Crosswords1 min ago
Evolution
Does anyone know why men developed deep voices? My teacher said that it developed for communication between men when humans were hunter/gatherers because deep voice soundwaves travel farther apparently. Any ideas? and please no comments on what a stupid question this is.
Answers
Because it is more attractive to women. The larger voiceboxes that produce the lower voice is caused by the testosterone hormone. Many animals that utilise vocal sound in their pre-mating antics have a similar difference between the sexes.
07:08 Sat 09th Mar 2013
Evolution confuses me so much. I think it's one of those things where you're at the end of a long journey that was taken essentially at random, albeit with some driving forces, and trying to work out why this was the particular route taken. There may not have been a choice, but I don't think there was a plan either.
Deep voices might just be a natural consequence of testosterone. At least that's what I always thought, since it's one of the changes that occurs during puberty.
Deep voices might just be a natural consequence of testosterone. At least that's what I always thought, since it's one of the changes that occurs during puberty.
I think it's sexual preference from female. A deep voice commands authority which is one thing, and I think it does hint at that man having higher testosterone ergo more able to hunt for meat and defend from predators. It's more common that men with deep voices have other 'beneficial' attributes for a woman ;) Guess it's a combination of factors, as is the way of the evolutionary process. Natural selection.
But I'm glad we do. There's no equal to the sound of a male voice choir. The power, the passion and the harmony. A sound that'll move you!!
But I'm glad we do. There's no equal to the sound of a male voice choir. The power, the passion and the harmony. A sound that'll move you!!
Your post suggests you aren't that confused Jim. The path was random, dependent on random errors in passing genes on to offspring. Some path had to be taken so whatever happened one could ponder why the one that was followed. In a differnt place, a different time, a different creature emerges to fill the same ecological niche.
Well if I've got it right that's certainly nice to know! It's one where the language always gets me "Polar bears moved to the Arctic regions and adapted to suit their surroundings" -- like they had any idea how to manipulate their genes to do that.
So I'm always unsure how much of my difficulty with sentences like these is just English being unable to describe accurately what went on, or the writers trying to attach purpose to things, or me thinking I know better than they do.
So I'm always unsure how much of my difficulty with sentences like these is just English being unable to describe accurately what went on, or the writers trying to attach purpose to things, or me thinking I know better than they do.
Old_Geezer---the path is not random. The mutations are random but which survive and flourish is down to natural selection: the survival of those that are fittest for the environment they are born into.
jim360 --- you are right, creatures do not manipulate their own genes. Creatures which were not suited to the Arctic would have died out leaving only those which were. Natural selection.
jim360 --- you are right, creatures do not manipulate their own genes. Creatures which were not suited to the Arctic would have died out leaving only those which were. Natural selection.
Surely natural selection is itself a random process? It is just that the randomness is weighted by external pressures. After all, that is why if things change one way then after a long time change back again, creatures suited to the first conditions but not the second can still survive through the process.
Language issues again- nothing "changes to meet the new conditions" surely? Things change anyway, and they meet or do not meet the new conditions after that change. Not meeting them isn't always a disaster, though - so that at any one stage what happens next is essentially random. It's only over long terms that patterns emerge - but the process is still at its hard random, but weighted.
I've kind of always hoped that evolution is like thermodynamics and in turn like probability. So there exists a small but finite probability of something unsuited to its conditions managing to survive anyway.
I've kind of always hoped that evolution is like thermodynamics and in turn like probability. So there exists a small but finite probability of something unsuited to its conditions managing to survive anyway.
"Something" won't survive for long but "something" won't be a seperate species but an oddity in an existing species. But unhelpful characteristics can survive if they aren't so bad as to cause an issue with survival to the age when the next generation is off & running. This is particularly true for characteristics that are not dominant and merely show now and again. They can be carried by individuals who show no sign of doing so.
