Whatever happened to browridges?

The Last Conformist

Irresistibly Attractive
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
27,779
Location
Not on your side
When reading a list of "bad designs" in animals, one item I came across was modern human's lack of browridges that protect the eyes.

Now, humans, or their ancestors at least, used to have big browridges; take a look at a H. erectus skull. Had the browridges fulfilled any important protective function, one'd expected them to persist. So, I was wondering, is there any explanation why they went AWOL?

(Creationists need not respond.)
 
The Australian Aboriginals still have vestiges of the brow ridge. Maybe because they were isolated from the rest of the gene pool for well over 50,000 years?

edit: uh oh, was that politically incorrect? They do have big brow ridges dont they?:confused:
 
IIRC, large brow ridges were used more for a strong anchoring point for jaw muscles than for eye protection. As humans stopped eating really tough (uncooked) foods the need for stronger jaws declined and so did the brow ridges.
 
My dad has quite an impressive browridge. You don't see it, but when you feel it it's...weird. We still make fun of him about that :)

One not-so-good explanation is that people with apparent browridge would be less selected by mates to procreate, because you look rather backward and ugly with a browridge...
 
Bozo Erectus said:
The Australian Aboriginals still have vestiges of the brow ridge. Maybe because they were isolated from the rest of the gene pool for well over 50,000 years?

edit: uh oh, was that politically incorrect? They do have big brow ridges dont they?:confused:
I don't know about browridges, but compared to most modern humans their skulls do have some erectus-like features.

(Obligatory PC equalizer: from the Aboriginal PoV, Europeans' typically heavier postcranial bones make them a bit erectus-like.)
 
Fetus4188 said:
IIRC, large brow ridges were used more for a strong anchoring point for jaw muscles than for eye protection. As humans stopped eating really tough (uncooked) foods the need for stronger jaws declined and so did the brow ridges.
That sounds sensible, I guess. Moderns' jaws are quite weak compared to earlier hominids.
 
The Last Conformist said:
I don't know about browridges, but compared to most modern humans their skulls do have some erectus-like features.

(Obligatory PC equalizer: from the Aboriginal PoV, Europeans' typically heavier postcranial bones make them a bit erectus-like.)
I found an excellent article with an interesting theory, that the brow ridge in humans developed because of interspecies combat.

Peter Brown, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, has investigated skull thickness in modern and historical Australian Aboriginal populations, whose cranial bones are the thickest of any living H. sapiens. In a sample of 430 Aboriginal crania, Brown found evidence of healed depressed fractures on the frontal or parietal bones in 59 percent of the female crania and in 37 percent of male crania. Depressed fractures occurred in these people and they survived; undoubtedly, many others did not. His findings led Brown to hypothesize that the thick skull vaults of the Aboriginals may have evolved as a consequence of the traditional method for settling conflicts.

A similar explanation may account for the evolution of pachyostosis and other unique features that strengthened the H. erectus skull. We are reasonably confident that the distinct anatomical features, as well as the healed fractures that have been preserved in the fossil record, are primarily a response to violence within the species. We can only speculate about whether the violence involved ritualized fights with clubs or rocks among hot-headed young males competing over females, or instead revolved around other kinds of conflict. But we would lay bets that, as in many other species, we are detecting the results of sexual selection.

If H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, why don’t we, too, have thickened cranial bones? If modern children had thicker skulls, for instance, significantly smaller numbers of them would suffer serious head injuries when they crash on bicycles, skateboards, and snowboards. Theoretically, a species could have both a commodious skull to house an enlarged brain and a thick, heavily armored skull for protection. But reality steps in when the weight of such a structure has to be supported and balanced atop the spine. Cranial bone may have become thinner in modern humans simply to reduce skull weight.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0204/0204_feature.html
 
Unless I misremember, H. sapiens skulls aren't thin compared only with H. erectus, but with just about any other primate. Considering that the other odd thing about our skulls is that we carry half a kilo or more extra brain in it over what we rightfully should, the weight-saving conclusion seems inescapable.
 
