contracycle writes:
Unfortuntaley this leaves us with no explanation at all for humans remarkable running abilities - able to outdistance almost everything in the long haul.
You are conflating two different arguments. Why should sexual selection explain a survival feature? Do male peacock tail feathers explain the remarkable ability of peacocks to fly or walk or crow? This is as irrelevant as the baleen example to my position. For the record I have noted before it takes the human tracking ability and the conscious behavior to not exhaust oneself in the running, and that is sufficient to differentiate human behavior from other animals in that particular behavior. Whether that behavior can then be the basis for bareness rather than just the usual long limbs and good lungs of all other running animals has not been shown.
Run the experiment as I outlined and see what the results are. Until then, you don't have any basis for your claim, or your insults, or your false strawmen arguments and ridiculous non-sequiturs, or your unwillingness to look at other information. Especially when you repeat the strawmen arguments when they have been shown to be false representations. Sorry, but I expected better.
Most of your post is just a repeat of past errors with a couple of new conjectures thrown in. I see no need to repeat correcting your mistakes again, as you seem unable to learn from them at this point. The whale baleen issue is a case in point of such a repeated error.
The pattern of hair retention fits my model perfectly, especially the retention of head hair, which my model predicts.
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?
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.
Oops, looks like it isn't for cooling but for "armor" and the sexual dimorphism so "easily addressed" shows that females are not so protected and this is good? And losing head hair with old age so that it is no longer protected from the sun this too is good?
OK then, I'm going to enjoy this: would you like to explain how sexual fitness os recognised? I'm all ears.
Actually I doubt that you are willing to listen at all, for your demonstrated behavior is consistently, aggressively if not insultingly otherwise.
But for the record, and as noted previously (several times in fact), sexual mating behavior involves courtship {displays\rituals} to demonstrate {ability\availability}. These involve singing, dancing and demonstrations of creativity, this is observed in other animals all over the world, and among the other apes in the world. Each species has their own level of intricacies involved, and some of them are quite complex, some quite boring.
This is not new, or unusual, or groundbreaking information. Long courtship songs are observed in many species, and not just birds, but many mammals, sometimes male solos, sometimes duets. Dancing displays are also observed in many species, and sometimes they are
prima donna displays, and sometimes they are
pas de deux. There are also instances where creativity is displayed in other ways; bowerbirds for example create works of "art" nests that are decorated to attract mates.
In
normal courtship {displays\rituals} the more intricate songs display creativity, which selects for increased adaptability and broader ability to survive problems, and the longer songs display increased ability to survive attacks of predators and competitors. This is not new, or unusual, or groundbreaking information.
In
normal courtship {displays\rituals} the dancing displays physical fitness, endurance, agility, flexibility, fighting ability and creativity with the same results. Dancing displays also frequently include displays of signal areas that have been selected over time to show readiness for mating in the particular species in question, and
very often those areas are bare. This is not new, or unusual, or groundbreaking information. (And notice, in passing, that dancing displays overall fitness to a greater degree and for more situations than running ability, and this is why dancing ability is a better indicator than running ability for
overall fitness).
But, and this is important, we are not talking just normal courtship {displays\rituals}, but run-away feedback selection, where a feature or set of features are selected and developed well beyond their ability to signal fitness. Head hair grows to extreme lengths, like the tails of scissortail birds, and flows down over the shoulders and back to the waist and beyond. The longer the hair the more fit the specimen is for avoiding predators in spite of greater visibility, and the more lustrous the hair the more fit the specimen is for having the nutritional resources to grow and keep the hair in that condition. Such features are not of themselves useful in survival, they are indicators of the overall fitness of the rest of the individual for survival. Again, this is not new, or unusual, or groundbreaking information.
