4 ms·

> There must have been quite a lot of prehistoric humans who died, or otherwise suffered reproductive failure, because they lacked eyebrows A bit pedantic, but

> There must have been quite a lot of prehistoric humans who died, or otherwise suffered reproductive failure, because they lacked eyebrows A bit pedantic, but: there doesn't need to be a direct line between a morphological feature, like eyebrows, and death and/or inability to reproduce. Evolution is a statistical process that operates over an entire population of organisms. So, a feature like eyebrows can evolve even if they have a relatively minor impact on organisms with eyebrows, like, say, by making them 3% better at hunting or whatever. Because if you have a population of thousands or millions of organisms, that 3% hunting advantage will make a difference.

falcor84 9y ago
I'd argue that being 3% worse at hunting than one's competitors can definitely become a reproductive failure.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  Agree, but only at the margins. That one thing, in and of itself isn't a reproductive failure. But over a population with varying levels of, say, hunting proficiency, there will be enough people who are already not very good at hunting and a gene that makes you 3% worse will result in them having less or no children.
  - lurquer 9y ago
    Is there a correlation between reproduction and eyebrows? Seems like a simple thing to study. I doubt anyone has. (And, I doubt anyone will.) It's easier to simply conjure up stories about how eyebrows must have had some beneficial effect and then hand-wave while muttering 'millions and millions.' Given the assumed population levels, the timescales involved, and the minuscule statistical effect of something like eyebrow-ness on survival, I expect 'survival of the fittest' had nothing to do with eyebrows. Rather, it's just a random bit of 'noise' in our DNA.
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      A couple of things: 1. Eyebrows are a pretty elaborate structure to have evolved purely by chance. You don't get from not having eyebrows to having eyebrows via a single mutation. It seems reasonably likely that the specific shape of eyebrows (as in, one person has bushy eyebrows and another has thinner eyebrows) might be tied to sexual selection (as in, the variations don't serve a functional purpose other than being attractive to the opposite sex). But that eyebrows exist at all is probably tied to some survival/reproductive benefit. 2. I think you underestimate the impact that something as a small as, say, a 3% improvement in an outcome can have on the evolution of a specific trait. You can use a spreadsheet to model this yourself. Start with a population where 1% of people possess some trait that allows that subpopulation to have 3% more children per generation that the other 99% of the population. I'm showing that it takes a little over 150 generations for the descendants of that first group to comprise 50% of the population. As a point of comparison, there have been roughly 7,000 generations of humans. So, you can see that natural selection will act even on minute details of anatomy because when you play them out for many generations they matter.
      - Daniel_sk 9y ago
        I guess no one has mentioned this - but they definitely have a function. Their main function is to prevent sweat, water, and other debris from falling down into the eye socket, but they are also important to human communication and facial expression. It is not uncommon for people to modify their eyebrows by means of hair addition, removal and makeup.
        njarboe 9y ago
        Nice to finally see this comment after much text implying that eyebrows are some crazy useless feature of humans. The ability of humans to sweat for cooling is one critical feature that has helped the species survive. The full body sweating that allowed humans higher endurance than any other animal on the African plains would have been much less useful if they were continuously blinded by the salty sweat pouring down off their foreheads.

falcor84 9y ago

I'd argue that being 3% worse at hunting than one's competitors can definitely become a reproductive failure.

toasterlovin 9y ago
Agree, but only at the margins. That one thing, in and of itself isn't a reproductive failure. But over a population with varying levels of, say, hunting proficiency, there will be enough people who are already not very good at hunting and a gene that makes you 3% worse will result in them having less or no children.
- lurquer 9y ago
  Is there a correlation between reproduction and eyebrows? Seems like a simple thing to study. I doubt anyone has. (And, I doubt anyone will.) It's easier to simply conjure up stories about how eyebrows must have had some beneficial effect and then hand-wave while muttering 'millions and millions.' Given the assumed population levels, the timescales involved, and the minuscule statistical effect of something like eyebrow-ness on survival, I expect 'survival of the fittest' had nothing to do with eyebrows. Rather, it's just a random bit of 'noise' in our DNA.
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    A couple of things: 1. Eyebrows are a pretty elaborate structure to have evolved purely by chance. You don't get from not having eyebrows to having eyebrows via a single mutation. It seems reasonably likely that the specific shape of eyebrows (as in, one person has bushy eyebrows and another has thinner eyebrows) might be tied to sexual selection (as in, the variations don't serve a functional purpose other than being attractive to the opposite sex). But that eyebrows exist at all is probably tied to some survival/reproductive benefit. 2. I think you underestimate the impact that something as a small as, say, a 3% improvement in an outcome can have on the evolution of a specific trait. You can use a spreadsheet to model this yourself. Start with a population where 1% of people possess some trait that allows that subpopulation to have 3% more children per generation that the other 99% of the population. I'm showing that it takes a little over 150 generations for the descendants of that first group to comprise 50% of the population. As a point of comparison, there have been roughly 7,000 generations of humans. So, you can see that natural selection will act even on minute details of anatomy because when you play them out for many generations they matter.
    - Daniel_sk 9y ago
      I guess no one has mentioned this - but they definitely have a function. Their main function is to prevent sweat, water, and other debris from falling down into the eye socket, but they are also important to human communication and facial expression. It is not uncommon for people to modify their eyebrows by means of hair addition, removal and makeup.
      - njarboe 9y ago
        Nice to finally see this comment after much text implying that eyebrows are some crazy useless feature of humans. The ability of humans to sweat for cooling is one critical feature that has helped the species survive. The full body sweating that allowed humans higher endurance than any other animal on the African plains would have been much less useful if they were continuously blinded by the salty sweat pouring down off their foreheads.