I can understand evolutionary wise why tall man exist , but what’s the purpose of being tall as a woman ? Tallness is better suited for males than females socially . Back in the 1950s -1970s tall girls were given high dose estrogen so that we can assimilate into society , find clothes , and find a husband . In 2024 we still have the same difficulties

Height is a very tricky gene . I don’t have tall parents , and don’t have tall relatives . My estrogen /progesterone/testosterone levels are normal for a woman my age . Serum IGF-1 is also normal for a woman my age . I didn’t overeat nor did I oversleep during my childhood. I started menstruating at age 11 at the same time as my shorter sisters /cousins . However I’m 6’1 which is a unusual height for a woman . Even in the tallest countries in the world woman average 5’6 so tall woman are extreme minority

Lastly I noticed that woman’s height are less varied than men’s . There are many men I’ve seen who have extreme heights . However most woman seem to be average height like 5’3-5’5

I understand a heavy part of fruits process was taste bc the dumb apes and the rest of the animals would typically choose the tastier berries. That being said what was the natural selection for vegetables the caused them to change over time? Was it still taste but it just didnt need to get as good tasting over time and also then why would it vary from fruits and vegetables?

I've been thinking about this after commenting on a post in where someone mentioned humans and hummingbirds both having heart, liver, kidneys. I understand that we all have these because our shared ancestor had them, so I was trying to find what that MRCA would be.

The biggest clade that we're both in is apparently Amniota , and other commenters told me that the first ones would probably have looked a bit like a lizard, but I couldn't find anything specific about what the first amniotes were. If it's not possible to say in this case are there other pairs of species where we can identify the MRCA better?

But I'm not sure if that's even possible in principle or how we would name it - if a species is a clade and as herpetologist Clint keeps telling me on youtube you can't evolve out of a clade then we'd still be part of whatever species our ancestor was, and the term for that species then wouldn't describe the ancestor specifically. It's linked to my confusion about how new species can ever be classified if they're still the same species as whatever they evolved from.

I've skimmed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor but it doesn't seem to identify a known MRCA for any pair or set of species.

They migrated out from one of the coldest and potentially darkest regions known as Siberia in Russia like 16,000 years ago. Humans arrived in Europe 40,000 years ago and only developed light skin 10,000 yrs ago (8000 BC and onwards). No one was white in the Gravettian period because people had Black-Aboriginal phenotype.

I mean sure some native americans might have migrated down south towards Mexico and South America but that was only like 13k years ago.

Rams know how/when to use their horns. Bees know how/when to use their stingers. Rattlesnakes know how/when to use their rattles. Skunks know how/when to use their spray.

Which typically evolves first: the physical trait or the behavior? And if it’s the physical trait is there a period of time where the species has the physical trait but not the behavior that puts it to use?

The way I see it, all you need to form a clade is to take two organisms/species/etc., trace their last common ancestor and include all the descendants of that common ancestor.

And (individual) humans being living organisms, does that mean that if I picked out, say, a random person on the street + myself and traced our last common ancestor + all of their descendants, I would assume that would form a clade?

Of course, this wouldn't be any clade worthy of interest to someone studying systematics, but as a long time genealogy enthusiast I find the relationship between genealogy and cladistics fascinating - especially the patterns common to both.

Would it be accurate to say that cladistics is essentially a lower-resolution version of genealogy (i.e. broader groups of organisms in the case of cladistics vs individuals in the case of genealogy)?

I know that hoofed animals have evolved less than five and that early tetrapods had more, but with current species of non-hoofed mammals—even with the occasional individual having extra digits (proving it is not a genetically improbable mutation), it seems like something limits at/selects for five.

I keep hearing that the scientists were able to explain how the bacterial flagella had evolved, but I don't understand their explanation.

First, I would like to know what is the accepted official version of the evolution of the flagella, because I know there are a few versions out there, and I would like to know which one is the correct and accepted one.

And second, I would like to understand what that accepted version is really able to show? For example I'm aware of this article https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700266104, but I can't quite make what it claims to show, it's titled "stepwise evolution" but I don't see it showing any steps.

Hi,

I am an undergrad aspiring evolutionary biologist and have an essay on beneficial mutation. This is my first time interacting with this side of evolution and safe to say I am very lost. I have read countless papers on hard and soft selective sweeps but feel like every paper contradicts each other and there is no consensus on what the terms are even supposed to mean. I feel like I am running around in circles and not getting closer to understanding how beneficial alleles fix and it is so frustrating.

Can someone with more experience please help me out? I am not asking for help with my essay, just guidance on where I can learn more or areas I can explore. Most of these papers are filled with terms and written in a way that is confusing for someone not familiar with all the terms and mathematical equations.

Any help is extremely appreciated!! Thank you!

