Don't get it (Re: Ape to Man - where did the hair go?)

I personally don't think that fire usage started before we were naked apes. I recognize that lack of evidence is not evidence (as in when fire use began), but it seems logical (if evaporative coolong was the trigger) that hair loss would have coincided with the evolution of modern-type body morphology such as in Homo ergaster. While I am sold on the evaporative cooling hypothesis of hair loss, it might not be pointless speculation to look at the selective factors that led to several families of scavenging birds to independantly lose feathers on part of their bodies. I strongly believe that our ancestors may have been good hunters but were excellent scavengers. Another left field point to consider...Here is another WAY left field speculation related to hair loss. It would seem to me that with the selective pressure for hairlessness (I recognize the hair is still there) it would seem to me there would be some social effects because of the importance of grooming in primate societies. I pondered this years ago. One day while reading in the library I found myself being disturbed and very annoyed at a gaggle of undergrads lounging on the library furniture all speaking at once and saying NOTHING, jumping from topic to topic, laughing at inane comments, etc. I noted that this is common behavior (in teens and young adults especially). So, instead of being annoyed I started wondering if idle 'chit-chat' is a grooming substitute in humans. Following this, it would place great selective pressure on the ability to communicate. As I recall from primate literature (no cites, but I believe this is correct) there are individuals who for whatever reason don't groom (or allow themselves to be groomed) or groom poorly etc. These individuals simply do not make it very far in society. This means they also do not leave as many genes behind. If 'chit-chat' is a grooming proxy for a naked ape, it might be possible that those better at it (able to convey more information, able to entertain, etc) had a higher social mobility than those who didn't. It sounds far-fetched, but not so much when you look at how much time non-human primates spend grooming and what grooming means in the social order. I have no delusions that this idea is original, but I haven't encountered it before (in any of the primatology papers I studied to become an invertebrate zoologist )

Thanks LM! I had not intended those to go together but I see your reasoning. That's intriguing.Another possibility would be that the hairy individuals reeking of scavenged filth would give the clean, chatty primates something to talk about....This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 05-27-2004 05:26 PM

My post on the possibility that human communication might be a proxy for social grooming in primates has been done. I did a search on the topic and found a pop sci book by Dr. Robin Dunbar called "Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language". Just goes to prove "there is no new thing under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9