Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 12:28 AM
20 online now:
edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 46 of 202 (455888)
02-14-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TheTruth
02-13-2008 10:04 PM


besides the fact if we evolved then we start reevolving in the womb am i right

No, you're not right. That idea has been discredited for over a century. In fact it was disproven before it was even formulated.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TheTruth, posted 02-13-2008 10:04 PM TheTruth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by TheTruth, posted 02-14-2008 2:32 PM Wounded King has responded

    
TheTruth
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 47 of 202 (455915)
02-14-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Wounded King
02-14-2008 12:17 PM


ITS WAS HYPOTHETICAL PEOPLE
i meant if i know we don't eveolve in the womb we never evolved period
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 02-14-2008 12:17 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 02-14-2008 2:53 PM TheTruth has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 02-15-2008 3:36 AM TheTruth has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 48 of 202 (455927)
02-14-2008 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by TheTruth
02-14-2008 2:32 PM


Re: ITS WAS HYPOTHETICAL PEOPLE

i meant if i know we don't eveolve in the womb we never evolved period

Perhaps we could try using spelling, punctuation, and complete sentences rather than writing as if we were on an instant messaging service and had failed the second grade four times? You may then be able to communicate your ideas better.

Next, you could try to learn what evolution actually states - at no point does the theory of evolution predict that anything should "evolve in the womb." Evolution is a process that occurs in populations over many generations. You seem to think evolution states that you "evolve" from sperm/egg to a monkey and then to a human all before you're born. While human fetal development is earily similar to this (flippers, body fur, gills, and other vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors forming in the womb), we do not evolve in the womb.

Evolution requires genetic change. Your genes don't change while you're a fetus. Evolution requires selective pressure. Your environment is pretty static in the womb. Evolution requires a population. A fetus is an individual. Evolution requires multiple generations. A fetus is a single generation.

Your concept of evolution is so far off the mark, it's hard to tell exactly what you think it is. I see that a "What is evolution" thread has been proposed. perhaps you should spend some time in that thread if it is promoted, and see if you can learn what evolution really predicts instead of this strawman idea in your head.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by TheTruth, posted 02-14-2008 2:32 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2763 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 49 of 202 (456015)
02-15-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by TheTruth
02-14-2008 12:10 PM


ok the last one was a typo it was supposed to say no historical evidence

Is this also a typo? There is ample fossil evidence that you should take into account.

so im saying never was a man a monkey man was man and monkey was monkey

That is also what evolutionary theory says also. It also says that the ancestor of man is also the ancestor of monkeys. In other words: monkey man has never been a species.

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

Incorrect. There is no fish stage. At all times throughout a humans life, from conception to death (and beyond), the DNA is never that of a fish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TheTruth, posted 02-14-2008 12:10 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 50 of 202 (456028)
02-15-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by TheTruth
02-14-2008 2:32 PM


ITS(sic) WAS NONSENSICAL PEOPLE

i meant if i know we don't eveolve in the womb we never evolved period

Luckily for us, the state of your not knowing something has no effect on the reality of the situation. Apart from that your statement is both a total non sequitur and still based on a ludicrous misunderstanding of evolution.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by TheTruth, posted 02-14-2008 2:32 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

    
entityUnknown
Junior Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-20-2008


Message 51 of 202 (476052)
07-20-2008 8:29 PM


Aquatic Theory
In the aquatic theory, it states that our ancestors spent a signifigant amount of time in water to eventually obtain useful adaptions, the lack of "fur" being one.

The aquatic theory compares us to aquatic mammals, such as the whale, dolphin, hippo, etc. All of these mammals have little fur. It makes them more streamlined. This is not directly related to the question, but it also explains why our fat is attatched to our skin, like the blubber in seals.

For the thermoregulation hypothesis, it simply doesn't add up. If we went to the savannah and shed our fur coat to better regulate our temperatures, why aren't there other "naked" animals? All other predators on land, wolves, cheetahs, etc, haven't found it necessary.

In reply to the sexual preference suggestion: why would we be attracted to naked apes in the first place? Other terrestial animals don't seem to have a problem with furry mates.


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2008 9:13 PM entityUnknown has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 52 of 202 (476060)
07-20-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by entityUnknown
07-20-2008 8:29 PM


Re: Aquatic Theory
welcome to the fray, entityUnknown

In the aquatic theory, it states that our ancestors spent a signifigant amount of time in water to eventually obtain useful adaptions, the lack of "fur" being one.

