|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 12 From: Schererville, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That still doesn't address the initial reason for sexual selection. Why allofasudden is nekkid pretty? Yet it is indisputable that bare nakedness is very integral to sexual attraction in humans. This gillette ad for instance, "Venus - Inside Every Woman" is not about shopping for food. It's about how to be unnaturally bare in order to attract a mate. I also don't think it was "sudden" but may have been a part of "hominid" features a very long time ago. Nor are we alone ... (1st picture originally from What's on at Bristol Zoo | Bristol Zoo ) (2nd picture originally from What a babe!) ... it's just expressed in humans to the point of endangering survival (why we need clothes eh?), which is an indicator of Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection, not of selection for fitness to an ecology. Personally I think apparent bareness evolved before the savanna ecology, for reasons that I have laid out in Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution and specifically on message 65 of that thread.
quote: The savanna ecology would have greater temperature swings between day and night than a jungle-forest ecology. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5855 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The problem with a bigger brain is that the head also needs to be big enough to accommodate it. Let a fetus mature for a year in the womb and then try to fit that huge head through the birth canal. It simply would not fit. Sure, we could to a C-section, but how long has that been an option? (hint: "C" stands for "Caesar"). Certainly not back when we were evolving a bigger brain. In case you still don't realize what the survival advantage of giving birth to a child with a fully grown brain, the answer is zero. Those women would die in childbirth, leaving the baby, should it through some incredible miracle survive the ordeal, without a mother to care for it.
Other opinion is this: it isn't given fact that the head of child has to accomodate to the pelvis channel of mother. Because the other possibility shouldn't be excluded - it could be the pelvis channel that should accomodate during evolution to the child head. Of course there is correlation between the size of the pelvis channel and the size of the head of child. But the question is if other correspondences can be really excluded. We should take into consideration that by many "nest-runaway" species there is reversible change of pelvis-form in the time of birth. Gorilla having weight 100kg deliver of offsprings which have weight 1,8 kg with brain weight 0,2 kg. Woman (cca 50-75kg) give birth to children having weight 3,2 kg with brain cca 0,37 kg. The proportion between legs, arms and trunk are by primates' youngs very similar to those of adults. By human children the relations are distorted and correspond more to embryo. It will last one year in extra-uterus development until it will be similar to adults.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
MartinV writes:
quote: But one of those things is more malleable than the other. When you press a piece of putty to the wall, the interface between them becomes complimentary, but it isn't the wall that's adjusting to the putty. Now, while it is true the bones of the pelvis will shift during childbirth, they aren't going to shift nearly as much the fetus will be able to. Notice, childbirth is pretty taxing on the fetus as it is. It needs to turn upside down (which happens late) and then needs to pretty much corkscrew its way out in order to make it not only through the pelvic opening but around and by the sacral curves. If there were a pressure on the female body to make it easer for childbirth, then the pelvis would be much more accomodating than it currently is. Since it isn't, since the fetal morphology is the one doing most of the work, it would appear that it is easier to adapt the fetus to the mother than the mother to the fetus. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I don't know, I'm just adressing what you said comparing dogs and horses. If I misunderstood, oh well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I was using horses to show that sweating and running are not necessarily linked.
Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
I guess I can speculate as to why this form of sexual attraction would be kept and become mostly dominant in the population. That still doesn't address the initial reason for sexual selection. One reason, using the Handicap principle, may be that, like the peacock's tail, not having hair is selected for because it is disadvantage. A female that can stand the temperature changes is obviously very healthy (or very capable of making clothing, shelter or fire), and hence would be a good potential mate. One other hypothesis could be that Homo sapiens was less hairy than [/i]Homo neanderthalensis[/i]. Interbreeding may have occurred between the two, but the Neanderthals might have been incompatible with the humans. So, a human seeking a less hairy human would be more likely to have mating efforts rewarded with offspring. But why would the women be less hairy than the men, you may ask? Perhaps it was the case that women had little choice in a mate, or maybe just luck that the mutation for this type of sexual attraction happened to affect the male brain more so. Lastly, perhaps hairlessness was in fact an advantage for males to be running or some other such activity, but sexual selection occurred in addition to this. That is, a mutation that cause a male to prefer hairless females results in that male having sons who are better at hunting. Why should such a mutation be selected against once it had occurred? This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Small point\quibble
Lastly, perhaps hairlessness was in fact an advantage ... We are not hairless nor even have fewer number of hairs than an ape our size should have, what we have are less developed hairs. Where we see apparent bareness the skin is covered with vellus hair instead of terminal hair, especially on the female
One reason, using the Handicap principle, may be that, like the peacock's tail, not having hair is selected for because it is disadvantage. A female that can stand the temperature changes is obviously very healthy (or very capable of making clothing, shelter or fire), and hence would be a good potential mate. Or because the female looks younger, more like a child than an adult capable of reproduction, they are more protected and cared for, thus giving their offspring an advantage. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i wonder if there has been an increase in maternal mortality due to large-headed babies since the invention of the c-section. i.e. large-headedness can survive sometimes, but when a c-section isn't available, the mother is more likely to die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
i wonder if there has been an increase in maternal mortality due to large-headed babies since the invention of the c-section. i.e. large-headedness can survive sometimes, but when a c-section isn't available, the mother is more likely to die. I've had similar thoughts, but I think that that larger head size being passed along would only occur (or much more frequently) in those areas with c-sections readily available. The mortality rate would probably only increase in the relatively rare instances where the mother was not able to reach a hospital or chose/was forced not to utilize hospital services even in an emergency. In areas where c-sections are not readily available, large-headedness would not be passed along as much and therefore the mortality rates would probably remain much the same as it ever was. I could be completely wrong, of course. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
the more important issue is where the parents were born, then, and not where the current pregnancy is taking place. or rather, whether the current pregnancy is taking place in an area with less access to c-sections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Men - from nearly bare to covered in hair, all having little trouble finding mates, trait not selected at all. All? I do not know if I would say 'all' Jon Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheTruth Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
or it could be because God used intelligent disign and made us that way
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheTruth Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
besides the fact if we evolved then we start reevolving in the womb am i right but funny thing we have little to no hair and if we evolved next generations would have less and less hair but that isn't true look at history dark ages long hair then we cut it hippies long hair the we cut it new age long hair it is a stretch to say that we evolved out of fur not historical finds show any evidence of excess body hair in previous years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4627 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
besides the fact if we evolved then we start reevolving in the womb am i right Sorry, you are incorrect. An individual does not evolve, populations evolve.
but funny thing we have little to no hair and if we evolved next generations would have less and less hair but that isn't true Correct. Its not true that we must have less and less hair. Evolution is not in a specific direction, nor is it specifically taking place in each generation.
long hair then we cut it hippies long hair the we cut it new age long hair This is not an indicator of evolution in one direction or another, what point does it serve?
historical finds show any evidence of excess body hair in previous years Look further back. You appear to think that Shakespeare should have looked like a monkey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheTruth Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
ok the last one was a typo it was supposed to say no historical evidence so im saying never was a man a monkey man was man and monkey was monkey there may have been a cross breed im not denying that i was saying hypotheticaly in the womb a person starts in the "fish stage" and progresses to a human by the third trimester but i don't think that i think it is a human from conception
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024