5 ms·

The problem with drawing these kinds of conclusions is that it's easy to invent adaptive stories that purport to explain changes in morphological features, but

The problem with drawing these kinds of conclusions is that it's easy to invent adaptive stories that purport to explain changes in morphological features, but not easy to build a case that will convince an appropriately sceptical audience. I've heard of over a dozen disparate adaptive explanations for why zebras have stripes or why human hair is less dense than that of other mammals, but none are necessarily correct.

whyenot 12y ago
Yes, it could be a spandrel. see the classic (and controversial) paper by Gould and Lewontin: Gould, SJ and Lewontin RC. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205(1161): 581-598 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581.abstract http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581....
davidgerard 12y ago
Yes, it explains why you've evolved an adaptation to being punched in the face, but not to being kicked in the breadbasket. It's a bit just-so. It did make this occur to me: http://newstechnica.com/2014/06/09/scientists-tony-abbott-evolved-to-have-a-punchable-face/ http://newstechnica.com/2014/06/09/scientists-tony-abbott-ev... I can't tell you how happy it made me to find out there existed a photo of Tony Abbott getting punched in the face.
- thucydides 12y ago
  Another relevant article from the same site: Artists' beards evolved to be "structurally different" http://newstechnica.com/2014/04/17/artists-beards-evolved-to-be-structurally-different/ http://newstechnica.com/2014/04/17/artists-beards-evolved-to...
haberman 12y ago
Totally agreed. It strikes me as very similar to traditional myths, or stories that purport to explain how things are. The only difference is that instead of using gods and supernatural powers, our new myths take into account scientific information like the theory of evolution. So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated.
- hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
  There's a large difference between a theory and a myth, it doesn't seem logical to make this parallel.
  - bethly 12y ago
    Only if the theories are falsifiable, which is not the case in evolutionary biology.
    - haberman 12y ago
      Exactly. It's one thing to show that a theory is plausible. It's another to claim that it is what actually happened. I really object to unverified speculation being passed off as knowledge. It cheapens science as a whole. There are lots of other things we know with far greater certainty.
- refurb 12y ago
  I agree with your observation. I'm not equating evolution to religion, but it's interesting when you think about it. In the past, if you asked why humans had "x", it was because God designed us that way. If you ask it now, the answer is "because our environment selected for it." Neither answer provides a useful explanation.
  - batmansbelt 12y ago
    One can be tested and improved upon, the other can't. Just don't sign me up for a face punching trial.
    - bethly 12y ago
      That wouldn't test for whether we evolved for it. We could, at best, simulate early human societies with various levels of violence and see if one led to large jaws. (Though currently we have insufficient information to model such societies.) Most people grossly underestimate the forces of genetic drift and personal preference on phenotypical evolution. The null hypothesis for any gender-linked trait having evolved should probably be "it made them more attractive to a fertile population of the opposite sex."
azakai 12y ago
You are very right to be skeptical of findings like these. However, it sounds like you might be going all the way into complete skepticism of evolutionary biology as a field. I think that's completely unwarranted. Maybe that's not what you mean though, sorry if that's the case.
- jonathansizz 12y ago
  As I am an evolutionary biologist myself, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Adaptationary explanations are posited for anything and everything, especially in the field of evolutionary psychology, and it can get a little annoying. Evolution is much more complex (and much more interesting!) than this, but unfortunately even most people who think of themselves as enlightened are unaware of even major details of how evolution works.

whyenot 12y ago

Yes, it could be a spandrel. see the classic (and controversial) paper by Gould and Lewontin: Gould, SJ and Lewontin RC. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205(1161): 581-598 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581.abstract http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581....

davidgerard 12y ago

Yes, it explains why you've evolved an adaptation to being punched in the face, but not to being kicked in the breadbasket. It's a bit just-so. It did make this occur to me: http://newstechnica.com/2014/06/09/scientists-tony-abbott-evolved-to-have-a-punchable-face/ http://newstechnica.com/2014/06/09/scientists-tony-abbott-ev... I can't tell you how happy it made me to find out there existed a photo of Tony Abbott getting punched in the face.

thucydides 12y ago
Another relevant article from the same site: Artists' beards evolved to be "structurally different" http://newstechnica.com/2014/04/17/artists-beards-evolved-to-be-structurally-different/ http://newstechnica.com/2014/04/17/artists-beards-evolved-to...

haberman 12y ago

Totally agreed. It strikes me as very similar to traditional myths, or stories that purport to explain how things are. The only difference is that instead of using gods and supernatural powers, our new myths take into account scientific information like the theory of evolution. So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated.

hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
There's a large difference between a theory and a myth, it doesn't seem logical to make this parallel.
- bethly 12y ago
  Only if the theories are falsifiable, which is not the case in evolutionary biology.
  - haberman 12y ago
    Exactly. It's one thing to show that a theory is plausible. It's another to claim that it is what actually happened. I really object to unverified speculation being passed off as knowledge. It cheapens science as a whole. There are lots of other things we know with far greater certainty.
refurb 12y ago
I agree with your observation. I'm not equating evolution to religion, but it's interesting when you think about it. In the past, if you asked why humans had "x", it was because God designed us that way. If you ask it now, the answer is "because our environment selected for it." Neither answer provides a useful explanation.
- batmansbelt 12y ago
  One can be tested and improved upon, the other can't. Just don't sign me up for a face punching trial.
  - bethly 12y ago
    That wouldn't test for whether we evolved for it. We could, at best, simulate early human societies with various levels of violence and see if one led to large jaws. (Though currently we have insufficient information to model such societies.) Most people grossly underestimate the forces of genetic drift and personal preference on phenotypical evolution. The null hypothesis for any gender-linked trait having evolved should probably be "it made them more attractive to a fertile population of the opposite sex."

azakai 12y ago

You are very right to be skeptical of findings like these. However, it sounds like you might be going all the way into complete skepticism of evolutionary biology as a field. I think that's completely unwarranted. Maybe that's not what you mean though, sorry if that's the case.

jonathansizz 12y ago
As I am an evolutionary biologist myself, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Adaptationary explanations are posited for anything and everything, especially in the field of evolutionary psychology, and it can get a little annoying. Evolution is much more complex (and much more interesting!) than this, but unfortunately even most people who think of themselves as enlightened are unaware of even major details of how evolution works.