|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the evolution of clothes? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Because that is what fur does/ It traps air and thus insulates the body.
quote: Thats just silly - evolving animals don't have access to sophisticated breathing fabrics.
[quote] 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.[/qupte] Er it does I'm afraid - bald men lose heat faster. Bald men suffer from sun-stroke more easily. Your rebuttal is rebutted. Furthermore, it is senseless to say that the brain makes the head operate as a better heat radiator - the brain accounts for a third of our energy budget and is a major cause of heat generation. So IF you had a heat raditation problem, a big empty space would be much better than one packed solid with high-energy machinery.
quote: Correct. Fortunately Desmond Morris swings in to my rescue, arguing that these places are still hairy in order to trap pheremones in sweat.
quote: I have absolutely never made this claim.
quote: You are over-extending my argument as you have done previously. Id did not say REQUIRED. ALL I argued was that the model of the running ape makes sense to me, MORE SO than the idea that hair loss is related to clothing. If I were to stoop to your pathetic reasoning I would challenge that proposition that saying that since elephants do not have clothes its obviously false. Yes?
quote: Wouldn't you say that baleen is a pretty extreme variation on the theme of hair? Again your argument is pathetically limited.
quote: To which I respond that Gelada baboons have a signal very much like that but nevertheless display dense body hair in most places. So this fails to answer the question as to why it has spread over the body in humans or what utility this may bring.
quote: What an absurd non sequitur. Sexual selection appears to be a get-out-of-explaining-free card in actual use; what it does not explain is WHY a trait is being selected sexually. As a result it merely frustrates rather than illuminates, in my experience. To date the sole value I have seen in "sexual selection" is describing how counterproductive strategies like the peacocks feathers can become embedded, but its use as a general answer is meaningless. As it is in this case - 'sexual selection' being used as a substitute for thought and analysis. This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-19-2005 05:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: An easy counter-argument here is that strong outlines are better prompts than weak ones, so a strong fur/skin border may well work better for signal strength.
quote: WHY is specimen A sexy? What ABOUT specimen A is sexy? "Sexual selection" is a non-answer. But it is the strength of my answer - Specimen A is sexy BECAUSE they look better adapted to running, they have long thighs, smooth calves, well-formed feet, a tight arse (sexual interest in the buttocks of course being present in both men and women). Specimen B over there is squat, hairy, with a flabby arse. Selection FOR running VIA sex is a meaningful statement. "Sexual selection" alone is not.
quote: Everyone.
quote: Indeed - and one of Desmond Morris's depictions was of an advert for coke or similar showing a girl with legs that were one and half times her body length. In other words, grossly disproportionate; and yet it takes someone mentioning this to see it. It is precisely becuase we are so interested in legs et al that IMO reinforces the running ape view. To deny that it has contributed to the way we look, think, sing, dance, and choose mates is, IMAO, incredibly clothed minded
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: It most certainly DOES represent the issue; stop playing games. The argument is that hairlessness contributes to long distance running efficiency. You appear to dispute this - therefore from your perspective having long hair and heavy coat should not be any impediment. If you really insisted on ruling out all other influneces, it would be easy enough to do - just have the same runner do it on different occassions. Regardless, it remains the fact that dogs are now banned on the Comrades marathon because they tend to die of heatstroke, and humans do not. Humans are more efficient runners over distance than dogs. Some would argue, even more efficient than antelope and horses, under the right conditions. And that is a very special UNIQUE effect which IMO requires an explanation.
quote: You need a basic physics refresher. You are looking at a feedback system, there is nothing weird about it. I have already referenced the problems of proportional surface area to volume - this is standard high school stuff. Increasing VOLUME does NOT increase heat dissipation, it makes it worse. Increasing AREA improves dissipation. But a heat exchanger can work both ways, and so if exposed to the sun can be detrimental. And that is what head-top hair addresses.
quote: Fine - but then again, this demonstrates that there is indeed a *possible* explanation for armpit anfd genital hair. Their presence does not imply there is something automatically and inherently wrong with the running ape model.
quote: I don't dispute this point, I just don;t understand what significance you think it has.
quote: Trivia snipped. I know what this variation IS, what I asked about was its RELEVANCE to this argument. Care to answer the question yet?
quote: Fair enough. This seems to rule out hairlessness as sexually selected.
quote: Well, now I really do not understand the point of this diversion because my whole argument is that it is NOT trivial, but fundamental to our aboriginal mode of production.
quote: Perfect logic, you are switching your terms. Your implied that hair is NEVER selected for functional reasons, which I disproved. Nowhere did I claim that sexual selection does not happen, nor that it never affects feathers or fur. Please pay attention.
