Evolution

[wlaforme]

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.

[wildwood]

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.

[Old_Geezer]

To be honest ww that was what I was going to suggest. IMO most gender differences is going to be down to the other gender's preferences over many generations; even if one can find other reasons for those preferences.

[jomifl]

why do women find deeper voices attractive? I can see a circular argument coming, then going and coming back again....

[pdq1]

A man with a squeaky voice never gets taken seriously by another male.

[jim360]

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.

[I_Hate_Infinity]

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!!

[Old_Geezer]

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.

[jim360]

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.

[chakka35]

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.

[Old_Geezer]

But the path is random. For it is the case that more than one potential creature could evolve to fill the same niche. The random mutations ensure this is so. Sure the ones that flourish is down to a best fit, but that does not negate the randomness already caused by the mutations.

[jim360]

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.

[woofgang]

well but jim, the ones who survive do so because they change again to meet the new conditions

[jim360]

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.

[Old_Geezer]

"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.

[I_Hate_Infinity]

Got opinions but like you all so no comment :)

[DaisyNonna]

So how come a low contralto in a woman is perceived as sexy?

[doctordb]

Daisy, it is only perceived as sexy if the woman is attractive or she can't be seen. The voice alone is not enough if it belongs to someone we dont find physically appealing.

[doctordb]

I.e Lauren Bacall v bettie from coronation street. ^^^

[I_Hate_Infinity]

I prefer a higher voice in women anyway, a singing voice with such qualities is admirable and desirable.

[Old_Geezer]

I prefer them to stay quiet.
ducks and runs away fast