# Will human beings evolve by losing their toes?



## rapidfox1

I heard somewhere that when human beings evolve, they're going to lose their toes because toes are useless.


----------



## 266x

Pretty sure they help provide stability when standing up? I'm sure I'd fall flat on my face if I didn't have toes.


----------



## wootmehver

I broke some toes once and could hardly walk.

The fact is that we have been evolving since we emerged as a separate species millions of years ago.


----------



## Fantas Eyes

In Phil of the Future they had all lost their pinky toes.


----------



## sleepytime

David Haye is hoping so, he has a headstart on everyone else


----------



## Feynman

Unless having no or smaller toes make it more likely that you will reproduce compared with someone who has larger toes, I don't see how this possible.


----------



## Selbbin

Toes are critical to balance and movement. As someone said, injure a toe and see how well you can walk. Not well and not far, I guarantee.

Unless they are talking about evolution based on never having to stand.

And evolution happens so slowly...


----------



## Lateralus

Selbbin said:


> Toes are critical to balance and movement. As someone said, injure a toe and see how well you can walk. Not well and not far, I guarantee.
> 
> Unless they are talking about evolution based on never having to stand.
> 
> And evolution happens so slowly...


Indeed, I think it's a safer bet that we'll destroy ourselves much sooner.


----------



## sansd

Toenails may not be particularly useful, but toes are important.


----------



## i just want luv

No one would ever have a foot fetish ever again.


----------



## danberado

I think I've heard that the pinky toe might kinda be atrophying, but its actually really hard to get rid of a body part through evolution, its why we still have appendixes and gills in the womb.


----------



## Sunshine009

266x said:


> Pretty sure they help provide stability when standing up? I'm sure I'd fall flat on my face if I didn't have toes.


I never thought of that. wow. That makes sense. Duh me.


----------



## 266x

Sunshine009 said:


> I never thought of that. wow. That makes sense. Duh me.


..sarcasm?

But if we didn't have toes we probably would have some other adaptation because evolution generally doesn't **** things over like that.


----------



## danberado

And then we've had the hilarious discussion a couple of times around here, why evolution hasn't wiped out social anxiety. 

Its because anxiety is a survival instinct, and some individuals have more of it, some have less of it, it evens out.


----------



## Dark Alchemist

There's a possibility the small toe could disappear in the future. But yeah we do need toes for balance.


----------



## leonardess

currently, they are evolving by losing their minds. I think it's caused by too many choices. Decaf or regular? half-caf? small, medium, or large? nonfat, 2%, full fat? double, triple, more? vanilla, peppermint, chocolate, or dozens of others? HI!!! WE'RE SMILEY! WON'T YOU BUY THIS THING YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU NEEDED? YOU CAN HAVE IT IN ANY COLOR YOU WANT! IT WILL BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE!

One day, everyone will self destruct from making all those choices.


----------



## Glacial

What ever the source of that information, I am sure it's not accurate. Like everyone else has said, toes are vital to balance. I am in the medical field and have always heard that even if someone doesn't have their small "pinky" toe, their chances of falling are much greater.


----------



## lonelyjew

Saving Face said:


> What ever the source of that information, I am sure it's not accurate. Like everyone else has said, toes are vital to balance. I am in the medical field and have always heard that even if someone doesn't have their small "pinky" toe, their chances of falling are much greater.


What it comes down to is whether the pinky toe has an effect on procreation. I am unsure of the exact differentiation process involved in separating out the toes, but it would involve early developmental genes which would regulate cell growth in certain places, and death in others for separation, not to mention the tissue differentiation.

Anyways, it may simply be that accumulating mutations are more likely to cause the little toe to become less and less pronounced, until it eventually disappears. The counter to these mutations would normally be that, if they did create less fit offspring, that they would be less likely to procreate, and spread said mutations. If they don't have this effect, then they'll spread.

