4 ms·
is it so detrimental that it leads to a person never finding a mate and reproducing? Maybe for a totally extreme outlier, but probably not
by frisbm 8mo ago
is it so detrimental that it leads to a person never finding a mate and reproducing? Maybe for a totally extreme outlier, but probably not
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoIs that the right criteria? A trait must be completely, 100% disqualifying as a mate or else it sticks around? Our ancestors used to have tails. We no longer have tails. Plenty of people wear artificial tails today and get laid, it's not a 100% disqualifying trait
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- vizzier 8mo agoNatural selection doesn't require 100% disqualifying, it just needs a slight preference and a shit load of time.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoYes that is more along the lines I was thinking
- torben-friis 8mo ago>Plenty of people wear artificial tails today and get laid …Do they? What did I miss?
- SAI_Peregrinus 8mo agoCleanup at hotels after furcon.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- samus 8mo agoOur primate ancestors required tails so they could effectively move around on trees. A tree dweller without a functional tail is slower and has a harder time gathering food and escaping from predators. That's a very strong selection pressure that ends up maintaining the tail. When the woods in eastern Africa changed into savannah, we shifted to two legs and adopted a persistence hunting strategy. The tail became useless, even a liability, and mutations that resulted in reduced tails were not selected against anymore.