the evolution of clothes?

heat regulation for running doesn't show up in other running animals, so to me there has to be another factor, such as running with a {camouflage\ceremonial} costume on that artificially reduces heat loss.we can total up a number of unique behaviors in this regard, and the only valid conclusion is that {some\all} had {little\some} effect.This message has been edited by RAZD8, 01-12-2005 19:32 AM

---

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am back in this persona now (the problem has been fixed)

so did I. it was weird trying to get on again and failing to connect. then the withdrawal started, the shakes, the headaches ... it was horrible.

whiskers are hairs.same for the "hairless" cat. what is meant is "no visible body hair" rather than true hairlessness.

beats shaving

sorry I don't buy that.we are not talking about a mutation that reduces the total amount of hair on an individual -- humans are hairy, it is just that the hair is finer than most other apes.the degree of {fineness\fullness} of hair in the coats of individuals will be grouped around an average level in any speciesselection pressure that favors finer haired individual will allow them to take a more prominent role within the group, will allow their offspring to spread the characteristic into the general populationcontinued pressure over many generations will result in any species subject to such pressure to become less and less full {fur\hair} endowed.similar pressure on similar species will result in similar (but not identical) reactions.I see no need to bring in purpose or direction into this argumentyou have:{{species A}} ++ {{proposed cause of feature}} == {{result LH}}
{{species B}} ++ {{same cause in effect}} == {{result notLH}}a hypothesis tested and failed?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

a. variation within the population exists
b. significant advantage claimed for humanssee, I just don't see this as the major ne plus ultra reason for the reduction of hair size in humans.I think it could well have been a contributing factor, but I think when push comes to shove that sexual selection trumps the running in heat model. your (b) is blocked by sexual selection ...... I think the role of sexual selection is underrated in evolution as currently {taught\understood}consider the working definition of species now pretty much accepts that two closely related species are still differentiated if the populations do not choose to interbreed: blocked by sexual selection.consider the green warbler ring species at the northern overlap: males ignore males and females ignore males of the other {species\form}the {running\hunting} model also does not explain why the males are still more heavily hairy than the females if they are the ones doing the {running\hunting} while the females are doing the {walking\gathering} ... of a typical sexist scenario .... sexual selection on the other hand is capable of producing "run-away feedback" features even against individual survival needs (peacock, scissortail, etc, etc) and that several features of humans fit the categories of such "run-away feedback" systems -- bigger than necessary brains, unique in {taxa-family} body ornamentation, stong physical divergence from near relatives with little genetic drift to match ... etcetera, etcetera.sex is what makes us humanenjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No you didn't eliminate sexual selection.all that matters is that stuff happened, and if we don't know what it was then it gets pretty pointless to argue for one specific cause when there could be a number of factors, some from choice, some from chance and some from things being the way they were (free will + random + detereminism) .... without needing to get into the mythos of magical realizations ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

that still doesn't get us to loss of hair from the running hunting bit.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