Evolution is simple, and because it is mindless, and lacks an agenda, it is not always strictly favorable. It only works on chance, and the fact that things that are more likely to occur, given time, will occur regardless of perceived benefits/problems. Because it's usually far easier to destroy a function than to make one (let alone a beneficial one), it may simply be that the chance of mutations occurring and little toe loss is greater than the sexual fitness benefit having a a little toe gives.

I'm not saying that it will happen, but that is why it would, if it does.


----------



## 266x

lonelyjew said:


> What it comes down to is whether the pinky toe has an effect on procreation. I am unsure of the exact differentiation process involved in separating out the toes, but it would involve early developmental genes which would regulate cell growth in certain places, and death in others for separation, not to mention the tissue differentiation.
> 
> Anyways, it may simply be that accumulating mutations are more likely to cause the little toe to become less and less pronounced, until it eventually disappears. The counter to these mutations would normally be that, if they did create less fit offspring, that they would be less likely to procreate, and spread said mutations. If they don't have this effect, then they'll spread.
> 
> Evolution is simple, and because it is mindless, and lacks an agenda, it is not always strictly favorable. It only works on chance, and the fact that things that are more likely to occur, given time, will occur regardless of perceived benefits/problems. Because it's usually far easier to destroy a function than to make one (let alone a beneficial one), it may simply be that the chance of mutations occurring and little toe loss is greater than the sexual fitness benefit having a a little toe gives.
> 
> I'm not saying that it will happen, but that is why it would, if it does.


I don't get that. Wouldn't that mean that we could basically lose anything besides our penises then? Because that's all men need for procreation, and for females the opposite..


----------



## lonelyjew

Well, yes and no. It is as simple as if, in the end, a gene is spread more often than destroyed, it will be more common. If mutations which lead to the loss of a toe are more common than ones which maintain it, and those mutations are not destroyed, and accumulate, than the toe will be lost. Primates for instance don't have tails, and it isn't because tails were harmful, but rather they weren't beneficial enough to maintain. Another example can be the gradual loss of body hair.

In humans specifically, I can think of three examples of things similar to this off the top of my head, with the first being the muscle that moves the ears. Some people, relatively few I believe, have a functional version of this muscle, and can move their ears slightly. The muscle has likely been lost over a long time, because moving the ears simply didn't give enough sexual benefit. Similarly, there is a muscle in the forearm, flexor digitorum superficialis I think, which is missing in some people. Lastly, I have read of an account of a tribe found in the Amazon, which had senses of smell so keen that they could tell different people apart, by smell alone, in the dark. It is doubtful that fine sense of smell evolved from our limited sense of smell in such a short period of time, but rather that their strong sense of smell was genetically maintained because of survival pressure, while the rest of humanities wasn't. Some people in our society may even still have this fine sense of smell, or can move their ears, or whatever, but if there isn't pressure to maintain it to counteract it's happenstance loss overtime, then it will likely be lost.


----------



## millenniumman75

That would be....:um gross.


----------



## bootless

*no*

when humans evolve they're going to lose their brain because no body is using it anyways.


----------



## Emotion

*fd*

dfv


----------



## demureCat

There are so few physical human characteristics that are under survival or sexual selection pressure, it is likely that most human characteristics will continue to drift. The human species will continue to diversify in skin tone, body hair, height, number of digits, etc.

Unless we reach another bottleneck brought-on by a major environmental shift I expect this pattern to continue.


----------



## stylicho

I either broke my small toe recently or I tore a ligament when I accidentally kicked a table. Either way I had to tape it to the toe next to it. The toe still doesn't lie flat on the ground so it's not nearly as useful as it once was. I've noticed it can be somewhat painful to "stand on my toes" for long periods of time now. It hurts the front part of the foot. Also, balance is lost because the toe is like an anchor that keeps you from falling forwards.
As for evolution. According to my knowledge of animal husbandry the only way a toe could recess is if both parents carry a "smaller toe gene" in their gene pool.