quote: Yes - we are NOT normal looking apes. Might that perhaps be BECAUSE WE ARE A PLAINS APE AND THEY ARE FOREST APES? The way we differ from say gorillas is not massively different IMO from the way an Arabian thoroughbred differs from a donkey: longer limbed, sleeker, smoother. Your apparent insistence that the ONLY viable explanation for these characteristics is runaway non-productive sexual selection is just ridiculous. There are other explanations that are suitable for consideration, of which the Running Ape model IMO is the best.
quote: Yes my idea was obviously ridiculous - that must be why kohl, which draws stronger borders, is the oldest of cosmetics. Frankly thats a pretty desperate reach - I imagine porn performers do so so as not to obstruct the view. Try logic - its the real thing.
quote: LOOOOOL - I remind you of your own argument about "natural variation". There is no reason to expect that the general case necessarily applies to any specific case. You should try dialectical materialism, it helps you cut through this silliness.
quote: Actually what it implies is a very sophisticated degree of UNconsious recognition. Exactly the same kind of thing I previously addressed in the symmetry topic - it is an unconscious recognition of the breakdown of symmetry that *implies* something about the fitness of the person, and which is then fed into our cognitive space as "ugly". This actually shows a major weakness in evolutionary psychology, which we touched on the other day. I'm adamant that no psychology can procede without a comprehensive understanding of information science.
quote: Hmm, your desperation is confirmed. Rock Stars, with their fame, attention, and wealth, are clear alpha male types, or at least that is the projected image. But if you recall the spandex era, you would have seen a great deal of male leg on display. Of course marathon runners do not command the same social rank, and hence do not have groupies. Sports stars also get groupies - and especially in terms of soccer football, that is very much a foot/leg/running skill.
quote: Yes, well - at this point I think your argument has been pretty much destroyed. The observed phenomenon accord more with a functional achievement than not. Perhaps you should get your nose out of the wankmags and do some research. This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-20-2005 07:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I suppose you are indicating something like this:
quote: I'm not sure how you think this supports your point. Nowehere have I claimed that bipedalism and hairlessness occurred simultaneously. I would expect that running as a mode would pre-date refinements and improvments in running, such as hair loss. Bipedalism may well have appeared in forested environments - I've seen footage of chimps wading upright through streams, for example - but this does not preclude hairlessness from having developed in a later savannah environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: was it now? I'm in the camp tyhat sees upright posture as pretty unremarkable in brachiating animals and as developed for tool use.
quote: Yes, so you claim. Unfortuntaley this leaves us with no explanation at all for humans remarkable running abilities - able to outdistance almost everything in the long haul. This is fundamenatally why a sexual selewction hypothesis is much weaker - it proposes that these unique and dramatic features occur by accident rather than adaptation. If thats the case then what features cannot be reduced to sexual selection, and what does sexual selection mean? Nothing.
quote: Now you're playing dumb. I have already explained the physics to you.X works on the head becuase it is where most of the suns energy will be felt most consistently, and becuase we do NOT want the big blood vessels in the head to be more heated; we want them to output hit. Hence, shielding. This cannot be inexplicable to you as you pretend, otherwise thick soles would also appear you if seen on the feet. Afteer all, if normal skin is good enough for the main body, surely it shoyuld be good enough for the soles too. Right? Stop playing silly buggers.
quote: Unfortunately for you I have refuted it. Your argument is that if the running ape thesis is valid at all, tyhere should be no exceptions to hair loss anywhare. This is manifestly ridiculous, an extension to an illogical extreme. And all I have to do is provide one plausible reason why patches of hair may be retained to destroy your overextension. Which I have done.
quote: Ahahaha. So now your argument is reduced to claiming that because there has been SOME sexual selction, there CANNOT be any other adaptations? Illogical.
quote: Nonsens. Humans are DEMONTRABLY better long distance runners than many or even most animals. The pattern of hair retention fits my model perfectly, especially the retention of head hair, which my model predicts. Any notional sexual dimorphism issue can easily be addressed by positing that remnants of hair remain as armour - thus, on males, we quite spectacularly have our necks still shielded by a matte of hair, and we do NOT lose this in old age. Men may run FASTER than women but I never argued about speed, only DISTANCE. Males have all the usual combat features - bigger frame, more muscular, more armoured. But in our case our quite small degree of dimorphism may arise precisely becuase these features cause necessary compromises with the major adaptation - running.
quote: If tyou like I shall repeat myself: to demonstrate that your assertion that hair is only ever modifvied by sexual selection is false. Done and dusted.
quote: Umm, yes I believe there is. But if you need a more extreme variation, look at steppe ponys adapted for cold envrionments - thick bushy hair. I am pointing to a fundemanetal feature of temperature regulation that is addressed in all animals in all environments. Lowland cows are less hairy than highland cows. Plains dogs are less heavily coated than sub-arctic dogs. This is hardly some sort of obscure and unreasonable suggestion.
quote: Hahahah.... OK then, I'm going to enjoy this: would you like to explain how sexual fitness os recognised? I'm all ears. This is a guenuine question - human cognition is quite fascinating. My explanation shows how and why a feature might be perceived as attractive; according to your argumentm, there is no way to determine what is attractive from what is not, is there. Take it away.
