Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why we are "hairless apes".

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why we are "hairless apes".

    I've often wondered why we are almost unique among land mammals in being not furry. Needless to say there is research on it:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-body-hair/

    But notwithstanding any OTFers who already look like Robin Williams with his top off, what would you prefer as a 'coat'? I'm going down the Thundercats route, I'd like to look like a tiger.

    #2
    Originally posted by Rogin the Armchair fan View Post
    I've often wondered why we are almost unique among land mammals in being not furry. Needless to say there is research on it:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-body-hair/
    Alas, we will never know, as it's behind a paywall. At least where I am.

    Years ago, I used to have time for Aquatic Ape Theory, which postulated hair loss was an adaptation for swimming and diving (less drag). (Unfortunately AAT turned out to be a big pile of doggie-doo.)

    The hypothesis I hear the most is that, given the ever-growing brain's insatiable desire for protein, the protein in hair was sacrificed for that.

    Comment


      #3
      That (swimming) is mentioned in the scientific article, as well as being out on the plains not in the (shady) forests, adaptation to not getting fleas, and also sexual attraction. On the latter I don't think I'd prise Signora Rogin off me if I felt like a cat.

      Comment


        #4
        "sexual attraction" as a reason for any particular adaptation seems a hell of a stretch, to me.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by TonTon View Post
          "sexual attraction" as a reason for any particular adaptation seems a hell of a stretch, to me.
          Isn't that the point of this?

          Last edited by ChrisJ; 16-06-2021, 12:37. Reason: sounded a bit smart-arsey and peremptory

          Comment


            #6
            The article says that hairlessness, once it had evolved for whatever reason (and the author does suggest a favoured explanation), would have become subject to sexual attraction.

            Or to rephrase that, probably best to get the facts from scientists, rather than Rogin summaries of scientists.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by TonTon View Post
              "sexual attraction" as a reason for any particular adaptation seems a hell of a stretch, to me.
              Charles Darwin wrong again, I see.

              Comment


                #8
                I would prefer scales to fur. Preferably something in a shimmering light blue, to match my eyes.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Can I be a bore on this for a minute?

                  The words 'for' and 'to' in discussions of evolution are fundamentally wrong. That's not how evolution works.

                  The two critical components of evolution are random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation is small, completely random genetic mutations in living things that results in them become slightly different. So, for every 10,000 red cardinals, you'll get a bright yellow cardinal. Just a random genetic mutation that creates a distinct difference.

                  Now, in natural, that difference will give that genetic lineage an advantage, which then leads to natural selection. So, an island that has green birds and red birds suddenly is invaded by predators. The green birds blend into the trees while the red birds make easy targets. Within a few years, the red birds have all become naturally selected 'out' while the green birds, breeding with other green birds, create a strong genetic line and flourish.

                  The important point is that the green birds didn't evolve 'to' hide. It wasn't an input. It was a result.

                  So, an ape wouldn't evolve 'to' swim, he'd evolve hairless and find that he 'could' swim. The phrasing of the former makes it sound like a goal, while it was actually a simple result. When people say something like 'we evolved with fingernails so we could pick open nuts', that's wrong. It's more like 'those who randomly evolved with fingernails could open nuts and survive and those who evolved without them couldn't open nuts and starved, and their line died out'. That's an absurd example, but I think it makes the point.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The sexual attraction thing is interesting given a conversation I heard about recently. A young man of our parish saying that his partner wouldn't sleep with him while he had any body hair. Many young males these days are going for full body waxing as a result of similar expectations. Who knew?

                    Richard Keys must be relieved he was born when he was.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by WOM View Post
                      So, an ape wouldn't evolve 'to' swim, he'd evolve hairless and find that he 'could' swim. The phrasing of the former makes it sound like a goal, while it was actually a simple result.
                      Yes, but that's a bad example. Body hair isn't an impediment to swimming by any means (hello beavers), but losing it would make you move through the water more efficiently. So, it could be a by-product of something else, or it could confer a survival advantage.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Foot of Astaire's View Post
                        The sexual attraction thing is interesting given a conversation I heard about recently. A young man of our parish saying that his partner wouldn't sleep with him while he had any body hair. Many young males these days are going for full body waxing as a result of similar expectations. Who knew?
                        I never got this. Why's body hair a no-no nowadays, but a massive beard and a man-bun is okay?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Stumpy Pepys View Post

                          Yes, but that's a bad example. Body hair isn't an impediment to swimming by any means (hello beavers), but losing it would make you move through the water more efficiently. So, it could be a by-product of something else, or it could confer a survival advantage.
                          No, I recognize that. I was just tying it back to the example provided. I'd argue that most mutations confer a survival advantage in a specific time and place. I think one of Darwin's examples involved turtles with long necks being able to access berries that turtles with short necks couldn't reach. That advantage only needs to exist for a short time before starvation eradicates the short-neck turtle line and all turtles in a region / on an island have long necks.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Stumpy Pepys View Post

                            I never got this. Why's body hair a no-no nowadays, but a massive beard and a man-bun is okay?
                            A man bun is never OK...

