4 ms·
Is 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 h
by CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
Is 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 9mo ago[deleted]
- vizzier 9mo agoNatural selection doesn't require 100% disqualifying, it just needs a slight preference and a shit load of time.
- CGMthrowaway 9mo agoYes that is more along the lines I was thinking
- torben-friis 9mo ago>Plenty of people wear artificial tails today and get laid …Do they? What did I miss?
- SAI_Peregrinus 9mo agoCleanup at hotels after furcon.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- samus 9mo 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.