----------



## OpiodArmor

I think it should be a rule that every person MUST learn how evolution actually works so we could stop with all these silly questions and ridiculous "WELL DEN Y R DER STILL MONKIES HU HU???" ignorant comments. 

Not angry / pissy at the OP, it's just all the years of inane anti-evolution / misguided evolution statements come flooding back to me and it's just like: Wow.


----------



## ugh1979

OpiodArmor said:


> I think it should be a rule that every person MUST learn how evolution actually works so we could stop with all these silly questions and ridiculous "WELL DEN Y R DER STILL MONKIES HU HU???" ignorant comments.
> 
> Not angry / pissy at the OP, it's just all the years of inane anti-evolution / misguided evolution statements come flooding back to me and it's just like: Wow.


Yeah anyone who doesn't accept evolution as fact either can't understand it or has never been taught it properly.

Denying it is akin to saying the earth is flat.


----------



## JamieHasAnxiety

OpiodArmor said:


> I think it should be a rule that every person MUST learn how evolution actually works so we could stop with all these silly questions and ridiculous "WELL DEN Y R DER STILL MONKIES HU HU???" ignorant comments.
> 
> Not angry / pissy at the OP, it's just all the years of inane anti-evolution / misguided evolution statements come flooding back to me and it's just like: Wow.


I noticed you let people get under your skin easily. Just relax and ignore.


----------



## lonelyjew

ugh1979 said:


> Yeah anyone who doesn't accept evolution as fact either can't understand it or has never been taught it properly.
> 
> Denying it is akin to saying the earth is flat.


Heh, actually, yeah, it is. The evidence is overwhelming, and the open minded ones are the ones who come to accept it, while dogmatic religious fundamentalists don't; this is exactly like the heliocentric vs. geocentric debate of hundreds of years ago.


----------



## ugh1979

lonelyjew said:


> Heh, actually, yeah, it is. The evidence is overwhelming, and the open minded ones are the ones who come to accept it, while dogmatic religious fundamentalists don't; this is exactly like the heliocentric vs. geocentric debate of hundreds of years ago.


Indeed, and just as everybody today believes in a heliocentric system due to overwhelming evidence, everybody in the future will surely believe in evolution due to the overwhelming evidence.

It just takes time for the old rotten ideas to evolve out.


----------



## Elleire

Toes? Pretty sure we need those for stability. 

I'd hope wisdom teeth are done away with eventually. Those buggers are annoying and unnecessary now that we've smaller jaws and kitchen utensils.


----------



## bsd3355

Yes, humans will evolve by losing their toes if it doesn't make us extinct not having toes. Evolution is going to happen to any species that survives long enough. Evolution is a guarantee for any species overtime. There is no possible way to stop evolution for any species unless they simply go extinct.


----------



## ugh1979

bwidger85 said:


> Yes, humans will evolve by losing their toes if it doesn't make us extinct not having toes. Evolution is going to happen to any species that survives long enough. Evolution is a guarantee for any species overtime. There is no possible way to stop evolution for any species unless they simply go extinct.


We will not lose our toes. Where is the advantage? They are necessary for balance. Evolution doesn't favour elements which puts an individual at a disadvantage.

It's actually debatable if humans will continue to evolve naturally overall by much. There may be some adaptations like resistance to certain diseases and some local climate adaptations, but overall, we now have very little in the way of what drives evolution. That being natural selection.

In fact we are far more likely to take control of and steer our evolution using our technology.


----------



## lonelyjew

Evolution doesn't favor anything, it just happens. Evolution doesn't work to make something more fit, it just so happens that the more fit things tend to reproduce more. If something was made less fit by certain mutations, but, in the end, those mutations somehow helped with reproductive success, or had no negative effect on it, those things could still become prevalent and you'd see evolution towards less survival fitness (male peacocks for example). Evolution is blind and, if the loss of a toe doesn't effect reproductive fitness, it could be lost.


