sexual selection could also be the only decent explanation why we are the 'naked' ape. (obviously we are not really naked, even if we are)
Most recent ancestors to Homo sapien: Neaderthal (anatomically modern Homo sapien): thick-limbed and short-bodied (typical to cold regions), found in French cave La Ferrassie; male 5 ft 5 in., 185 lbs; female 5 ft 1 in, 176 lbs. Archaic Homo sapiens: based on fossils from Zambia; male 5 ft 9 in, 137 lbs; female 5 ft 2 in, 112 lbs.
The Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens sapiens ancestors. Neanderthals are the subspecies Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Homo heidelbergensis is the common ancestor of both Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens.
Read the post - it says the most recent ancestor for Homo sapien - not the most recent ancestor for Homo sapiens sapiens. In addition, the time range of H. heidelbergensis and archaic H. sapiens overlap - suggesting co-existance.
Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident. Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg, it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild. If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool by way of one or more of his children. Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool (through death and hardship). Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works. The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.
Sexual selection is an important factor, because genetic drift can occur within a matter of generations as opposed to millions of years. More extreme selection methods could potentially be even more effective, and as abhorrent as something like the Holocaust was, such events were probably more common in human history than anyone would care to admit... So sexual selection is a tame, easy to swallow explanation, but we cannot neglect genocide, or simply "killing all the hairy ones," which could virtually extinct a genetic variant in short time. Several million were killed in a matter of years during the late 1930's, early 1940's. Imagine a fictional civilization (Atlantis if you like) wherein hairy, dark-skinned individuals of short stature were rounded up and (for the sake of lighter reading) marched into the sea. A large segment of the phenotypic continuum wiped out in a matter of hours... Then there's war, and biological factors such as invasive disease. It may take millions of years for a species of trees to creep across a continent and replace a less-adapted species, but suppose they are favored by Christians who carry them over by ship along with their co-evolved parasitic stowaways. Now you have a powerful invasive agent with a huge evolutionary advantage. This is in fact true of hundreds of species of insects, birds, plants, even some familiar agricultural crops. Another interesting factor to consider is religion. Scientists don't like to include anthropological or philosophical components in their hypotheses, but religion is probably the single most powerful selection mechanism ever known, especially primordial religion where neighboring populations could be demonized and destroyed by mandate of the gods.
What about recent social developments where beautiful girls first marry those wide jawed people and then divorce them to marry money and education? And what about in India where natural selection favors the educated money maker? Perhaps the criteria is changing towards brain than brawn?
I saw a study that showed British women were more attracted to femenized male faces, while Jamaican women favored masculanized facial features. The researches said it was proof that in populations where disease isn't an issue (such as the developed world), women will prefer men who can take care of babies, while in filthy places, like Jamaica, mating with a guy who's easily ravaged by worms is going to lead to weak offspring. The main assumptions being that masculine facial features are indicative of increased testosterone levels, while feminine ones are indicative of lower ones, and that testosterone, in humans, is linked to immuno response and childrearing (in mice and birds, higher testosterone is positively and negatively linked, respectively).
I think it is also true in USA too to certain extent. I used to teach yoga and meditation to college students and just talking to the ladies, I learned that some girls marry during high school to the square jaw types and then find out most of them end up as laborers - so they dump them and go after the other type nerds. Some go directly....with full aggressiveness and win.
it apears ladies first go for the strong genes to make baby's but then prefer a a more stable more society strong figure to help raise them. Meaning first the wild years and then the mercedes
I believe that there have been many people who actually mixed bones of apes, and swapped them with the face of a human. It makes it appear that it was during when evolution was happening. Of course, I only heard of a couple of incidents where that has happened. It is very possible that evolution did happen. I dont believe it did, but whether or not you do, remember to research more than just what you believe in. I purposely put this at the end so that you would read what I have to say. I am only 14, so I am still trying to decide on what I believe about evolution.
You don't have to dig up actual fossils (but it isn't all that hard, in some places, and there are diatoms etc). Research is possible via reading other's scientific work and discoveries (assuming you accept there is such a thing). In the outback of some places you can still find evidence of early human habitation; diatoms are from a bit further back.
