Why do human grow extra-long hair?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Very good. Now how to apply sexual selection to that?
You attracted a stronger wife. Does that mean you have a "better" phenotype (genotype) than me?

If you want to learn about sexual selection, 'scientist', this link should help.

 

[timothyu]

Bald headed elites in the selection thing, have found a replacement for hair in the form of money, much in the way man makes up for other shortcomings by way of sports cars.

 

[Shemjaza]

In human culture, that is OK, or even good.
In the view of survival, that is very very bad.

Humans are in human cultures... so removing human culture from survival isn't sensible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Man grow extra-long hair to play in rock band, get pretty lady, and be important. Not know why lady grow extra-long hair, maybe lady be rock star too.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is shameful for a man to have long hair (especially a husband)

My hair is longer than my father's, my father is bald. Right now it's about an inch long, give or take. Should I be ashamed now, or do I need to wait another month to be ashamed. If I shave my hair off and it starts to grow back into peach fuzz, should I be ashamed then?

I'm a bit fuzzy on this. When exactly should I be ashamed, like what is the official God-approved hair length. My Bible doesn't contain any detailed descriptions for divinely inspired fashions, but perhaps yours does, in which case you could help enlighten some of us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

Not know why lady grow extra-long hair, maybe lady be rock star too.

Thought that was a country requirement

 

[juvenissun]

If you want to learn about sexual selection, 'scientist', this link should help.

Run away after the first round?

 

[juvenissun]

My hair is longer than my father's, my father is bald. Right now it's about an inch long, give or take.

Follow the theme of this thread, which is science related, what you said is not correct. Both you and your father did not try to grow a maximum length of your hair. Even your father became bald at later time, the hair left on his head probably still can grow very long.

 

[Pethesedzao]

My hair is longer than my father's, my father is bald. Right now it's about an inch long, give or take. Should I be ashamed now, or do I need to wait another month to be ashamed. If I shave my hair off and it starts to grow back into peach fuzz, should I be ashamed then?

I'm a bit fuzzy on this. When exactly should I be ashamed, like what is the official God-approved hair length. My Bible doesn't contain any detailed descriptions for divinely inspired fashions, but perhaps yours does, in which case you could help enlighten some of us.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe it is when a man's hair length grows past his shoulders

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Run away after the first round?

If you ask me a reasonable question in an intelligible way, I'll try to answer it.

But frankly, from your posts, you need to get some general background understanding of the concepts. If you understand the principles, you can work it out for yourself, it really isn't that difficult.

For example, if some aspect of mate selection has a genetic component (i.e. is heritable), then it is likely to have an associated selection pressure, because the couples that are most reproductively successful will provide a greater contribution of their version of that trait to the next generation, and so-on.

This kind of selection is likely to be an extension of the mechanisms by which species identify mating partners of their own kind, i.e. successful species will be able to identify mates of their own kind and there will be an advantage in preferentially selecting the most reproductively fit. So arbitrary 'virtue signals' of reproductive fitness will tend to become established and exaggerated until their disadvantages reach an equilibrium with their reproductive fitness.

 

[juvenissun]

If you ask me a reasonable question in an intelligible way, I'll try to answer it.

But frankly, from your posts, you need to get some general background understanding of the concepts. If you understand the principles, you can work it out for yourself, it really isn't that difficult.

For example, if some aspect of mate selection has a genetic component (i.e. is heritable), then it is likely to have an associated selection pressure, because the couples that are most reproductively successful will provide a greater contribution of their version of that trait to the next generation, and so-on.

This kind of selection is likely to be an extension of the mechanisms by which species identify mating partners of their own kind, i.e. successful species will be able to identify mates of their own kind and there will be an advantage in preferentially selecting the most reproductively fit. So arbitrary 'virtue signals' of reproductive fitness will tend to become established and exaggerated until their disadvantages reach an equilibrium with their reproductive fitness.

Fine. The issue is whether long hair gives "human" (not male or female) advantage of survival? Long hair of some male or some female may have some **internal** advantage of reproduction (i.e. the competition). But this is not related to the survival of human being which, according to evolution, is critically affected by external conditions. The long hair feature should give human advantage to deal with the external threats. The natural selection addresses the external condition of a life form. It does not care about the mechanism the life form uses to reproduce it population.