----------



## ugh1979

lonelyjew said:


> Evolution doesn't favor anything, it just happens. Evolution doesn't work to make something more fit, it just so happens that the more fit things tend to reproduce more. If something was made less fit by certain mutations, but, in the end, those mutations somehow helped with reproductive success, or had no negative effect on it, those things could still become prevalent and you'd see evolution towards less survival fitness (male peacocks for example). Evolution is blind and, if the loss of a toe doesn't effect reproductive fitness, it could be lost.


Yes it does. It favours mutations that give either survival or reproductive advantage. The loss of a toe in modern humans provides neither.

In fact the loss of a toe is very very rare. There is only 1 primate (spider monkey) that doesn't have 5 toes on each foot.


----------



## Akane

> Lastly, I have read of an account of a tribe found in the Amazon, which had senses of smell so keen that they could tell different people apart, by smell alone, in the dark.


What's so hard about that? I know a few people with bad or no vision that can identify someone by smell alone when they walk in to a room full or people. One even identified when I stopped and started birth control pills and when another girl there got pregnant just by changes in smell and he has no special genetic background. I can identify which shirts of a similar type are mine or my husbands by smell after they come out of the washer (I'm not even talking about dirty clothes) before I turn them right side out so I can see what picture they have. We all have a good enough sense of smell to do that. We just don't use it because we haven't trained it and have come to rely on other senses. I don't think there's any genetic difference there. Just an environmental and social one. We have lost many of our senses because we simply don't train ourselves to pay attention to them.

As for toes I doubt any will disappear. Even in animals who no longer have toes they still have the bones for them, which occasionally cause issues because they tend to be thin and easily broken, and they spent millions of years getting rid of toes and have gone through several species changes in that time. If it takes that long for a toe to recede enough you don't see it even if it's still there we probably wouldn't even still be considered humans by the time we lose a toe. We'll probably have evolved to our next species or subspecies by then.

Direct ability to have sex does not determine all evolution. The ability to survive, to live a happy life, and even traits that serve no purpose except that the opposite gender or society has deemed them appealing contribute to whether you pass on your genetics or not. Things like toes are required to do activities that keep you healthy and happy so you are more likely to live, find a partner, and decide to have children. You may not need toes for sex but you still need them to have as good of odds at getting sex as everyone else. So no we can't just evolve down to only have a penis and vagina. Everything else is needed to keep us alive, healthy, and attractive to indirectly get to the reproduction part.


----------



## bsd3355

ugh1979 said:


> We will not lose our toes. Where is the advantage? They are necessary for balance. Evolution doesn't favour elements which puts an individual at a disadvantage.
> 
> It's actually debatable if humans will continue to evolve naturally overall by much. There may be some adaptations like resistance to certain diseases and some local climate adaptations, but overall, we now have very little in the way of what drives evolution. That being natural selection.
> 
> In fact we are far more likely to take control of and steer our evolution using our technology.


Haha, sorry.... what I said came off weird...

I'm not saying will will lose our toes due to evolution. What I was trying to say was IF we lost our toes and we still managed to survive we would still evolve as a species. I wasn't trying to say we will evolve to lose our toes lol..

my bad. my bad :b


----------



## lonelyjew

ugh1979 said:


> Yes it does. It favours mutations that give either survival or reproductive advantage. The loss of a toe in modern humans provides neither.
> 
> In fact the loss of a toe is very very rare. There is only 1 primate (spider monkey) that doesn't have 5 toes on each foot.


*It doesn't favor anything, it doesn't have a mind, or an agenda,* it only describes the tendency of self preserving alleles (not as in helps the thing survive, but help to keep themselves within the species) to grow in a population, and how this can lead to speciation. Obviously things that tend to favor survival advantage tend to increase reproductive advantage, and that reproductive advantage is clearly necessary for an allele to be spread, however there are many examples of evolution of traits which are quite harmful to the survival of an animal.