actually it doesn't make a strong case, and if anything is just another contributing factor. humans can continue to do the walk-run-walk-run fully clothed, and they spend more time walking when it is hot to a greater degree related to temperature than to clothing. Certainly clothing blocks the transfer of heat (sweat) to a greater degree than thinner hair contributes to it ... if it really does: bald people are more prone to heat stroke than fully haired ... maybe hats make a bigger contribution to cooling? Hair actually provides shade for the skin, and increased surface for sweat to evaporate from. I don't believe I ever said that or even implied it. My only question is that if thinning hair is a benefit to humans in the survival selected trait of getting fed then why isn't it more prevalent in other similar sized hunters?AND If it is not more prevalent then either (1) the concept is invalid or (2) there are other factors involved that {accent\mitigate} the action of this factor or (3) there are other factors that are way much more involved in the selection for thinner hair (like sexual selection) and this aspect is a bit-player on a larger stage.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Strawman. Now you are adding fur AND blocking air passage. Neither of which are predicated by clothes. In fact at the last Olympics they were introducing full body tracksuits ... in Greece, hot humid Greece. Refuted. You can loose 80% of your body heat through your head even with it covered by hair, sorry, your argument does not hold up here either. In fact one of the arguments for a large brain is that it makes the head operate as a better radiator for heat.You also have the problem of the sweatiest parts of the body still being endowed with thick hair: pits and pubics. And as pits are already in the shade you cannot play the shade card here. Actually it hasn’t really been properly addressed at all, because you and jar both assume a totally new mutation is necessary rather than selection among existing, naturally occuring trait variations common to all life forms (as I have previously mentioned :rolleyes. You have not shown that it is due to a mutation in humans, so this claim is bogus (not substantiated) at the start.There are many variations in hair density in dogs — all selected by choosing natural variations in existing traits without needing mutation to accomplish. Nothing more is needed to explain it in humans, except to argue about what the selection process was.You might have more of a point if there were areas NOT covered by hair (however fine). Fine hair is nothing more than an extreme end variation precisely similar to the extreme tails of peacocks and scissortail flycatchers, which are, incidentally, also the result of sexual selection of preferred natural variation within existing traits. That doesn’t refute it. In fact the same could be said for every theory in science, and that would have no effect on all those theories that are invalidated in just that way. Silly? Hardly. Don’t you think {If you don’t see a predicted result then the theory is not valid as described} is a pretty basic statement at the foundation of science? Now this sounds like a chicken and egg problem if not a causal logical fallacy. One could argue that long distance running then evolved with long-legged bi-pedalism prior to hair loss, that hair loss is not necessary for the trait and it is incidental rather than required.Much more likely that sexual selection chose young looking sexually {active\attractive} mates (see temporary hair loss in certain areas of female apes during heightened sexual receptiveness), imho, but that takes us back to point 3 ... Ultimately all selection is sexual in sexual species: the mating is chosen by one or more of the participants for sex, it is not spontaneous contact or one reached by logic. I have provided links to sites that discuss the motives as well as the mechanisms, although I would think the motives of adolescent males is hard to avoid .One major problem with your theory is that hair fineness is more extreme in females than in males, extending further over the body with finer hair on average, and being particularly fine in the breast "sexual signal area" in females compared to males. This would argue that the selected trait is in the female sex and the expression of it in males is secondary. As have victorian thinkers for generations. That won’t stop it from being true.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That is exactly what {fur\hair} is, complete with high-tech wicking technology. Sorry those are contradictory. Sunstroke is due to excessive build up of heat. A large brain is not necessarily a more complex one. Pheromones that the human nose is basically incapable of sensing and that we have much lower response to compared to other species? When we have much higher visual response than olfactory? Have you even heard of smell porn? Sorry then. But the point still has NOT been addressed about selection of naturally occuring variation. It happens all the time in species across the board. OR do you deny that some people are much ‘hairier’ than others? AND that they are not considered sex stars (certainly not the women anyway, and certainly not in ‘beefcake’) They do. They wear mud and clay, intentionally layered on. But my point is not loss due to clothes so much as loss due to sexual selection, but that there are likely a number of factors that contributed to it showing up. It shows the features of sexually selected characteristics. I also think that voice, song, and dance — with {make-up\clothes} — were powerful sexual selected characteristics that help define us as the creative thinking humans that we are. Selected due to better filtering of food? My moustache does that too. What I notice is that my pathetically limited argument is once again dismissed instead of addressed. Do you deny that sexual selection exists? Do you deny that it can and does result in extra-ordinary features? Do you deny that humans have extra-ordinary features? And you also have to compare the continuous sexual state of humans compared to the baboons. That would make the signal area more permanent and likely selected for amount of uncoverage compared to coverage. The pattern of fine hair in humans starts with the female breast area and spreads from there. Consider that all porn stars of late appear to be fully shaved .... male and female. Again, this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I think your denial is blinding you, but that is my opinion. The why is easy: specimen A is sexy specimen B is not, I’ll have sex with specimen A. Gee that results in children looking more like specimen A than specimen B: who woodathunk? All you need to do is look at how sex is used to sell everything to see what a factor it is in human life. To deny that it has contributed to the way we look, think, sing, dance, and choose mates is, IMAO, incredibly clothed minded.