What’s your best scientific theory for why humans have no protective fur or hair to speak of? Also, what theories are you aware of that do not seem to be correct -- and why?
Let’s assume a discussional environment based on the truth of evolution, natural selection, etc. -- unless you specifically note a different scientific foundation for your post.
~~~~~~~~~~
I thought of this cause-and-effect subject because I just had an occasion to quickly read the introduction and first chapter of the book, The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris, which lightly presents a number of theories for why humans evolved into such a condition. I really hadn’t thought about it much before, but now I’m inquisitive. I have no doubt that there are lots of theories running around the internet and the rest of the world. But, which ones make sense and which don’t?
(Since I don’t own or have the book...) Here is my own re-write from my own recollection of a Morris assertion: Some people denounce humankind’s nakedness by pointing to the fact that we actually are fully coved by hair. But claiming that all those puny little hairs mean humans aren’t naked is like claiming a blind man isn’t blind because he has two eyes. Functionally, which is a key word here, we are stark naked because those hairs do not protect our skin from the heat nor the cold like fur and feathers do for other animals.
So, what do you have to say about this curious characteristic: human nakedness?
Well, some people are extremely hairy people, others are not. I think that since we've invented clothes, people who were not hairy had the means to survive. Evolution. Now as to why the people who were hairy and why it seems that not so many people are so hairy. Well, I think it's part of human culture, atleast where I'm from, where hair isn't necessarily all that attractive. Therefore hairy people didn't mate, etc.
I'm not saying this is right, and I hope that it doesn't offend anyone. I'm looking forward to a good conversation on this.
Welcome to Frihost, ClanDestine! Good post! Thanks! 
| ClanDestine wrote: |
| Well, some people are extremely hairy people |
Yes, as compared to other humans, but not as compared to other animals.
Even if there is a current trend to be attracted to less hairy people, this could have come about long after the natural tendency towards having less hair came about. If this kind of attraction is more of a cultural thing than an evolutionary thing, then that part might change back. For example, compare a recently previous time when bountifully round women were considered more attractive than some of today’s attractive skin-and-bones women -- a trend which seems like it might oscillate back.
In others words, some of these trends come and go with the times. As I’m sure you’d agree, we’d like to figure out how to separate those from actual natural selection activity, which involves much more than culture.
~~~~~~~~~~
A problem with studying anthropological history for this is that hair features do not fossilize like bones do. Otherwise, we’d be able to know much more than we do. Well if researchers are saying we decended from some kind of ape right? Well most apes today live up in the mountain jungles of africa. Say something made them move down the mountain, into the savanna of africa, where, i think, we have found some of our earliest ancestors. Since it is much hotter down on the savanna than in the mountains, doesn't it seem like we would naturally lose hair. Then as we spread out, we encountered different climates, being the resourceful humans we were, rather than waiting a few generations to grow hair, we made clothes for warmth, for most of our body except our face, which could explain for hair on top of our head and facial hair, except for women. I'm sure there are some flaws in this but it's the best i can do early in the morning.
Thanks, Princess. This is a great site.
Well, is culture considered to be part of natural selection? For example, if say, we had green people. If the green people were accepted by culture, they would live and keep going, spurred on by being accepted by culture. If they weren't, it wouldn't matter if they could survive, but if they couldn't find mates or got pushed around by the culture of the other people. So I'm not sure, is culture part of natural selection?
Culture definitely is part of natural selection. Even today we can see how culture plays a part in marriage. And how those criteria varies from community to community.
While in some cultures, a bit hefty women are considered better marriage material, others look for thinner women.
Social standing such as job or family back ground..even geneology plays it's part in marriage selection...
Coming to the question of hair, I think it has been a long time since Humans stopped evolving and rather opted to change the environment to suit them...When it gets hot, we put a fan or air conditionaing...when get's cold we wear warm clothing...
So in the end Social selection, I feel, has played a bigger part in Mankinds loss of body hair. 
Well firstly you should not have made false statements in the question. Although it could be a gramatical error so I'm not trying to jump you like a rabid dog. It should have read -
Let’s assume a discussional environment based on the THEORY of evolution through natural selection.
Because it is still a theory and not anywhere close to truth.
And
| Quote: |
| unless you specifically note a different scientific foundation for your post. |
Don't mind if I do. And before you get upset I'm following your rules by specifying my scientific foundation.