Is intrasexual selection the only way weaponized horns develop in vertebrates? Is there another known or hypothesized selective pressure for such horns? I.E. what are other reasons horns that, at least, resemble a weaponized origin can evolve? Maybe some examples please, especially monomorphic ones if possible. If you have other related info, please share. Hoping connoted horns don't always have to start off as weapons for intraspecific combat.

At what point & how did life develop from non living materials?

A hummingbird has a heart, liver, kidneys just like we do. All serving the same purpose ours do.

This applies to most animals on earth.

I understad humans and a lot of animals have a common ancestor very far back.

How did so many species end up with the exact same organs for the exact same purposes?

When did it happen chronologically, and around what lineages did the female genital system turn in to two holes/passages?

Or, perhaps I've asked the question wrong.

Maybe I should be asking when the male genital system merged sperm delivery and pee expelling into one tube.

Either way, what was the evolutionary pressure? This is all about soft tissue that doesn't fossilize, so can we even know?

I assume that the common ancestor of Placentals had a separate urinary, fecal, and reproductive tract since most Placentals are like this, but among Atlantogenatans, the Afrosoricidia, and among Boreoeutherians some True Shrews (Soricidae) independently reverted to the pre-Placental (and maybe pre-Eutherian) condition, and sport a cloaca.

What is common between Afrosoricidia and Soricidae is that both of these groups are very plesiomorphic (little changed from the likely Placental common ancestor, a small insectivorous, shrew-like mammal) and both convergently reverted to the pre-Placental condition in this.

It is interesting that Beavers also reverted to the cloaca, though they are not plesiomorphic. I remember reading someone theorize that in their case, the reversion might have been advantageous because this way they reduced the chances of getting a genital injury or infection underwater.

So it turns out that all non human hominines have laryngeal air sacs. At least in gorillas, they extend down into the chest, which helps make chest beating more impressive. Does anybody have any insight beyond speculation as to when our lineage lost them and any pressures that selected for that loss? What about the origin of the air sacs? Do non hominine primates have them?

In general it's commonly known that the limbs we have developed from the lobe finned fish fins but where and when exactly did fins come from in vertebrates?

Fins seemingly appeared after the evolution of fish as a whole as Jawless fish such as Lampreys and ancient Conodonts lacked them but at the same time it appeared that Ostracoderms and Anaspida despite being closer to Jawless fish may have had paired fins.

If I had to guess anything the Hox genes might have been expressed around a gill slit eventually developing fins possibly separately in both Jawed fishes and ancient Jawless fishes, but it seems like there is no definite theory on this topic.

Obviously it's pretty important for animals to be able to see members of their own species well as well as make out their mood, facial expressions, whatever. I was just thinking about crows, since they are black, is it possible they have better "black vision" or night vision than other birds? Or peacocks, can they see more colors than other birds? Are there any known examples of a species' coloration changing which then affected their vision?

I say this, as in, why does nearly every animal I can think of (unless we include germs and such as animals) have a fairly consistent eye-nose-mouth on a relatively flat surface?

I guess just. Because that’s what works best?? But i also would assume at least something out there woulda said “nah” and changed it.

The few examples i can think of that almost aren’t that way would be the flat fish flounder thingy that can move its eyes to the top of its head and The octopus with its beak a bit lower than its eye spots compared to the usual mouth area being a bit closer.

But. Even those 2 are still within the basic pattern, if not on the fringe. So imo. Close enough

List of things people commented (thanks guys) Jellyfish

Sea cucumber and adjacent

straight hair/fur is worse at retaining heat, right? thats why fur exists in the first place. i get some animals, like chinchillas, also use their fur to escape from predators... but thats rare. why on earth isnt curly hair or fur more dominant?
edit: thanks for the thorough explanations! ill b keeping this up simply for the sake if anyone else is curious

A few facts I've researched from what is known:

• The magnetosome is a simple structure used for magnetoreception in some bacteria. It's also used for this in a few aquatic unicellular eukaryotes (protists like euglenids and algae).
• It consists of a linear chain of ferromagnetic magnetite crystals linked to the cell membrane and cytoskeleton which orients the cells parallel to the Earth's magnetic field, used for passive alignment and navigation.
• The magnetite (iron oxide) is produced on iron uptake by biomineralisation.
• The core genes and operons for the magnetosome are conserved across all bacteria they appear in, most of which are in phylum Pseudomonadota.
• All known magnetotactic bacteria live in anoxic waters. The Great Oxidation event in the Archaean eon likely provided the selective pressure for magnetosomes, as a way to store reduced iron (Fe^(0)) to defend against reactive oxygen species (ROS).
• A few animals (e.g. migratory birds) have magnetoreception abilities too, but they work by a totally different mechanism (cryptochrome complexes). In the few multicellular eukaryotes where magnetosomes have been found (including humans, in our brain), they are all non-functional.