Humans have a number of features that do not of themselves contribute to survival fitness, but which do indicate overall fitness, and among them are extreme long head hair, and extreme body bareness. Humans also have a number of features that do not of themselves contribute to survival fitness, but which signal {ability\availability} for mating, and among them are enlarged female breasts and enlarged male penis and extreme body bareness, especially in those signal areas of the female breast and buttocks.
Perhaps the only thing new, or unusual, or groundbreaking, is to attribute these features to sexual selection in humans, because people tend to be species prude, and assume that they are consciously above such base "instincts" in their personal {self\parent\ancestor} behavior.
And it is not just that these features exist, but that the patterns of their existence are consistent with a sexual {ability\availability} display feature
and a runaway feedback feature.
Now lets do the summary review again (I see no need to continue further with the above, because I expect you to fluff it off without proper consideration as you have done before, nor do I see any need to answer the rest of your post as it has already been refuted):
My added comments
{{in yellow}}
RUNNING:
* cannot explain long hair on head
... but does not contradict it
{{Actually it does. All that is needed for your position is a full head of hair as exists on any of the other apes. Extreme long hair that extends so far that it covers bares skin serves no cooling or protection benefit that would not be served by normal hair\fur.}}
* cannot explain hair in high sweat armpits
... but does not contradict it
{{And it needs to explain it for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism. Not contradicting is not good enough.}}
* cannot explain hair in high sweat pubic area
... but does not contradict it
{{And it needs to explain it for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism. Not contradicting is not good enough.}}
* cannot explain hair on high sweat area of male only face
... explained through standard combat adaptaion, running model reinforced
{{Actually this is not any part of a running model, this is adding a second model to explain the deficiencies of the first, and it is inconsistent in expression in sexes and inconsistent in expression over areas needing protection, like the stomach. Occams razor says that one explanation is better than two.}}
* cannot explain greater variation of hairiness in males
... cannot explain varying height in either sex aither. Duh. Natural variation is sufficient.
{{The issue is not variation alone but the degree of variation. The degree of variation of hairiness in males would be like a variation in height of males that would be two to three times our total height while the female height varies normally. You also fail to see\address the sexual dimorphism involved.}}
* cannot explain greater average hairiness of males
... explained above, does not contradict model
{{Sorry, not explained properly above, and it needs to be fully explained for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism. We are talking an average hairiness of males that is 2 or 3 times the hairiness of females while at the same time these are the ones doing the marathon running after the game animals. If anything the pattern should be reversed, with females hairier than males if your model was properly applied.}}
* cannot explain virtual lack of sexiness of running stars
... but does explain the sexiness of dancers and leg/foot fetishism
{{Dancers and leg/foot fetishism explained by sexiness of dancers, lack of sexiness of running stars needs to be explained for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism.}}
* cannot explain why the larger and faster male is hairier than the female
... you're repeating yourself, this is twice answered above
{{You miss the distinction of this argument entirely, this is relating the size of males\females to the hairiness issue. Larger=hotter, should be barer. Again on the size issue the roles of male\female hairiness should be reversed to be consistent you’re your model.}}
* cannot explain actual sexiness of singing and dancing stars
... becuase RAZD cannot read. Rock stars are only sexy becuase of TV.
{{Total failure to address the point.}}
* cannot explain that singing and dancing stars do not look like runners
... becuase they are not directly relevant
{{Correct, because singing and dancing relate to sexiness and running doesn't. You fail to address that if runners are supposed to be sexy, then why don't sexy singing and dancing stars look like runners. Again, it needs to be explained for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism.}}
* cannot explain actual sexiness of naked and shaved porn stars
... does, becuase hairlessness has survival value
{{Which is why we have clothes. Again, you fail to address the issue of extreme bareness of the porn stars. Notice that this issue of shaving is not restricted just to porn stars but to general behavior in attracting mates, with females shaving legs and pits (remember those?) and males shaving faces (and chest and back for the more hirsute ones). Once more, this needs to be explained for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism.}}
* cannot explain that porn stars do not look like runners
... RAZD becomes possibly absurdist. They are sexy by standard running ape standards.