                            Comment


                              #15
                              It's just a bun.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by TonTon View Post
                                "sexual attraction" as a reason for any particular adaptation seems a hell of a stretch, to me.
                                I see Stumpy has already made the point, but a certain C Darwin is patiently waiting outside and would like a quiet word with TonTon. Mostly to say WTF?!? [Charlie is apparently feeling very modern at the moment]

                                Adaptation through sexual selection is one of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  My non-expert feeling is body hair was mostly lost through redundancy. Any mutation that was preferential for another characteristic but also cause a reduction in body hair would have been selected for as there was an advantage on the other aspect and no disadvantage on the latter. And that gradually reduced the thickness of the coat without totally eliminating it. Because we are not hairless, of course. People have hair over most of their bodies, it's just the coat is rather fine over most of it. But "The Naked Ape" sounds snappier than "The Not Very Hairy Ape" or "The Ape With A Very Light Coat".

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by WOM View Post
                                    Can I be a bore on this for a minute?

                                    The words 'for' and 'to' in discussions of evolution are fundamentally wrong. That's not how evolution works.

                                    The two critical components of evolution are random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation is small, completely random genetic mutations in living things that results in them become slightly different. So, for every 10,000 red cardinals, you'll get a bright yellow cardinal. Just a random genetic mutation that creates a distinct difference.

                                    Now, in natural, that difference will give that genetic lineage an advantage, which then leads to natural selection. So, an island that has green birds and red birds suddenly is invaded by predators. The green birds blend into the trees while the red birds make easy targets. Within a few years, the red birds have all become naturally selected 'out' while the green birds, breeding with other green birds, create a strong genetic line and flourish.

                                    The important point is that the green birds didn't evolve 'to' hide. It wasn't an input. It was a result.

                                    So, an ape wouldn't evolve 'to' swim, he'd evolve hairless and find that he 'could' swim. The phrasing of the former makes it sound like a goal, while it was actually a simple result. When people say something like 'we evolved with fingernails so we could pick open nuts', that's wrong. It's more like 'those who randomly evolved with fingernails could open nuts and survive and those who evolved without them couldn't open nuts and starved, and their line died out'. That's an absurd example, but I think it makes the point.
                                    We tend to put agency into the evolution that just isn't there. Species don't decide to develop, nature imposes changes on them. But it's interesting that we feel the need to speak about evolution as something active by the organisms rather than passively happening to them. I wonder if that is common across humanity, or just a facet of the English language/anglophone culture?

                                    The specific example mixes cause and effect though. Assuming there is anything in the idea that being less hairy helps with swimming, then an ape that was already trying to swim would swim better if a genetic variation had made it less hairy. Swimming better could promote the gene that selected for it in a number of ways that would propagate that gene through the species at the expense of the other, hairier old variant. One, potential mates could be impressed by the apparent extra athleticism of the less hairy swimmer, or by the extra fish they manage to catch as a consequence, so be more likely to procreate with the less hairy variant, which propagates that gene over the other. Or two, the crocodile in the lake is more likely to catch and eat the slower, hairier swimmer. Which leaves the path free for the less hairy one to procreate, which again propagates that gene over the hairier one.

                                    [TonTon should note that who gets to procreate with is an absolutely fundamental step in the process]

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Stumpy Pepys View Post

                                      Yes, but that's a bad example. Body hair isn't an impediment to swimming by any means (hello beavers), but losing it would make you move through the water more efficiently. So, it could be a by-product of something else, or it could confer a survival advantage.
                                      A Beaver's coat is more about keeping out the cold than making swimming easier, isn't it (see also Otters)? It's a good example of characteristic selection working the other way. A hairless body might be the ideal for swimming, but if it means you freeze to death in your first winter, long before you are of breeding age (back to sex again!), then it's a mutation that will get rapidly wiped out. The mutations preferentially selected for will be those that provide enough warmth with the least impediment to swimming.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        I remember an excellent essay by Steven Jay Gould postulating how a fly ended up with wings and the ability to fly.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Sits View Post
                                          I remember an excellent essay by Steven Jay Gould postulating how a fly ended up with wings and the ability to fly.
                                          Nominative determinism

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            This hair-loss transition period must have been traumatic for those on the hirsute side of the divide, emerging spluttering from the lake after once again sinking to the bottom, just in time to see their closely-groomed rivals disappearing into caves with a couple of salmon in one hand and an adoring female holding the other.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Hmmm, a bit of biased thinking there? Why aren’t women still hairy in that case?

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Maybe they are but over time the children of such couplings, both boys and girls, become progressively less hairy.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by Reality Checkpoint View Post
                                                  Hmmm, a bit of biased thinking there? Why aren’t women still hairy in that case?
                                                  They are

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X