Except that we don't lack "fur" -- we have about as many hairs per sq.in. per lb as chimpanzes. The "aquatic ape" theory also does not explain sweat glands.

The aquatic theory compares us to aquatic mammals, such as the whale, dolphin, hippo, etc.
Which don't sweat, whales and dolphins don't have any hair, and which doesn't include pigs, rhinos and elephants, while hippos feed out of the water and sleep in it.

This is not directly related to the question, but it also explains why our fat is attatched to our skin, like the blubber in seals.

And like pigs and other animals.

For the thermoregulation hypothesis, it simply doesn't add up. If we went to the savannah and shed our fur coat to better regulate our temperatures,

Agreed, but for different reasons: one would expect the "hunter" side of the sexual dichotomy to be more adapted (less visible hair) than the "gatherer" side, when the opposite is true. It also does not answer the question of night time temperatures, or fur acting as insulation against heat as well as cold, a problem that is even more chilling when you are wet.

The answer is that the evolution of our hair to be mostly vellus hair, especially in the female, likely occurred before these ancestors ventured out into the savanna, and that the savanna had nothing to do with it. This matches bipedal hominids diverging from chimps before the savanna climate developed. This also matches gorillas having bare skin areas even though they never left the jungles.

... why aren't there other "naked" animals?

There are, and pigs and elephants are some examples.

In reply to the sexual preference suggestion: why would we be attracted to naked apes in the first place? Other terrestial animals don't seem to have a problem with furry mates.

An argument from incredulity.

The facts remain that (a) less visible hair is much more marked in women than in men, sexual dichotomy on any trait being a sign of sexual selection, (b) this preference for more naked appearing women is ongoing, even today, in ads showing bare hairless legs etc, and in the virtually total naked skin in porn, (c) pattern nakedness is also common in apes to mark sexual readiness, (d) other apes have bare areas, and the differences if fur patterns often marks the division between species (ie - provides visible signals for the choosing of mates), and (e) is the only explanation that stands up to all the evidence.

For more discussion of sexual selection in humans see this thread

Enjoy.



ps - as you are new, some tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by entityUnknown, posted 07-20-2008 8:29 PM entityUnknown has not yet responded

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 53 of 202 (479686)
08-29-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
01-23-2008 7:51 AM


Re: Armchair speculation
RAZD writes:

Doddy writes:

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.

It’s with some trepidation that I offer any thoughts on this issue, as I don’t have anything approaching the levels of expertise or knowledge of some of the contributors to this thread. It’s also been a while since I read The Handicap Principle. However I seem to recall much of the early part of the book was devoted to the exchange of information.

The question then becomes, might it not be the case that the apparent hairlessness of humans offers greater visibility of the body itself, which better allows potential mates to make judgements about whether prospective partners are fit to carry each others genes forward to the next generation?

After all, youth, in of itself, does not necessarily render an individual the best bet in terms of ensuring that the next generation of one’s genes are in safe hands, so to speak. The ability to better determine how well put together a prospective partner is may be more valuable than how young or pretty they appear.

Edited by dogrelata, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2008 7:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 54 of 202 (484415)
09-28-2008 1:00 PM


I have always been perplexed by Human's nakedness. Sure we have peach fuzz, and some men push he envelope separating us from apes; but generally we are the naked ape. That isn't the only obvious difference the 2% gene gap has wrought between chimps and us. Funny how everything that is different between us and other apes actually enables aquatic living.

I would guess our nakedness goes back at least through the Aferensis period. Although there really is no way to prove it, I believe we humans are the aquatic ape. We sure can out swim any other primate. Our nakedness understood in an aquatic environment makes it easy to understand. Naked skin decreases swimming friction.

Sweating is not really a great way to cool off. It only works well under a breeze. It's like a water cooler. That doesn't work unless a fan pulls air through it. What sweating does well, and, very well at that, is carry salt from our bodies. You know the sea turtle expels salt through tear ducts. It's something that sea going creatures need to do.

Our trailing legs lend naturally to gliding through the water. They can powerfully kick propelling the swimmer forward. Being a brachiate, our arms make efficient paddles.

Adipose fat insulates, and smoothes. It also increases buoyancy.

We can control our breath. Babies instinctually know how to swim and hold their breath. Other apes can't even learn it.

