Hey, guys! We (Palacol, Pungtilan, & Sanchez) found your report very interesting, and commend you on helping convey your article in a very informative manner to everyone. That being said, we would like to ask your insight on the following concern:
You have mentioned the Acoustilateralis Hypothesis in your presentation, where the vertebrate ears of organisms such as humans, may have evolved from the lateral line of aquatic vertebrates. This seems to be a likely inference since there have been many other studies suggesting our common ancestry with aquatic organisms. But you have also mentioned earlier in the report (in the discussion of hair cells) that humans have hair stem cells that will completely disappear in adulthood, while birds and fishes retain theirs. Were now wondering, if birds and fishes retained their hair stem cells as an evolutionary advantage for better hearing, why do we humans not also retain ours? Especially given that we most likely share common ancestry with them. So, did humans evolve to be less dependent on our hearing?
This is a very interesting question we would like to hear explained some more, thanks!
You have mentioned the Acoustilateralis Hypothesis in your presentation, where the vertebrate ears of organisms such as humans, may have evolved from the lateral line of aquatic vertebrates. This seems to be a likely inference since there have been many other studies suggesting our common ancestry with aquatic organisms. But you have also mentioned earlier in the report (in the discussion of hair cells) that humans have hair stem cells that will completely disappear in adulthood, while birds and fishes retain theirs. Were now wondering, if birds and fishes retained their hair stem cells as an evolutionary advantage for better hearing, why do we humans not also retain ours? Especially given that we most likely share common ancestry with them. So, did humans evolve to be less dependent on our hearing?
This is a very interesting question we would like to hear explained some more, thanks!