[quote] My desperation? LOL. No the display of male leg and bare chest and other aspects is exactly what I was referring to here.[/qupte] Umm, no you were not - ebcuase you can't explain why they are sexy.
quote: Which is like appealing to intelligent design - in the lack of any other explanation, it MUST have been sexual! Catch me before I fall, matron. It remains a non answer.
quote: Thats what I said. The very social respect they command makes them so.
quote: Can you cite any other animal that does these things? Becuase as they ALL arise from sexual selection, one would expect them to arise consistently, no?
quote: Yes - you are failing to challenge my points, you know.
quote: No no noot - tha dancing skills display their running competence, geddit? Now lets take another look at your "summary" RUNNING: * cannot explain long hair on head... but does not contradict it * cannot explain hair in high sweat armpits... but does not contradict it * cannot explain hair in high sweat pubic area... but does not contradict it * cannot explain hair on high sweat area of male only face... explained through standard combat adaptaion, running model reinforced * cannot explain greater variation of hairiness in males... cannot explain varying height in either sex aither. Duh. Natural variation is sufficient. * cannot explain greater average hairiness of males... explained above, does not contradict model * cannot explain virtual lack of sexiness of running stars... but does explain the sexiness of dancers and leg/foot fetishism * cannot explain why the larger and faster male is hairier than the female... you're repeating yourself, this is twice answered above * cannot explain actual sexiness of singing and dancing stars... becuase RAZD cannot read. Rock stars are only sexy becuase of TV. * cannot explain that singing and dancing stars do not look like runners... becuase they are not directly relevant * cannot explain actual sexiness of naked and shaved porn stars... does, becuase hairlessness has survival value * cannot explain that porn stars do not look like runners... RAZD becomes possibly absurdist. They are sexy by standard running ape standards. * cannot explain the virtual lack of any similar {hair\fur} trend in other species, even ones larger than humans that run in a hot environment, as should be predicted (or at a minimum, not be unexpected) if it is survival selection related to natural variation in {hair\fur} density. ... displays startling ignorance of the easily observed and much studied heat dissipation mechanisms in all ammalls, aquatic or terrestrial. the pattern of heavier fur toward the poles and thinner, lighter fur toward the equator is undeniable. ... RAZD is therfore
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Because otherwise the organism has no basis for judging the sexiness of a potential mate. As I have already pointed out, "sexual selection" as a phrase is entirely useless for any productive discussion; the ONLY thing it can meaningfully address on its own is runaway counterproductive processes. This is why it is totally inadequate as an explanation for human hair loss, as hair loss appears fundamental to our aboriginal mode of operation.
quote: Baleen was only offered as a falsification of your claim that the ONLY influence ever observed on hair is non-productiove sexual selection. The Baleen example demonstrates clearly that hair can and has been the subject of specific fitness developement.
quote: It is not I'm afraid. First of all, many animals can track - that is very far from a uniquely human ability. Secondly, all running animals pace themselves - otherwise they would be routinely running themselves to death as soon as they were chased by a rpedator, and that simply does not happen. It's trivial to observe that wolves, for example, have a loping gate for covering distances and a sprint gate for the chase. Horses have many more gaits than that. This is a non-problem.
quote: Only if you ignore bipedalism. Now the argument I am working from takes bipedalism to be very important, becuase by being bipedal we do not lose energy invested in locomation as 4-legfged animals do when the front half of their bodies come crashing down with every step. We are inherently unstable when running, unlike like 4-leggeds, becuase we are permanently off balance and running to keep up. And this means that our running is more efficient than that of quadrupeds, and that other adaptations, such as loss of hair EXCEPT on the top of the head (and some other trivial bits) is directly related to our bipedalism.
quote: Thats just sour grapes, RAZD.
[quote] This is new: your model of hair loss for greater cooling now predicts that human head hair is the longest hair in the ape kingdom, to the point where it completely covers many areas that are supposedly bared for greater cooling. Fascinating. Tell me again why male necks and shoulders are bare when they are then completely {surrounded\covered} by facial and head hair? Based on cooling of the bare areas?[/qupte] And yet again your argument depends on systematic dishonesty. I did not say that my model predicted LONG hair; I said that my model predicted the RETENTION OF HEAD HAIR. This is a dishonest manipulation of my argument, isn't it RAZD? You have done it repeatedly, please desist.