There are fish which have females finding males attractive by the length of their anal fin with the longer the anal fin on the male the better, however the longer the length of the anal fin, the more obstructive it is for swimming, and the more likely they'll die a premature death (from being eaten). The reason we believe these traits come up lies in the crippling nature of a long and sexy fin's strain on survival. It would take a heck of a healthy fish to survive to reproductive age with a big fin. There are lots of examples with this, with various brightly colored animals of one sex, or the long tail feathers of certain birds, etc.

As for "devolution" of the toe, see my above explanation. I can't speak at whether it will or will not happen, on give a what if, based on the effect having one less toe would have on final reproductive fertility (very little if any), and how this counter with the possible natural build up of mutations which would cause the human pinky toe to fuse with the fourth toe. I was only saying that if these theoretical mutations would spread more often than not, then the minimal negative effect one less toe would have on offspring might not be able to curb the spread of them, and the eventual loss of the toe.



Akane said:


> What's so hard about that? I know a few people with bad or no vision that can identify someone by smell alone when they walk in to a room full or people. One even identified when I stopped and started birth control pills and when another girl there got pregnant just by changes in smell and he has no special genetic background. I can identify which shirts of a similar type are mine or my husbands by smell after they come out of the washer (I'm not even talking about dirty clothes) before I turn them right side out so I can see what picture they have. We all have a good enough sense of smell to do that. We just don't use it because we haven't trained it and have come to rely on other senses. I don't think there's any genetic difference there. Just an environmental and social one. We have lost many of our senses because we simply don't train ourselves to pay attention to them.


The thing I read implied that it was genetics in this case (each specific smell receptor has a specific gene), and that these people had a markedly more acute sense of smell, which could have helped in identifying poisonous plants, etc. which was well beyond anything a "normal" person has. The point of the thing was that our sense of smell now has a minimal effect on survival and success in having offspring, so it has slowly faded with the likely both the loss of functional receptors and atrophies in the nose and brain.



Akane said:


> Direct ability to have sex does not determine all evolution. The ability to survive, to live a happy life, and even traits that serve no purpose except that the opposite gender or society has deemed them appealing contribute to whether you pass on your genetics or not. Things like toes are required to do activities that keep you healthy and happy so you are more likely to live, find a partner, and decide to have children. You may not need toes for sex but you still need them to have as good of odds at getting sex as everyone else. So no we can't just evolve down to only have a penis and vagina. Everything else is needed to keep us alive, healthy, and attractive to indirectly get to the reproduction part.


What? No. Happy life has no bearing on spreading genes. A multidrug resistant tuberculosis bacteria doesn't feel happier because it is resistant to drugs, but those resistances sure make it better able to reproduce, and thereby spreading those genes. I also never said that it has to directly relate to sex, but that ultimately, it's only reproductivity that matters. If people with a happy-super attractive gene don't reproduce, that gene will simply die.


----------



## ugh1979

lonelyjew said:


> *It doesn't favor anything, it doesn't have a mind, or an agenda,* ... Obviously things that tend to *favor *survival advantage tend to increase reproductive advantage,


----------



## lonelyjew

ugh1979 said:


>


Heh, well, usually is not always. I guess the best illustration of this is attenuation of bacteria and viruses. Extremely virulent microbes, if easily given the resources necessary to survive will tend to lose their virulence, their resistances to antibiotics, etc. You can say that human beings are attenuated in our society, and things that many once necessary traits are no longer that, so while you might argue that a little toe helps with balance, really, so few people would die, or have less offspring as a result, that the survival argument no longer matters.


----------



## hoddesdon

phoelomek said:


> Toes? Pretty sure we need those for stability.
> 
> I'd hope wisdom teeth are done away with eventually. Those buggers are annoying and unnecessary now that we've smaller jaws and kitchen utensils.


 I have never had any wisdom teeth.


----------



## hoddesdon

The toenail on my right little toe has come off completely twice over the last couple of years. Is that an indication that toes are withering away?


----------