Besides, anyone ever trying skinny dipping knows how right it feels. :)


Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2008 1:18 PM arrogantape has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2008 4:36 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 202 (484416)
09-28-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 1:00 PM


Sweating
Sweating is not really a great way to cool off. It only works well under a breeze.

One idea I came across in a graduate school evolution class was that the lack of body hair was related to sweating and developed due to persistence hunting. Running, as is required for persistence hunting, would provide the necessary breeze.

The time for this was placed with development of the earliest Homo species.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 1:00 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 56 of 202 (484428)
09-28-2008 2:58 PM


I was taught the same thing, that Homo evolved peering over the grass on the plains surrounding vanishing jungles. The problem here is all Australopithecus fossils have been found in, or around water environments. Lucy was recovered in what us to be the, "Sea of Afar." An ape that can swim as well as climb trees has a huge survival advantage over any savannah ape. Being naked allows for slick swimming, and quick drying. Chimps build nests. There is no reason not to believe Australopithecus took shelter in flooded environments in trees. Big predators, like lions and leopards would not be a problem. Crocs would, but I bet the Hominids had a warning signal for that predator. Like baboons, they probably stayed close to a tree.

The problem with the savannah explanation is it is merely conjecture, as is the aquatic origin. What you have to do in this case is line up points of evidence.

You can go here to see a brief overview of aquatic origins for Homo:

http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

Horses sweat, and they are furred. you don't need to be naked to sweat. I don't care how much sweating I can do, an air conditioned room is what I look for on a real hot day. Sweat is very salty. Lots of sweating will deposit salt on the skin. That is an advantage to a sea going ape.

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2008 3:42 PM arrogantape has not yet responded
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2008 5:08 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6616
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 57 of 202 (484435)
09-28-2008 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 2:58 PM


Horses sweat....

This sort of undermines the idea that sweating is evidence of an aquatic phase in human evolution, doesn't it? Or are you claiming that horses had an aquatic phase, too?

-

Sweat is very salty. Lots of sweating will deposit salt on the skin.

How do horses deal with this? Or are you claiming that horses were also aquatic in the past?

-

You can go here to see a brief overview of aquatic origins for Homo:

And here is an interesting discussion of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. And here is a longer, more thorough debunking of the hypothesis. In fact, the site has an article on hairlessness and skin.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 2:58 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 860 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 58 of 202 (484441)
09-28-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 1:00 PM


Hi, Arrogantape.

Welcome to EvC!

arrogantape writes:

Although there really is no way to prove it, I believe we humans are the aquatic ape.

Although "prove" is a strong word, there actually are ways to provide evidence for your hypothesis.

First of all, evolution cannot work as a contingency plan. New features don't become fixed in populations "just in case." Natural selection can only push "plan A": that is, it works for things that are crucial, not for things that might be handy. That's why evolution tends to produce specialists.

So, since the genus Homo (and its pregenitors) appears to have arisen on the arid savannahs of Africa, you're going to have a very hard time explaining what selective pressures led to an aquatic lifestyle.

-----

arrogantape writes:

Naked skin decreases swimming friction.

But, our heads, which presumably go first while swimming, still grow hair. If the loss of hair is for streamlining, shouldn't our head hair have been the first to go?

arrogantape writes:

Adipose fat insulates, and smoothes. It also increases buoyancy.

Badgers and bats and possums have adipose fat too. Does this mean they are aquatic?

arrogantape writes:

Babies instinctually know how to swim and hold their breath.

My baby doesn't.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 1:00 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 59 of 202 (484442)
09-28-2008 4:38 PM


You can't really be taking the horse as a defeat all premises we are of aquatic origin. Horses also have fir. Fir wics sweat off the body better. Mammals in the hotest climates have fir. Camels do. Horses are the exception as we are for copious sweating. On the other hand all mammals that live in salty water emit salt through glands.

Sweat glands are found on all mammals. If it were the best cooling agent, they would have developed to the degree our skin does. Wild Dogs in hot Africa do real well without sweating.


Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2008 4:56 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 60 of 202 (484444)
09-28-2008 4:43 PM


It has been proven that all babies do instinctually know to hold their breath under water, and swim. Odd but true.

Our subcutaneous fat is plentiful compared to any other ape.

There is the ornamental side of head hair. We also have hair wherever it can gather body scent. The rest of us is superficially naked - peach fuzz.

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2008 7:22 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019