Why would we retain these magnetosomes? Could they really have stuck around for over a billion years since our days as a unicellular eukaryote or even a prokaryote pre-endosymbiosis, with no benefit? That seems extremely unlikely.

Thanks for any insights!

Wondering if this is evolution, a specific trait that a parent passed down, or rando mutation that’s stuck in this area. I recently built a greenhouse in my backyard in coastal North Carolina, it has become home for tree frogs rather quickly and now that it’s sealed and has a water element it’s almost an enclosed ecosystem with everything they need. At this point it’s at least teeny tree frogs and it looks like over half of them are being born with one eye. Is this common in nature to find a localized area with mutations staying consistent enough to view this often.

1. Walking with Monsters
2. Walking with Dinosaurs
3. Walking with Beasts
4. Walking with Cavemen

Takes you from the beginning of the Cambrian to "If I were to take this baby home with me and raise her as my daughter, she would be indistinguishable from anyone born in the 21st century".

I just want to check my answer to this common question is correct, which is as follows:

We did not evolve from current day monkeys but we shared a common ancestor with current day monkeys, ie. if you go back in the timelines of humans and current day monkeys, there was a point where we were all the same thing, which would have been a lot like a current day monkey.

Some of those old monkeys then became separated from the others. One group eventually evolved into humans and the other group evolved into current day monkeys.

So it's wrong to say "If Humans evolved from monkeys...". We didnt. We evolved from a mammal that highly resembled a current day monkey but not from current day monkeys themselves. So the premise of the question is wrong and humans and current day monkeys exist today because they branched off from a common ancestor.

Can I just double check this answer is correct? Also if someone can ELI5 this question better then please do so in the comments. I feel like this question is still so common and leads people to disregard the fact that is evolution so it's helpful to have a clear answer, hence the post.

What are some good books for the evolution of everything

Hey everyone. First time posting here so I admit I'm not even sure if I'm in the right subreddit.

I'm really interested in two specific things.

One is traits convergent evolutionary traits that happen as a result of the way physics work. A couple examples of this I've heard are the positioning of the eyes and ears near the brain so that electrical signals for vision and hearing can travel the fastest.

The other example is "universally recognizable signals in nature". I'm not sure how this is described academically so I'll give a couple examples.

There's a commonly trending video of an Owl's face changing from "friendly mode" to combat mode.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EP9XOvhZCD0

Humans will recognize this as a change from friendly behavior to aggressive behavior. It'd be easy to think that this is us anthropomorphizing an animal that isn't related to us, but aren't there some universal benefits here?

"Angry eyes" are the muscles around the eyebrows narrowing to protect the eyeball from harm right? Or it could have benefits like squinting to see slightly better, narrowing your field of vision so you're processing less information. In the case of the Owl, its face also changes to convey more "sharpness". Sharpness has to be a universally recognizable factor in nature, since animals have to avoid sharp objects like rocks and trees etc.

So the way that animals can mimic size to convey body weight, do they also mimic sharpness? Or is this incidental?

Another example is growing and hissing. Lots of animals make softer more delicate sounds around their young but make specific sounds for threat displays. Is there research on why this seems kind of universal? Is it a physics thing? Why do we perceive a hiss as more threatening than a coo?

I know I jumped around a bit but I hope this makes sense!

Imagine a far future in which all Mammals die out except for Bats, and sapient frogs develop a technological civilization and they start categorizing animals. They have Bats as an extant clade, but find the fossils of various ancient, now-extinct types of Mammals, including huge ones like the elephant and the whale, who have fundamentally the same skeletal configuration as Bats do.

Would they be right in saying that Bats are no longer Mammals because they evolved flight and a small size?

Maybe this is more of a history thing than evolution.

But assuming we consider all of the Homo species to be some form of human.
Why do we so strictly talk about human history as being the period where Homo Sapiens existing?

e.g. "we have been here for 200 000 years"

Sure, but Homo heidelbergensis could speak (as far as I understand), and if they are the common ancestor for us and Neanderthal and Denisovians, then I assume they also were very much like us.

Any speaking species of Homo really ought to be more included in our history IMO.

Why is it like this? why don´t we talk about humans in a more generic way, e.g. including all speaking species?

Vasovagal syncope is extremely common and can occur in virtually any human if provoked, so it makes sense that it's not a disease but an evolutionary trait. I wonder why did we evolve such a response it doesn't make any sense to be in front of a predator or attacker and be just like "Imma faint lol good luck with that" then become an easy meal or victim. This should be a huge disadvantage for the people with this response so how did it get passed down? Please be easy with me I am barely learning evolutionary biology.

So far, I have Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Proconsul africanus, Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Notharctus tenebrosus, Morganucodon oehleri, Thrinaxodon liorhinus, and Tiktalik. I'm trying to sculpt a Hylonomus, but there is not much fossil reference available. Are there any "must-haves" that I should be including? Different timelines seem to include very different species, so I'm looking for a consensus.