quote: Yes. I mean please, your argument sounds like that of a 9-year old: if I say that running is a basic mode of production you choose to interpret that as the claim that "there are and can be no other influences". Thats just childish, RAZD, please advance an adult argument. It is frankly stupid to pretend that only one influence is ever operational. Whatever physical form finally emerges will be a synthersis of ALL envrionmental pressures, not only one. In apes and many other animals, hair serves as armour. In a running ape, most of that armour can be lost, but its not cost efficient to lose the neck-armour of your primary combatants - because that is the place most predators know to attack! If you look at military history you will observe that mobility and combat effectiveness are inherently countervailing trends. Similarly, the loss of head hair in old men is no biggie if they are no longer fit enough to handle the long chase at all. Your argument descends to pettiness.
quote: Thats what you get when you twist your opponents argument to discredit it. If you will not debate honestly, you are not worthy of honest debate.
quote: Recapaitulation of mating basics for kindergarten ommitted. Here is the question you persistently refuse to engage with: ARE we looking at runaway selction, or are we looking at environmental adaptation? If so, what is the basis for that claim, and for ruling out the appearence of bareness as related to fitness? That is purely an assumption on your part which you have so far only been able to defend by analogy to other animals. By your logic, we would be compelled to conlude that the fine hair in cetaceans did NOT evolve as a response to the environment in which they find themselves, even progressively over millions of years. No, apparently its purely an accident that cetacean hair contributes to their swimming efficiency; according to your argument, the illogical runaway sexually selected feedback that produced this fine hair could just as easily have produced a thick mass of fur that would have impeded their swimming. So how is it there is not a single aqautic mammal with long hair, and that all aquatic mammals are as streamlined as their body form can make? According to your argument, thats not even a meaningful question.
quote: Sure. Unfortunately, none of it supports your argument. The fact that it is reasonable to interpret long head hair as sexually selected does not in any sense imply that the elmination of body hair was selected by the same mechanism. Is it your argument that the perfectly serviceable short feathers on peacocks are also sexually selected for smallness? I have never denied the PRESENCE of sexual selection, nor its potential counter-poroductive outcome. But what you have NOT shown is why it should be thought that hairlessness in humans is related to this process.
quote: Nonsense - you are arguing your conclusion. It is NOT shown that body bareness is non-contributing to our fitness. I have cogently argued that it DOES contribute to our fitness, and that this is in line with all other mammals and their appraoch to temperature regulation.
quote: Except that when I point out that human hairlessness does NOT look like a runaway feedback process precisely because it is constrained by operational needs for head-top and genital hair, you dismiss this out of hand. There is no basis whatsoever for thinking human hairlessness is unrelated to our fitness, and many reasons for thinking it is directly related.
quote: Diddums. Would Baby like a rattle to throw out of his cot?
quote: Once again you twist my argument. I never claimed that LONG hair on the human head is required by my model. The fact that this long hair MAY cause certain problems is easily dealt with by your own runaway sexual selection model. Please apply your own arguments concistently, no opportunistically.
quote: Nonsense as I have already explained multiple times - there may be another need othogonal to heat dissipation that triggers this pehnomenon. I have proposed scent-trapping; this is reinforced by recent research that mosquitos are repelled by certain chemicals we excrete through the skin. Thus there may be a need to have scent-traps in certain areas even if hairlessness is an optimum solution. And thus a compromise is arrived at; this is not rocket science, RAZD, and comprehensively demonstrates theat your objection is not a falsifier.
quote: Ha ha ha. I see, so now organisms living in a chaotic world are expected to be subject to only ONE evolutionary influence at a time? Can you cite any other examples? Why don't all birds have an albatross's singularly refined wing? Might it perhaps be because they have OTHER NEEDS that mean that a different wing is a better choice? Evolution does not occur in a wind tunnel hermetically sealed from other influences, RAZD. As to why the neck is protected, it is quite simply becuase the neck is an efficient point to attack. Almost all chase and pounce predators attack the neck by preference, aquatic aniumals excepted.
quote: Actually thats nonsense. As we recently discussed in relation to light and dark skin tones in men and women, in a thread raised by Brennakimi, it is plausible to see a selection for darkness in men by women, and a commensurate selection for lightness in women by men, would have the effect of two diagonal vectors being synthesised into a singular vector between the two, while retaining that dimorphism in expressed phenotypes. Again what you fail to address is that fitness is negotiated by feedback from the world, not laid down by law from above and conformed to. The trade off between armour and speed is a fundamental physical limitaion that applies to all physical objects as an artifact of physics. AND THEN, for whatever elements you still find unexplained, I can resort to your own sexual selection to rationalise the outliers. Peacocks do not have tails FOR THE PURPOSES of being sexy; they have tails as a result of being birds, and that being part of the package. Any subsequent sex-sexlected influence is seocndary to the fitness influences that casued tail features to appear in the first place. Similarly, I can argue that hairlessness is explained by fitness almost entirely, and any remaining weirdness can be rationalised.
quote: And it has been explained - Beyonce appears daily on TV before pubescent boys every day, how often does anyone view running stars? Again, this is a totally spurious objection and can be dismissed as silly. I remind you again that sexinees of dancers can also be explained by the running model, thius this is no way a falsification either.