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You know this is absurd for several reasons having nothing to do with this argument. For this to be a test you would have to control for all these other factors: weight, abrasion, rigidity, inertia, etcetera etcetera. As I said before this is a strawman argument and it is bogus. Your continued use of it is bad form. I have already demonstrated that it does not represent this issue in the slightest. You really like arguing in circles don’t you. You contradict yourself again. So increasing the head size does increase the radiator effect, but hair on the head to keep from getting sunstroke insulates the overheating increased mass of the brain causing even more heat buildup ... dizzy yet? Yeah, that’s a rebutal ... if they exist ... it’s been almost 10 years since that was published: any found yet? (color is my emphasis in the article). And yet, this does not address the issue of being more bare in the sexual signal areas. But let us talk about long hair: what other ape has hair that grows as long as human head hair? What is this but another in a list of extra-ordinary (NOT extraordinary — the - is there for a purpose) features that are selected for sexual attraction? Long tails? Long hair: what purpose does long hair serve? Gosh. This is not a difficult concept. Variation in height, weight, skin color, eye color, hair color, proportionate lengths of arm, thigh, leg, torso, body hair, toe lengths, finger lengths, deepness of eye sockets, etcetera etcetera etcetera ad nauseum ... the one thing that is constant is that there are variations in the final characteristics of every feature in every species. There are mouse species that are bred to reduce variation so that they can control for this aspect in experiments. See there ya go again. I never said that. I never even implied it. And you wonder where I got From? What adaptation is needed to have variation? What adaptation is needed to have (sexual) selection operate on that variation? None. All that is needed is for some variation to be perceived as more attractive, and nothing more. Because it blocks the transfer of heat by sweat? It also serves to keep bugs away, and who knows: they may choose the colors to use as well (does this red clay make me look fat?). Then you are not paying attention. Sexually selected features are those that help you get mates and do not have any survival benefit, in fact they may carry a survival burden. Features like long head hair that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like large female breasts 365.24 days a year that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like bright yellow hair or bright red hair that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like blue eyes that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like very fine hair that has {no or very small} survival benefit. We will come back to this later. False logic again. The kiwi bird has adapted to living with feathers that are more like fur than normal feathers, and this means that the peacock tail cannot be developed by sexual selection? Want to try again? This time on the issue? As I said above, I included the - intentionally to stay away from some of the connotations of that word. Let’s look at the definition (from dictionary.com): I only need definition #1, although definition #2 could be argued for several human features (like that long head hair?).Certainly humans are not normal looking apes for a number of reasons, not least of which is the super fineness of body hair, particularly in the sexual signal breast areas as previously mentioned (and buttocks too, seeing as you seem to like them ). Good. A start anyway. Yes, and this is why the porn stars are shaved of any body hair, to augment those borders ... care to try again and address the issue instead of throwing out more wild ideas? By your argument, marathon runners should be the sexiest humans .... erm, not to me ... okay try it this way: by your argument all porn stars should look like marathon runners .... darn that doesn’t work either ... I know let’s try: by your argument all porn stars should look extremely fit ... well some do, but many don’t, gosh this just isn’t working! What makes specimen A sexy is that {he\she} arouses sexual interest. By augmentation of the areas that signal sexual ability, receptivity and reproduction ability: big breasts feed kids, wide hips let em slide through, big penises make it fun to ride, long hair .......... (oops sorry, lost in a reverie there ...).Sex is not a cognitive process, part of why one sexual apparatus is referred to as the dumb stick — that men only having enough blood for either that or the brain but not both.Your picture implies a level of consciousness, of rationality to it that just does not happen. A man doesn’t ask why his penis is erect ..... he just goes in the direction it is pointing Or it is because of an interest in legs that such running became possible. The legs could be selected for due to the mating dance ritual as easily as running. Singing, dancing, play acting all are sexual behavior. Rock stars (with the ‘wild’ behavior on stage) have groupies, marathon runners don’t.You need to look at the full picture of what is attractive to both sexes, and you need to look at the full behavior that is attractive as well as the features that are picked out specifically for sexual attraction. To do this, imha, means that you need to study porn, the industry founded on nothing else but catering to that attraction. They don’t show marathons ... not running ones anyway ...You also need to ask yourself why people (men and women) shave if not to be more attractive ... and why dating is more about dancing than running.Enough for now.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's also not cloud the issue by pointing out that upright walking occure ~4.5+ million years ago while Ardipithecus ramidus lived in a wooded environment.