animals. We are really good at running long distances compared to most game animals. The big advantage we have in long distances, is that we don't over heat. The less hair you have the more efficient your body would be at cooling itself. Perspiration evaporating from you skin removes much more heat than evaporation from hair.

 

Not quite. The link I posted suggests that loss of hair reduced the prevalence of disease-carrying skin parasites. This in itself would be an advantage, but obviously not if loss of hair meant one died of - or was weakened by - cold. However if the species has the brains and dexterity to make clothes, that disadvantage would become neutralised, leaving a net gain from less hair. So it could be a bit like sickle cell anaemia: a change that on its own would be detrimental, but given the particular circumstances of the species, turns into an advantage.

Though I see two people are advocating long distance running ability as the reason.

 

Why it can't? Need for fur decreases on wearing the clothes.

 

Yes but it should had happened with all animals living in same climate. But how losing coat had only happened to humans? The only difference is that humans preferred clothes other animals not.

 

Things can also happen slowly. Say, few started wearing clothes for one day but not other days. Then they keep on increasing it slowly. They didn't get side effects by it and still got evolved accordingly.

 

I shall not be surprised if losing fur is also related to abnormally using more mental power than physical. Mental power had only invented clothes and their usage, specific only to humans.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Elephants, rhinos, and naked mole rats also don't have fur. And natives of Africa don't generally wear much clothing.