God created the earth, heavens (this includes space) and everything in them. Adam and Eve had eaten forbidden fruit and gained knowledge of good and evil. They became self aware and that they were naked. They felf ashamed so they got some leaves together and made themselves clothes. God then actually made them a better set of clothes out of animal skin before kicking them out of the garden of eden. And so we've worn clothes for almost 6000 years now.
That's my answer. But there are some other interesting ones posted. Even better still are some out on the web. I'd suggest posting a reply before checking the web as to not cloud your mind with the thoughts of others. It's much more interesting to hear the thoughts of you guys pre "5 minutes ago influence" What above all maters is how you define "naked", what's your definition of "naked".
A naked body could be also a naked skin but it could be also a body without skin...
Interesting question... 
Having a practical definition of naked is important, I agree. I am trying to use the definition as author Morris presented in 1967 (or earlier), but I don’t have a way to quote it for you. I am finding that other people online are using the term similarly, though I haven’t found a clear definition. Sometimes we can extract and reformulate definitions from text that use the terms. I have added the tomato color, below.
~~~~~~~~~~
Source: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=taxonomy/term/7
| Quote: |
Killer Ape/Cuddly Ape
[...]
Introduction
Humans differ from other primates in many ways. We have no hair; unlike apes, we have body fat, we can walk upright, we have speech; strange for a land mammal, we can’t run but can swim. Most importantly, different from many marine mammals is that we have large brains.
[...]
What became known of as Savannah Hypothesis was written on and expanded by many authors, the most famous Desmond Morris in the Naked Ape. |
The definition of “hair” is obviously meant to be something other than what humans do have. So, what do we call it? Morris chose to re-use the term “naked” meaning “without clothes”, and give it a new definition, something along the lines of “without the kind of hair that many animals other than humans have”. Can anyone here help us by stating it better?
~~~~~~~~~~
Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385334303/002-6840289-7839250?v=glance&n=283155
| Quote: |
| We can disagree about the precise mechanisms of evolution as much as we like; we can disagree about how much of our nature is really accounted for by this or that theory of evolution; but the one fact we can't get around on _any_ account is that as a matter of biology, we _are_ naked apes. We may be more than animals, but we are not less. |
If we are starting from a point where it is deemed that humans as a species are naked and that other animals as species are not, what is it that the term naked could refer to that makes sense? Whatever that is, it is our answer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Good discussion, y’all! Let’s keep it friendly -- no one needs to become upset if we all write our thoughts as sincerely as we can. I like some of the theories, but coming down to the hot savvanahs is probably not a good reason for us to have lost the majority of our ancesteral hair. Baboons and severl other species of mokeys live on the african savvanah and they are no less hairy than their jungle living counterparts.
One compelling argument for the loss of hair is that we spent alot of time in water in our early evolutionary history (i.e. fishing, diving for shell fish etc). All marine mammals have lost allmost all of their hair, devolped a layer of fat like us.
perhaps just as interesting is why we are not completely hairless.
if the water baby theory is true then the hair on the head could provide much needed protection from the sun for our rapidly enlarging brain.
how about pubic hair? pubic hair seems to perform no practical task. Many beleieve it is for insulation of the genetalia, but they are neccesarily free from hair, and the testicles have far less hair on them than the area of the pubis. I think pubic hair is a sexual signal, saying "look i'm sexualy mature", hairy bodies could be similar, especially hairy backs.
another starnge part of the life of our hair is male pattern baldness, i expect this too is a sexual signal, many women find bald men extremely attractive, high testosterone levels cause MPB, and it is extremely obvious from a distance.
a note for the ignorant. Yes Evolution is a THEORY but the word THEORY in science does not correspond with the word theory in everyday parlance. the everyday theory is called an HYPOTHESIS in science, a preformed prediction from observation. You could (quite succesfully) argue that charles darwins "the origin of species" is an extrememly long and detailed hypothesis, he himself did no experiments into evolution. But since the turn of the century, coupled with genetics (i.e. the new synthesis of darwinian evolution) predictions (i.e. hypothesese) have been made using evolution, which under scientific experimentation have proved true.
The body of evidence points towards evolution being true, it is a THEORY (not a theory), it is the best explanation for observed events and scientific results.
God is not an Hypothesis, nor a theory, you cannot prove that god exists, nor that he does not. i am told that this is the whole point of God or religion to have faith. I am a scientist, there is not evidence that god created the world so that is not a valid theory...
