The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
March 04, 2021, 03:47:36 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: - The Lighter Side Of Steampunk, follow @brasstech for forum technical problems & updates.
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Author Topic: Logical explainations for the myth.  (Read 4067 times)
Snr. Officer
Spain Spain


« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2013, 04:22:43 pm »

The reason I brought up siamese twins is to illustrate just how rare hypertrichosis really is. I believe we just know of about 50 cases for the last 500 years. That makes it seem unlikely you'd end up with a whole population having it, even if it is hereditary.
According to Wikipedia, while extremely rare, it's a bit more common than that (the 50 cases since the middle ages refers to one of the different types of hypertrichosis, not all of them), and there is at least two families in the records: one family in Burma with four generations that include at least one case each, and the oldest recorded case, Petrus Gonsalvus from the Canary Islands that had two daughters, the three of them had hypertrichosis. Since these two families account by themselves for 7 cases, I guess the actual reason there are so few cases is that people affected by hypertrichosis seldom reproduce. If for some reason, at some (limited) time and place in History, extremely hairy people would have been considered attractive or fitted for survival and therefore reproduced more, the idea of an entire population becomes at least plausible.
Zeppelin Admiral
Canada Canada

Keep them off-balance and brazen it out!

« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2013, 05:13:57 pm »

  All extant species are equally evolved.

I've heard this before, several times, but to my mind it isn't supported by scientific evidence. Not all species evolve at the same rate. Evolution results from natural selection of more-or-less random mutations, and since most mutations don't confer any particular advantage either to the species or the individual, or are even actively deleterious, they tend not to be selected for and will disappear after one or two generations.

Evolution is driven by environmental conditions. In stable environments, species tend also to remain stable, i.e. to evolve slowly, if at all. One only has to remember the coelacanth, which has remained essential unaltered since -what is it? - the Jurassic Era? - but many other species such as crocodiles, reptiles generally, and especially insects, also seem to evolve extremely slowly. Only in rapidly changing environments, such as the Ice Ages and their Interglacial periods in temperate and polar regions, do species evolve quickly - or they die out. Even during the Ice Ages, environments in the tropics remained relatively stable, so tropical species tended not to evolve as quickly.



Vero vobis dico, qui quaerit, inveniet eius. Et saepius, parum volet.

"Truly I say to you, he who seeks, shall find. And quite often, he shall wish he hadn't."

              - Elias Ashmole Crackbone.
Zeppelin Overlord
Netherlands Netherlands

A.K.A. Scanner Camera Builder

« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2013, 11:45:25 am »

If I understand it correctly, life changes according to enviromental conditions. No change in the enviroment, no changes in life. Mutations are a constant, but disapear or get surpressed in the next cycle unless it becomes relevant in surviving a changing enviroment. So evolution depends on the enviroment, the life cycle of the life form and the somewhat random mutations.
I'm a carrier of a mutant gen that doesn't effect my own life, but when merged with my wife's gen, it can effect our child's life. We've got one healthy daughter and two deceiced sons. In hindsight the doctors could narrow down on the gen that causes this.
Scientists can narrow down on a lot of mutations. Down syndrome and Dwarfism are often tested during pregnancy, so we know where to look. This raises a question: can we pinpoint a gen that causes something that resembles Bigfoot? Do we carry a gen that can, in the right surcomstances, give birth to an extreme large hairy human? Or do we carry a now obsolete gen that could be dated back to an old world primate?
If this is the case, the possibility is that with the right enviroment change, we could evolve in Bigfoot.

The best way to learn is by personal experience.
Time Traveler

Only The Shadow knows

« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2013, 12:27:25 pm »

We of course carry a number of genes that date back to old world prrimates. The genes for fur, tails, inability to produce vitamin C. Making a big, hairy human using GM would probably be quite easy. However the known cold adaptations in humans seem to have taken other forms. In Siberia, their mitochondria are less effective, causing more waste heat.

Resurrectionist and freelance surgeon.
Zeppelin Overlord
Netherlands Netherlands

A.K.A. Scanner Camera Builder

« Reply #54 on: December 11, 2013, 01:54:44 pm »

Who said anything about cold adaptation? Having fur can also provide camouflage. A natural ghully suit. It could be a sign of beauty for an isolated tribe, wanting as much body hair as possible, wanting to breed with the most hairy person. Like you said, it is possible to manipulate genes into a big hairy person. There is also a possibility that a certain climate provides the breedingground for a human tribe to evolve in Bigfoot.

I think, when it comes to Bigfoot sightings, it's mainly a figment of imagination. A fallen down tree as recently filmed. Or a way for the storyteller to keep unwanted people away from an area. Or nowadays as a way to make a profit, providing Bigfoot hunts. The possibility of it being real, keeps the myth alive.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.222 seconds with 16 queries.