quote: Except thats inherently nonsense, assuming that evolution is occurring in an environemnt that only ever applies one influence at a time, nor that multiple influences might require compromise designs. Yes, its a trade-off - so what? This is not a falsification either. Ha ha ha - pot/kettle
quote: Actually this raise an interesting falsification to your claim: male dancers often look terrible. This is because they do so many lifts and jumps that they develop these massive thighs and calves and have totally weedy upper bodies, contradicting the male V-shape quite dramatically. But by all means expand on what precisely you feel the differences in the body form between runners and dancers are. your initial claim was that this was represented by GROUPIES, but I have already dealt with that claim. Many many dancers are very muscular people - please expand.
quote: I find it absurd that you think this is a serious point; I assumed it was throw-away you reached for while on the ropes. Even if I take this silly claim at face failure, it simply does not support your claim the way you appear to think it should; my argument shows that there might be a reason for selcting hairlessness, your argument is only that it is entirely accidental.
quote: LOL does it now. Becuase shaving is such a new phenomnon I'm not sure that it has anything meaningful to say about our evolutionary history. In feudal Ireland, British men-at-arms were instructed to shave "if they would be taken for Englishmen", because it was common for the Irish to wear very large mustaches. Not all shave their armpits anyway - to the best of my knowledge that is essentially a Western affectation, and I am not aware on any research on its commonality in other societies.
quote: What you fail to ackonowledge, RAZD, is that we ALL look like runners. Porn selects for beauty, more or less, which according to my arguments MEANS "looking like runners". So by and large this means: long legged, slim, symmetrical. This does not challenge my point in any way.
quote: Except, so what? If we have now-dead relatives in the Naenderthals, and in other pre-human primates, then we have a clear niche that is being consistently exploited by animals with the appropriate bodyform. The fact that WE happen to occupy this niche alone is no way a sound argument. There are very few mammals in the sea - do you take them to be absurd aberrations? Once again, your objection to not seeing similar trends in bigger running animals is facetious; I have already shown that many of the really big svannah animals already are hairless or nearly so; many of the others, such as camels, have other countervailing conditions to cnotend with, such as the extreme cold of desert nights. Ironically for someone claiming to advance a naturalist hypoethis, you are failing to account for the complexity of natural conditions. If you have a specific case to present, do so.
quote: But my argument is preciselty that it IS occurring becuase of those other influences anaologous to water friction; that it is occurring as a fitness-maximising feature.
quote: But considering that for examples we find strange pockets of marsupials, and that the duck-billed platypus appears to be such a werid conglomeration of random features (some of which without precedent, such as the poison spurs) that this argument from incredulity is simply weak.
quote: Yes exactly so, and depite your various attempts you have failed to show any failure in this consistency. Animals that shed their coats inhabit regions with major seasonal temperature fluctuations; the African savannah as a rule does not experience these to any significant degree. Equally, if a velvet coat "might" suffice, that does not imply that it would necessarily have been selected - ANY solution that is good enough will do. Further, I don't think a velvet coat would suffice on the basis, I have read, that we sweat easily copiously by comparison with other animals.
quote: Exactly so. That is preciesly why inexplicable random sexual selection out of the blue is substantially inferior to the running ape hypothesis.
quote: Yes thats true, RAZD, and yet you have concistently perpetrated all of them. This very post of yours is in large part re-raising straw men I have already dealt with.
quote: I see. So maybe that arose due to counterproductive runaway sexual selection? See how easy the non-answwer is to use? Even if it is true that, after hairlessness became a fundamental fitness feature (like tails in birds), sexual selection ran away with it to the point that it became counter-productive, THIS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT IT HAS OCCURRED ONLY DUE TO SEXUAL SELECTION.
quote: I ran out of time, get a grip.
quote: Agreed. Except, my explanation gives us a basis for seeing it on the head in the first place. Your argument requires two seperate and contradictory selection trends: first selecting for hairlessnes,, and then selcting for long hair length. mny explanation accord much more closely with the observed facts and requirtes fewer assumptions.
quote: Despite the fact that it occurs over the whole body, thus uindermining the claim that it is intended to reveal the breasts. This is further undermineind by the continuation of hair on the genitals.
quote: Oh its "obvious" its occurring in the females, is it? Thats blatant thumb-sucking, RAZD, its only "obvious" if you assume your conclusion.
quote: This notional lack of sexiness in running stars has not in any way, shape or form been demonstrated, becuase of the differing degrees of social value attributed to their professions, which is purely temporal phenomenon.
quote: Not at all - becuase the very argument to dancing, which is a pedal motion, may also be a flautning or demonstration of running fitness.
quote: Except you will recall the advent of TV killed off the ugly singer who could carry a career. Now you need be a good singer, and also be slim and fit like a runner.