{{Again, you fail to address the point that if runners are supposed to be sexy, then why don't sexy naked and shaved porn stars look like runners. Once more, this needs to be explained for the mechanism to have credibility. This is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism.}}
* 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.
{{Yes there is a slight general trend in other animals (as I believe I have mentioned before) but in none of them is it taken to the extreme ... {length?} that it is in humans without other caveats being involved (such as with marine animals dealing with water friction or extreme size like elephants), that is -- there are no animals comparable in size and {habitat\econiche} that have this feature. This is what I mean by similar. Plus the variation seen is more in the length of hair (and adding sheddable hair?) rather than density, so we should expect to see the remaining hair on humans to be short rather than thin, a velvet coat would suffice. I hate to keep hammering this but it may be the only way you see it: this is an issue of consistency of the pattern observed to the proposed mechanism. If your proposal is inconsistent across a number of relevant factors while another proposal is consistent across those same relevant factors, AND there are not other factors where your position is more consistent than the other proposal then your explanation of the observed evidence is weaker than the other.}}
Now you're playing dumb.
Stop playing silly buggers.
becuase RAZD cannot read
RAZD becomes possibly absurdist
displays startling ignorance
RAZD is therfore / quote: / Absurd
Strawmen arguments and
ad hominum attacks are the sign of a poor argument, repeating strawman arguments after their specific errors have been pointed out demonstrate a failure of commitment to honest discussion.
I leave you (and the others reading these posts) with two final thoughts on this issue:
(1) If bareness was driven purely by runaway sexual selection then is there anything that would show that it reached the point of being detrimental to survival, that it had been carried to far to be just an ordinary species specific feature? Have humans developed any features that would increase heat retention in spite of the increased bareness? The answer is yes, and it is in two parts:
First humans have a thick layer of subcutaneous fat that is similar to the fat layers in marine animals that also need to keep warm but have the added survival need to shed hair for speed in the water (and the whales and porpoises do not have fine hair, they have no hair on these surfaces): this layer is thicker in Inuit people of the arctic than in Nordic people between them and Africa, and they are barer than the Nordic people as well as less developed for running (shorter, thicker bodies).
Second, clothes. (the reason for this thread, right?)
(2) You completely failed to address the issue of the
consistent explanations of the relevant factors that I gave by sexual selection. Let me repeat them to refresh your memory again:
RUN-AWAY SEXUAL SELECTION:- does explain long hair on head as a typical feature of run-away selection, just like a peacock tail
- does explain greater reduction of hair on the torso than in high sweat armpits and pubic area as being centered on baring the female breast sexual signaling area
- does explain greater variation of hairiness in males, because the selection is (obviously) taking place in the females: thus the more consistent level of bareness in the females, as well as the greater expression of this feature overall, versus the secondary expression in the males (where is it not being selected, and thus allows for greater average hairiness, hairiness in facial areas bare in females, and greater variation in hairiness overall in males than in females)
- does explain virtual lack of sexiness of running stars and why the larger faster male is hairier - this trait is not related to the sexual issue that is driving the bareness feature. It may have some survival advantage, but that is secondary to the driving force behind increased bareness: sex. It is likely a result and not a cause, or at best only a minor additional cause.
- does explain actual sexiness of singing and dancing stars (song and dance are part of the mating ritual that began the run-away feedback cycle)
- does explain that singing and dancing stars do not look like runners (they don’t need to)
- does explain actual sexiness of naked and shaved porn stars (they are sexy because they are bare)
- does explain that porn stars do not look like runners (they don’t need to)
- does explain the virtual lack of any similar {hair\fur} trend in other species, ... because it is not survival related.
Address the issue of why bareness is more consistent with sexual selection as a runaway feedback feature.
Enjoy
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
. The issue here is the selection of the "bareness" feature.
}}
™ Version 4.2