Ignorance maybe bliss but it is not becoming, big or clever,
Truly ponderable, mgumn! Thanks!
I’m wondering if what you are calling the “water baby theory” is the same as what I’ve heard being called the “aquatic ape theory”.
Also, I wonder about thoughts on neoteny playing a role in this. Here’s an intro I snagged:
| Wikipedia’s Neoteny entry wrote: |
Evolution
Neoteny also plays a role in evolution, as a means by which, over generations, a species can undergo a significant physical change. In such cases, a species’ neotenous form becomes its “normal” mature form, no longer dependent upon environmental triggers to inhibit maturity. The mechanism for this could be a mutation in, or interactions between, genes involved in maturation, changing their function to impede this process.
Humans exhibit a number of prominent neotenies compared to the other great apes. Adulthood begins in chimps at about 2-3 years; in humans this occurs between the 14th and 17th year.
Neoteny is not the only contributing factor affecting maturation in species that may have undergone neotenous changes over the course of their evolution, and its actual involvement in the following examples is not well understood:
* flightless birds—physical proportions resemble those of the chicks of flighted birds;
* humans—with traits such as sparse body hair and enlarged heads reminiscent of baby primates.
* dogs—which share many physical features with the immature wolf |
Hmm, I seem to remember that Apes don't sweat like humans. That their cooling is more like other mammals (tongue, mouth). If that is the case (and I am looking for confirmation) then the loss of body hair would be needed to expose the skin for evaporation.
Of course, just ties the two traits together. Which came first and why? I'll get back if I find anything.
Edit to correct exhaustion.
Last edited by HoboPelican on Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:06 am; edited 1 time in total
I've wanted fur for quite some time now. I don't suppose you've heard about the TF subculture? (I'll admit; not entirely reletive)
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| I've wanted fur for quite some time now. I don't suppose you've heard about the TF subculture? (I'll admit; not entirely reletive) |
You didn’t say what TF stands for, so here are some guesses off the Top Front of my Totally Furry noggin:
Troglodytic Furoscopy subculture
Thaumaturgical Furoplasty subculture
Taffy Furballistic subculture
In any case, I send you Triumphant Fortune with your quest! Transformation
AKA, the furry subculture
And, er, thanks for the triumphant fortune...
I'd say that as we developed coverings using materials from our environment, the amount of body hair became less of a factor in determining who would survive in a cold and harsh environment thus leading to the gradual dissapearance of the now unesesary hair.
chipms aren't *that* hairy...
Yea! Just yesterday I received in the mail a copy of The Illustrated Naked Ape, which is a later edition of the book I’d mentioned above that I’d read on. I obviously can’t post all parts pertinent to our topic, but here’s just one snippet I scanned in to whet your appetite. Morris had discussed a number of theories on our nakedness, and then came to this part.
| The Illustrated Naked Ape, p 37 wrote: |
Clearly the situation is more complicated than it at first appears. A great deal will depend on the exact temperature levels of the environment and on the amount of direct sunshine. Even if we suppose that the climate was suitable for hair loss--that is, moderately hot, but not intensely hot--we still have to explain the striking difference in coat condition between the naked ape and the other open-country carnivores.
There is one way we can do this, and it may give the best answer yet to the whole problem of our nakedness. The essential difference between the hunting ape and his carnivore rivals was that he was not physically equipped to make lightning dashes after his prey or even to undertake long endurance pursuits. But this is nevertheless precisely what he had to do. He succeeded because of his better brain, leading to more intelligent manoeuvring and more lethal weapons, but despite this such efforts must have put a huge strain on him in simple physical terms. The chase was so important to him that he would have to put up with this, but in the process he must have experienced considerable over-heating. There would be a strong selection pressure working to reduce this over-heating and any slight improvement would be favoured, even if it meant sacrifices in other directions. His very survival depended on it. This surely was the key factor operating in the conversion of a hairy hunting ape into a naked ape. With neoteny to help the process on its way, and with the added advantages of the minor secondary benefits already mentioned, it would become a viable proposition. By losing the heavy coat of hair and by increasing the number of sweat glands all over the body surface, considerable cooling could be achieved--not for minute-by-minute living, but for the supreme moments of the chase--with the production of a generous film of evaporating liquid over his air-exposed, straining limbs and trunk.
This system would not succeed, of course, if the climate were too intensely hot, because of damage to the exposed skin, but in a moderately hot environment it would be acceptable. |