quote: ... which requires assuming the conclusion
quote: ... except they do anyway
quote: ... except that temperature regulation techniques are fundamental to all mammals, and many mamalls exhibit hair that conforms to their local environments, even varying in thickness seasonally to react to external conditions. In all respscts your argument is hogwash. Here are some exaples of features that humans exhibit whioch you need to explain, then:
quote: Article here: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/january/running.htm Less detailed article containing some counter-arguments for your perusal here:Unlike apes, humans were born to run, study says / Finding could help date human evolution -- but other scientists say theory is bunk Both refer to the same research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: MY strawman? Of all the arrogant bullshit... Its very simple Sasquatch. As RAZD has been at pains to point out, what matters is consistency with all observed phenomenon. RAZD advances this argument - human hairlessness is INEXPLICABLE from efficiency or fitness concersn, therefore it MUSTN BE due to runaway sexual selection. My argument is that there IS an hypothesis in which the adapatation is functional, and that is the running ape model. There is no need to default to sexual selection FOR LACK OF ANY OTHER HYPOTHESIS. And in order to challenge that claim RAZD has been arguing that the running ape model is ridiculous in toto. Therefore it is entirely accurate to demonstrate the other evidence that corroborates the running ape model and which contributes to the model as a whole. RAZD keeps saying that hairlessness is "odd" and needs to be accounted for, but completely fails to account for the many adaptations we clearly have to our most basic functional mode - bipedalism, and out amazing capacity for covering disdtances at speed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well RAZD, if I misunderstood your argument and responded innaproprioately, that is still no excuse for misrepresenting WHY I produced Baleen as a counter-point, and trying to make it say things I never intended it tos say. Mistakes happen; adults realise this.
quote: Except that you have consistently sailed to show that runaway sexual selction DOES give better answers. I have shown most of your objections to be spurious.
quote: See, and you have the cheek to accuse me of straw men? I will lay out my reponse for you yet again. 1) My model does not claim to be able to explain absolutely every feature of human beings. I have never proposed an explanation of the vermiform appendix as arising due to running. Your Universalist requirement for any theory about SOME adaptations to be applicable to ALL adaptations is blatantly illogical and bad science. 2) I have never challenged the claim that long head hair is a sexual characterisitic. That does not however in any way imply that the loss of body hair is also a sexual characteristic. therefore, I am both willing an able to accept that the LENGTH of head hair is sexually slected, and simultansoulsy argue that the mere PRESENCE of head hair is an environmentalo adaptation. 3) Your presumption therefiore that the length of head hair is a disqualifier of my argument falls. My model predicts WHY IT IS HEAD HAIR that is available for sexual selection. My theory is better than yours.
quote: Sexual selection does not at all, and my model precisely predicts the presence of head hair. the LENGTH of that head hair is by no means a diusqualifier of the claim. And thus we see that this is consistently YOUR problem; you have been given this explanation multiple times and not once have you provided a crtiique or rejection - you just sit there shouting "you have failed to explain it". Thats blatant rubbish, isn it?
quote: Again, this is a question I have already answered. Are you really so stupid that you cannot imagine that conuntervailing strategies may rule out a truly optimum solution? Evolution does not occur in wind tunnels; the mobility granted by hairlesness is necessarily a trade off with the needs you find operational when you arrive at your destination. Nobody ever said that only males were doing the running. All I said was tha males were the primary combatants. We are talking about nomadic groups here, after all.
quote: HAHA. You are most certainly on the ropes, because the only way you can respond to my argumient is via straw men and misrepresentations. And I ask, what would be the point of addressing your argument in a single praragraph of a whole post addressing your argument? If you would like to restate your argument for my better comprehension, if you disagree with that cited as I understand it in the post above in response to Pink Sasquatch, by all means do so. It remains the case, however, that "srunaway sexual selection" explains fewer features of actual human anatomy than the running ape model. Runaway sexual selection is a very poor explanation.
quote: Then stop misrepresenting my arguments. If you want to be respected, behave in a respectworthy way. Back to the laborious details:
quote: you are miostaken. The presence of head hair DOES need to be explained - because it directly contradicts the general trend to hairlessness. It is precisely becuase we can see that the retention of hair on the head is functional, not accidental, that it's retention does NOT appear to have anything to do with sexual selection. The LENGTH of that hair CAN be explained by sexual selection - but not its presence.
quote: No, it is even PREDICTED by my model. In the article in which I read of the theory, it was one of the primary arguments advanced; that the retention of head hair required an explanation for which this was the best fit. Sexual selection explains nothing at all; the running ape idea both fits the data better and obviates the need for a self-referential non-explanation. Thus, it is a stronger argument.
quote: But seeing as there is every reason to expect that a real animal ion the real world will be undergoing multiple presssures, that it is not a menaingful objection.