Fetus4188 said:
IIRC, large brow ridges were used more for a strong anchoring point for jaw muscles than for eye protection. As humans stopped eating really tough (uncooked) foods the need for stronger jaws declined and so did the brow ridges.

But that's Lamarckism, not Darwinism.
Just because something isn't useful anymore doesn't mean it will disappear.
 
luiz said:
But that's Lamarckism, not Darwinism.
Just because something isn't useful anymore doesn't mean it will disappear.

Yes, but if something becomes less useful, it will cease getting naturally selected. In a "free competition" with genes for no brow ridge, there is no reason why the brow ridge should win out, and apparently it didn't.
 
SeleucusNicator said:
Yes, but if something becomes less useful, it will cease getting naturally selected. In a "free competition" with genes for no brow ridge, there is no reason why the brow ridge should win out, and apparently it didn't.

But considering that the overwhelming majority of our ancestors carried bowridge genes I don't see why they would get eliminated.

In other words, I don't see how a mutation that brings no advantages(the end of bowridges) could become present in all mankind.
 
luiz said:
But considering that the overwhelming majority of our ancestors carried bowridge genes I don't see why they would get eliminated.

In other words, I don't see how a mutation that brings no advantages(the end of bowridges) could become present in all mankind.

Right, you'd expect a random distribution of browridge and no-browridge traits in the present-day human population.

Which leads to two possible answers:
1) the current distribution is an outcome of random distribution; after all, random selection can favor one thing over another. If I flip 100 coins, there is in fact a chance that all 100 turn out heads.

2) there is some positive consequence of having no browridge.
 
If brow ridges cost X amount of energy to create, but only saved the animal Y energy, where Y < X, then the human with the brow ridge would be expending more energy than a human without the brow ridge, which would reduce that human's ability to survive in the long term. If X >> Y (i.e. Y ~ 0), then the extra expenditure in energy is completely wasteful, so the trait significantly inhibits the human's ability to survive.
 
But that saving of energy is hardly a comparative advantage from an evolutionary stand point(Ie, I doubt people with no brow ridges can pro-create more then people with).
 
Bozo Erectus said:
I found an excellent article with an interesting theory, that the brow ridge in humans developed because of interspecies combat.
Well those Australians do love a good headbut.


Perhaps it has to do with the streamlining of the face to make swimming easier for coastal populations which fished and dived for food and resources.
I have heard this theory before, I'll try to find a resource...
 
luiz said:
But that saving of energy is hardly a comparative advantage from an evolutionary stand point(Ie, I doubt people with no brow ridges can pro-create more then people with).
Well lets take an exaggerated case as an example. What happens if X is very very large? Say for example, that the total energy expenditure of a human WITH brow ridges is E, and WITHOUT is E*. (For convenience, I'll call humans with brow ridges A and humans without brow ridges A*) If X is very large, and comparable with E*, then conceivably, E could be 1.05 or 1.1 times E* (E=1.1E*). This means that A requires 10% more energy to survive, and therefore 10% more food. In an environment where competition for food is a limiting factor in populations (one of the requirements for natural selection to occur), A* could survive on 9% less food, which is a significant survival advantage. It follows that A* could sustain 9% more offspring.

Of course, I doubt X is that large, and E is anywhere near 1.1 times E*, but over several thousand generations, the cumulative effect of the survival trait on the populations of A and A* could conceivably lead to extinction of A and the dominance of A*.
 
luiz said:
But considering that the overwhelming majority of our ancestors carried bowridge genes I don't see why they would get eliminated.

In other words, I don't see how a mutation that brings no advantages(the end of bowridges) could become present in all mankind.
The obvious way a useless or mildly harmful mutation can become dominant is via a genetic bottleneck (H. sapiens apparently had one or a few in its early history) and a bit of luck.

Also, the growth of the browridges could be genetically linked to that of jaw muscles if Fetus is right; then losing the ridges could be a mere side-effect of scaling down the chewing apparatus.
 
Back
Top Bottom