molbiogirl writes:
That still doesn't address the initial reason for sexual selection.
I guess I can speculate as to why this form of sexual attraction would be kept and become mostly dominant in the population.
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?
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
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!
™ Version 4.2