quote: Thats a lie, isn't it RAZD? At no time have I ever said that there definately are not any other features exhibiting sexual selection. I'm completely in agreement with notionas that breasts are sexually selected for example. ALL I have argued is that an adaptive model is a better explanation of hairlessness than sexual selection.
quote: It is entirely appopriate to dismiss something that is not an argument but an assertion. It may be obvious to YOU, but it may also be obvious to YOU that aliens built the pyramids.
quote: But what you are still doing is baselessly ASSUMING that bareness is selected in the female rather than bareness is selected for in both, with a countervailing pressure for the retention of hair in males. Once again your model is implistic, isolating the organism from all environmental pressures. Thats weak; much weaker than the running ape model.
quote: Nope, straw man. I never said that the demosntration of running was as comprehensive a demonstration of sexual attractivesness as dance. All I argued was that dance is necessarily a pedal motion, and even in animals with no meaningful creativity, dance-type behaviours are observed. That is, it can reasonably be seen as a basic demonstration of running fitness, by displaying balance, dexterity, fleetness of foot, precision - AND also the mental functions such as creativity and others. I have not ever argued against dance being sexual selection in action - I have only argued against the proposition that DANCE explains bipedalism or rules out running as a mode of production. The basic fucntion of bipeadlism is running; dance is a non-running behaviour delivered by the same meachanisms.
quote: Yes - an obese woman won pop idol too. then her caree sank like a stone. And mama cass is almost mentioned as the archetypcal artist who will never be seen again for precisely that reason. om shaved pornstars:
[quote] {{False. Evidence that supports the conclusion that it is bareness that is sexy.}}[/qupte] Nope, thats assuming the conclusion, becuase simply not obstructing the view is a more parsimonious explanation. It has not escaped you that porn is a visual medium, I trust?
quote: Adequately fed, like a good hunter perhaps? But your argument gets even weaker, becuase of course people who live in conditions more like those of hunter-gatherers carry much less body fat that modern westerners. That is, normal individuals in those societies look more like runners than they look like dancers in our societies. This is a sugar-free environment, lets not forget.
quote: I'm aware seasonal variation is lacking in humans - its almost unioticabel on the african savannah, for the most part, as I have already mentioned. Nonetheless you are again misrepresenting my argument and trying to bait-and-switch it onto another topic - as you know, what I was demmonstarting was that the relation between hair and temperature regulation is inherent to mammals. I read the Innuit only arrived in there present location at about 1000AD, so they have only had about a thousand years to evolve. Isn;t that a bit ambitious? Even if we assumed there were genes running back to the first human colonisers of this nich, this would only give 4,5000 years. Furthermore, according to the running ape model, we would expect to see the polar reagions being the last colonised, because they are the regions to which humans are least adapted and thus require the most technical intervention - chief among these being clothes and fire. And that indeed is what we see.
quote: Except you fail to recognise that the entire debate is about WHETHER they are relevant or not. you are not permitted to assume your own conclusion and then insist that the entire "debate" be conducted in that light. Furthermore, it is an entirely appropriate response to YOUR claim that my explanation failed to explain certain features; as you pointed out, this spoke to the consistency of the model. Now I have demonstarted that YOUR model leaves many features unexplained, and thus undermines the consistency of your model. Turnabout is fair play.
quote: Start a different thread on that topic if you want to discuss it. Now, to satisfy Pink Sasquatches interventionist urges, and to provide yet more material for RAZD to "debunk", I offer the following: Human Thermoregulation and Hair Loss - Modern Human Origins claims that:
quote: ... and
quote: and...
quote: While http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/human.html says:
quote: while Hair - Wikipedia says:
quote: It is absolutely unacceptable for you, RAZD, to assert that this is an idea I have simply sucked out of my thumb. It is a genuine proposition which meets ALL your objections. *I* find it satisfying; I have *not* asserted it is is an undeniable and obvious truth. It is a *suitable* counter-argument to your assertion that hairlessness is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY sexually selected and that there are not other hypthosese on the matter. There are. Deal with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: If you mount illogical arguments and distoirt the context of others arguments, it is indeed your fault.
quote: And as you will read, if you can be bothered, that is directly related to sweating. We are hairless to facilitate sweating - which is a thermal control mechanisms. All of this has been perfectly consistent with my very first argument.
quote: Is that so Sasquatch? Then why does the topic line not read "the sexual selection of hairlessness?" Don't you find that a bit odd?In fact the topic read "the evolution of clothes?". quote: Gah, ahve you actually read anything I've posted? Seeing as I have already been quite happy to allow sexual selection to occur siimultaneously with the running ape model, why on earth do you ask this stupid question? I never said they were incompatible at all, I said they WERE compatbible. RAZD claimed that they were not compatible, and that hairlessness was exclusively due to runaway sexual selection. Please direct your question to RAZD and do as all the courtesy of actually reading the thread you seek to comment on.