So, the sexual selection has nothing to do with the natural selection.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fine. The issue is whether long hair gives "human" (not male or female) advantage of survival?

No; as I said, the key factor is always reproductive fitness success, i.e. the relative number of viable offspring produced.

Long hair of some male or some female may have some **internal** advantage of reproduction (i.e. the competition). But this is not related to the survival of human being which, according to evolution, is critically affected by external conditions. The long hair feature should give human advantage to deal with the external threats. The natural selection addresses the external condition of a life form. It does not care about the mechanism the life form uses to reproduce it population.

No; sexually selected traits can (in themselves) actually be disadvantageous to individual survival as long as they lead to an overall advantage in reproductive success. Consequently, more extreme sexually selected traits will tend to be associated with greater overall fitness, as only the fittest individuals can successfully support extreme trait presentations.

This is why sexually selected traits can be a form of 'virtue signalling', indicating overall fitness.

So, the sexual selection has nothing to do with the natural selection.

Of course it's natural selection; it's just another form of competition for resources, in this case, reproductive resources. In evolution, the environment includes everything that may be relevant to reproductive success, including other members of the population and their interactions.

You need to get some general background understanding of the relevant concepts.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe it is when a man's hair length grows past his shoulders

Why?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pethesedzao]

Why?

-CryptoLutheran

Hair is a woman's covering. Not so for men.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hair is a woman's covering. Not so for men.

Why shoulder length? How did you arrive at shoulder length hair?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

No; as I said, the key factor is always reproductive fitness success, i.e. the relative number of viable offspring produced.

No; sexually selected traits can (in themselves) actually be disadvantageous to individual survival as long as they lead to an overall advantage in reproductive success. Consequently, more extreme sexually selected traits will tend to be associated with greater overall fitness, as only the fittest individuals can successfully support extreme trait presentations.

This is why sexually selected traits can be a form of 'virtue signalling', indicating overall fitness.

Of course it's natural selection; it's just another form of competition for resources, in this case, reproductive resources. In evolution, the environment includes everything that may be relevant to reproductive success, including other members of the population and their interactions.

You need to get some general background understanding of the relevant concepts.

One question to clear up:
Should the concept of natural selection only be applied to the selection process among different species?

 

[Shemjaza]

One question to clear up:
Should the concept of natural selection only be applied to the selection process among different species?

No. It's about how likely they are to have descendants. It doesn't matter if that's because they are more likely to have many offspring because they are very attractive or more likely to survive hardship because they are individually powerful, the it's overall success that matters.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One question to clear up:
Should the concept of natural selection only be applied to the selection process among different species?

No. As I said previously, it applies to anything that affects reproductive success.

E.T.A. Oops, gazumped by Shemjazza. I really ought to read ahead...

 

[juvenissun]

No. As I said previously, it applies to anything that affects reproductive success.

E.T.A. Oops, gazumped by Shemjazza. I really ought to read ahead...

OK. I have a different understand about this term.

Now I like to read a few links or references (at a professional level, not something like wiki-, high school biology textbook would be fine) about the domain of natural selection. Does it refer to the survivorship of individual life or that of a species.

Until then, I insist that sexual selection (about an individual) is not related to natural selection (about a species)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK. I have a different understand about this term.

Now I like to read a few links or references (at a professional level, not something like wiki-, high school biology textbook would be fine) about the domain of natural selection. Does it refer to the survivorship of individual life or that of a species.

I recommend you start with a basic course in evolution before looking at professional-level papers (which will be way beyond high school biology!). You need to understand the broad biological and evolutionary context and jargon before you can correctly interpret advanced studies.

Until then, I insist that sexual selection (about an individual) is not related to natural selection (about a species)

Lol! You can insist whatever you like, it doesn't change anything. You'll find that some sources prefer to treat sexual selection separately because it's based on an indirect fitness indicator, but that's just a matter of preference.

Natural selection happens to individuals - as the original definition I gave you makes clear. The multi-generational consequence of natural selection on the individuals of a population is evolution, and potential speciation. So natural selection happens to individuals, evolution happens to populations.

The words are just descriptive labels for the processes of evolution. The processes are what matter, not the labels. If you focus on understanding the processes, and thinking through their implications, you won't be so hung up on the variations in usage of the labels.