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What it supports is that upright posture evolved before the savannah ecosystem was involved. Now let us remember that the savannah was seen as the reason for standing, and this has been refuted. In other words, the savannah was not necessary for the evolution of that feature of human behavior. What else is next on the list?What this emphasizes is that all you have for your savannah hypothesis is .... opinion. You don’t have any factual evidence.On to response to post #110: My my my, getting a little temper? Yes running in a rubber costume is really a good representation of how fur behaves. LOL. No, I am not the one playing games, you are with this absurd scenario and you know it. There are several factors that I listed that would all affect a runner and that would have NOTHING to do with the hair versus bare argument. I am not the one introducing whale feeding mechanisms and costumes as evidence of body hair evolution in humans.No, if you were going to reasonably test for this hypothesis you would need to control for a lot of other factors. They only way you could do it properly would be to test under controlled conditions the effect of natural hair versus bare. This would mean finding suitably naturally hirsute individuals and running them on a treadmill with the heat and humidity and sunlight exposure typical of your savannah environment, and then shaving them and repeating, and then testing again as the hair grows back until the original condition was regained. (This allows you to normalize the whole trend and control for {increased\decreased} running {ability\fitness} due to the exercise alone).It would be interesting to see just how significant your factor is. My argument (to refresh your memory again) is that it is relatively minor as things go in the selection of bareness, that other factors are also likely to be involved and that a major one is sexual selection.Notice that hirsute males are easy to find. Not so with females, so your marathon test will be harder to validate for the females. So why aren’t females as hairy as males? Especially if the males were doing the running? We will come back to this. And the same holds for the body. You are saying {X} works on the head area and {notX} works on the rest of the body. Explain again how this is logical? So you agree that the point I raised {{ You also have the problem of the sweatiest parts of the body still being endowed with thick hair: pits and pubics. And as pits are already in the shade you cannot play the shade card here.}} is valid as a challenge to your hypothesis and that you have not refuted it? It is obvious, to me anyway: Long hair demonstrates that run-away sexual selection has occurred in humans. It is that simple. But it is not the only feature that is like this, there are quite a number of them. More on this later. It is what I said at the beginning of this debate: that a preference for the naturally occurring more bare individuals in the sexual selection of mates leads to increased bareness in the general population, a very simple concept. But you have yet to demonstrate that this is reasonable in any way for it to be that fundamental. You have no other examples at all where this also holds true, and the pattern of human bareness is not consistent with the hypothesis, either in where on the human body hair remains or in the sexual dimorphism of this feature versus {ability/roles}. Men run faster than women, men are bigger than women, and men are hairier than women. It doesn’t add up. False again. I never said that, nor implied it. What I said (consistently) was that in this one instance the selection of bareness shows more of the characteristics of sexual selection than survival selection. What I said was: Now explain the relevance of whale baleen to the specific selection of fine hair within the human species again please? Perhaps you know of ‘birds of paradise’ with baleen? My point was clearly about the extremeness of the feature in one species as compared to the normal variations found {in\between} other related species where survival does play a role. And yet arabian horses do not have less hair or finer hair than those donkeys do they? Again there is a complete absence of the trend you claim to be fundamental in other species. So you keep asserting and yet still have {little\no real} evidence in support. Cosmetics on the eyes gets into the make-up for the mating ritual dance, and it is on the face where the long hair is also a factor, not on the body where bareness is the factor. I don’t see those porn stars using kohl on their torso and other parts even though the faces are still heavily made up. No rouge on the tips either .... and not obstructing the view is just the point: bare skin is sexually arousing, hairy skin isn’t. Glad you enjoyed that. I notice that you don’t address the issue again though. We are talking about the general cases of {sexual arousal and bareness} versus {sexual arousal and running-ness} and it looks like bareness wins hands down. Fitness for breeding. It still comes down to sexual arousal. The problem with a very sophisticated degree of UNconsious recognition is the same as the problem with intelligent design — there is no mechanism for it to operate and no evidence of it operating, and now you are talking about specimen {B} being ugly ... LOL. Nor can your very sophisticated degree of UNconsious recognition differentiate between recognition of sexual feedback mechanisms and recognition of running ability. My desperation? LOL. No the display of male leg and bare chest and other aspects is exactly what I was referring to here. If you recall I said that song and dance were part of the mating ritual that resulted in the runaway sexual selection of certain features, like complex language, costume, creativity, dancing legs, and ... bare skin. Because they are Alpha Males? ROFLOL. They are alpha because they are rock stars, not rock stars because they are alpha. They are rock stars because they can sing and dance and display creativity and show off a lot of bare body and moving booty in a creative, entertaining and attraction gathering way. I am running out of laughter here. Marathon runners don’t have groupies because they are not sex symbols. The dancing skill of soccer players goes back (once more) to the mating ritual dancing ...... not to the running skill: just look at the game highlights eh? Heh. Lets do a summary of the results so far: SO. Rather than just making assertions, such as that your position is pretty much destroyed and that the observed phenomenon accord more with a functional achievement than not has not been demonstrated, I can let the evidence speak for itself. And the evidence is eloquent. Bareness is sexually selected, and is another run-away feedback feature, just like long hair. But that is research ... Now let me suggest that you sit back and put together a concise post that focuses on just what evidence you do have, that answers the summary points and addresses the issues, rather than make another "broadside" post?This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-21-2005 23:53 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}