quote: Sure. But why do you think that would be surprising to me? I've consistently argued that we are being sexually selected for running fitness - that the two pressures are sympathetic. That we recognise sexiness by its proximity to a "running ape" ideal. AND I pointed out that this was far more frtuiful a line of thought than just tossing it under "runaway" sexual selection without purpose or meaning or functionality.
quote: Fair enough. But then read the thread and respond to the points actually being made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Agreed.
quote: OK. In message 35 Mr Jack wrote:
quote: to which you subsequently responded, in message 45, that if this were true cheetahs should have less hair. Mr Jack clarified in message 63, writing:
quote: To which you replied in message 65:
quote: And further, in message 75, this time to me arguing in defence of the running ape model:
quote: In message 87 you argued, in response to Jar:
quote: Whereupon I have tried to show that there can indeed be a significant actual benefit to hairlessness specifically and directly linked to bipedalism and long distance running. You have attacked either the mechanisms of heat dissipation, or argued that there is no other animal with the same engineering, or argued that sexual selection is the only viable explanation of hairlessness point blank. I have specifically disagreed with your message 65 saying that this is a logical/causal fallacy, and instead have argued that our hairlessness, bipedalism, and sweating facility all produce a particular mode of operation analogous to that of any other creature appropriately adapated to its environment, just as dolphins have fins, streamlining, a top-mounted blowhole and sonar. From my perspective the invocation of runaway sexual selection to explain these features is unnecessary, and even wrong, because the suite of adpatations we do have amount to an entirely plausible model of early human activity. But what I am not really able to do is give you anything approaching a description of the evolutionary process by which this arose. I am simply not qualified to do so. I favour the running ape model, IMO it explains harilessness, and a variety of other unique features, in a cogent and satiusfying way AFAIC. All I have argued is that this model should not be ruled out, as you appear to do - and especially not on some of the specious grounds presented. I really cannot see what a thread between us discussing this model would achieve - I can't make any better argument than those in the documents I linked. If its truly the case that you have never heard of this idea before, then referring you to those is the best thing I can do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: You ommitted hairlessness from the list of running-facilitative features. Apart from that, nothing significant. I speculate that perhaps a precursor migrated into an area of combined tropical forest and savannah as found on the east coast of africa, but thats all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I'm afraid I cannot answer that question. I would suggest you take it up with those professionals who articulated the theory. Indeed, there was an email address on one of the links I provided, although I have no idea if it is current. As I have already pointed out, I am not willing to enagge you in a technical debate with your specialty. As I have already pointed out, all I did was defend the existence of A theory of hair thinning. That is the sum total of the point at issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I didn;t say that. All I said was that THERE IS ANOTHER THEORY. You have contended that there is not, and my claims that there was were being "sucked out of my thumb". I said it is a theory I find PREFERABLE, becuase it explains many more features, and does not require the recursion and meaninglessness of sexual selection. Do you now finally acknowledge the existance of a rival argument as to the origin of hairlessness in humans? [and yes, I already openly admitted that I don't know the process and am not trained in this field, whch is precisely why I turned down your bait, RAZD. Play like an adult.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Ahuh. Do you still maintain that:
quote: Yes or no? do you still assert that an effectiveness improvement through hair loss is "blocked" by sexual selection? Yes or no?
quote: Now you are weavoing about. above, you are trying tio sidle out of the storng statements you made previously and instead claim that your arghument was not the rejection of any other thweory but the expression of your preference for that theory. Now you say the validity of the aquatic ape theory is irrelevant. No, I do not want to discuss the aqatic ape theory, becuase a) I find it less compelling than the runnning ape model, and b) it was the specific argument to hairlessness in the running ape model WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. The one about clothes, you may recall.
quote: Yes, meaningless. It's a suitable explanation for a feature that is otherwise inexplicable. It is not suitable for feature that can otherwise be explained. Because that model adds no information, it should be a last resort only adopted when all other possible analyses have been exhausted. I have already explained this.
quote: It is not a straw man argument; if that were true, your various attacks on the running ape model and my comprehgension of sexual selection would be senseless. You have manifestly attempted to deny that the running ape model is worthy of consideration; you have asserted without qualifications that it is BLOCKED by sexual selection, necessarily assiming the validity of sexual selection thereby. I have nbot ever enagegd with you in an argument in defencd of the actual reality or truth of the running ape model becuase I am well aware I am not competent to advance such a claim.
quote: Yes, bait - it was completely manipulative, attempting to hold me to a process and methodology with which I am totally unfamiliar. It was an overt attempt to bait me on to ground of your choosing where I can be destroyed at leasure, and I correctly declined that bait. Please note I have never done anything similar; even when arguiuing against McCarthyist slanders of communism, I have not suggested that I will only discuss matters if the other side adopts thehistorical-materialist dialectical method and constructs its arguments accordingly. quote: Well by your own argument, the very question of "why" is irrelevant if this was produced by recursive sexual selection. There is no why.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024