Trait changes in a species.

Just so you know, crash, I thought the exact same thing when I read upthread; "but humans aren't hairless. We're very hairy, but the hairs are just very fine and light."Then, you posted exactly what I was thinking.Catholic Scientist, I thought you said in message 1 that you wanted to have your errors pointed out, but I guess you didn't really mean it?

I understood what I was asking and RAZD and EZ did too. They jumped right in with possitive feedback to help me learn. The term hailessness WRT humans wasn't meant to mean literally without any hair. Its an easier way of typing "just as many hair follicles as the rest of the primates; its just that the hairs that grow out of them are finer and lighter". Humans are reffered to as 'hairless' when compared to other apes.I think you did know what I was talking about but you'd rather pick apart a post than join the discussion.You are just a nitpicker.

I meant the errors in my understanding of how traits change. I don't need typos, bad grammer, or poor word choice pointed out, especially if it is to just nitpick and not add anything to the discussion.

It's not, though. That's not what "hairless" means. Humans are not.Look, I didn't just point this out to be an asshole, ok? It's to help you answer your own question. Apparently, though, you'd rather call me names than think it through. A person honestly seeking debate would have asked themselves, several posts ago, "does the fact that humans did not actually lose their hair, but rather have smaller, finer hairs but as many follicles, perhaps have something to do with the hair difference between humans and the other primates?"Like I said, think it through. I didn't bring this up because I'm an asshole, but because its highly relevant to your question, and if you stop a minute to think it through, it'll help guide you to the answer. Like I said, think it through, if you dare. Your post gives absolutely no indication that you understood that humans were neither hairless nor had less hairs than the other primates. I can't be expected to read your mind when you use falsehoods as shorthand. You're just a name-caller. Hopefully one of these days you'll actually participate in the discussion. What's taking you so long?

Yes, they are.from: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Itchy answer to hairless humans and from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...30617_nakedhumans.html My point was to discuss not why but when humans became hairless. I understood the question before I asked it. You misunderstood me. Since it is a way that humans are referred to as when compared to other apes, I though the repliers would be educated enough to not need an explanation of the term hairless.

I can look in the mirror after a shower and see, for a fact, that humans are not hairless. I don't need an explanation of the term to see that it doesn't apply to humans.

butDon't you think there is an absence of a viable terminology for the human level of hair compared to other apes? Certainly 'hairless' is not technically correct, but 'naked ape' or even 'light haired ape' don't really cut it either. "Thin haired" would probably be closest, but also sounds like "thin-skinned" and doesn't convey the shortness of many(vellus) hairs ... maybe we should make up a word? "Vellus haired?" Most people wouldn't know what it means.You can also google on "hairless ape" and it is clear people understand this to mean humans, so I think you are over-reacting a little (perhaps sensitive oh hairy wondered one?).{{abe: subtitle}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*27*2005 09:58 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

"less" Humans don't run as fast as gazelles. Would you call us "motionless"? We can't see as well as eagles; are we best described as "sightless"?I'm well-aware of the popular myth that humans are "hairless", or that we have less follicle coverage than apes. It was my hope that CS, pondering the difference between a genetic basis for hairlessness/follicle distribution and the simpler genetic basis for variation of hair fineness and length (already subject to variation between individuals), might come to some insight in regards to his question, much in the way that I did.Clearly, I overestimated him.

... less what -- hair? isn't that where we started? The best descriptors to me are shortness and thinness, but saying the "thin, short-haired ape" or the "short, thin-haired ape" both convey different images from the intent, to say nothing of getting awkwardly long on the verbosity meter.One can talk about density (as in density of fur in some species) but this usually implies greater density than normal animals.It just seems to me that there is no easy way to describe the actual condition, so any description is fraught with terminal lack of clarity.

Thanks for sticking up for me RAZD. right, which is why I just used the common term of 'hairlessness'. I though everyone would just understand what I was saying and get to the point, not nitpick my choice of wording and deface the actual topic.My point is not whether or not humans actually have less hair than the other apes, but, at what point on our evolutionary path did our hair become different from the other apes. When did we become anatomically modern(AM)? Were ther hairy AM people or were there (I hope repliers understand what I mean by this word) 'hairless' apes that were not AM?Cashfrog, you deffinately do not understand what I am asking. when I say 'hairless' I am not saying "less follicle coverage". I am using the term, like the scientists in the websites I provided above, as a way to distinguish humans from other apes in the amount of hair that we have. again, do not equate the term 'hairlessness' with a less 'follicle distribution', even though that is what it literally means, that is not the way it is used, when humans are compared to other ape. why don't you expand on this idea and actually add somthing that is 'on-topic', rather than nitpick my posts and continue the 'off topic' path.

Where we started was "hairless", not "less hair." I presume the difference between these constructions is as obvious as the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug." So that's a rationale for abandoning accuracy completely?

Pondering the difference between true genetic hairlessness and simply having finer, shorter hairs should lead you to the answer. Or rather, it would, were you not so pre-occupied with calling me names.Like I said, think it through already. I definately do; the problem is, you'd rather call me names than really think about my answer. Why is that?Think it through. We're completely on-topic. Or rather, we will be, once you think it through.

No, but it is a rational for using previous terminology even though it is inexact, but understanding the shortcomings and the condition being discussed.{{added by edit}}You can't ask someone to use terminology that doesn't exist.This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*28*2005 10:44 AM{{added by edit}} But this is just as innaccurate. We don't have {significantly} less hair either, we have the same numbers of hairs as a chimpanzee would if it were as big as humans (there is an inverse log linear correlation of hair numbers to body mass, and humans fall right on the line where they should be).Perhaps {less hairy} works best. But there is just no term that jumps out to me as suitable.This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*28*2005 10:53 AM

You've already described the appropriate terminology, so we know that it exists.Nonetheless I don't find two or three citations of improper word use enough to substantiate a case that we should abandon accuracy in word choice altogether. So CS isn't the first person to make the same mistake. So what? If you shaved a human, and then shaved a gorilla of comparable size, and then weighed what you shaved off, the human pile would be smaller, lighter. There would be less hair by both weight and volume."Less hair" is completely accurate. I think you're thinking of "less hairs", which would not be accurate.

Sorry, I must have missed that ... which one? Really? To be fair you would have to shave a human that has never had a haircut or shaved. And the comparison would have to be for the same surface area, or to adjust the totals by the ratio of surface area.What if we restrict it to just head hair -- still think humans have "less" hair? hmmm, that would be why I said less hairy -- to specifically distinguish it from the confusion with less hairs (although I noted problems with that as well). It seems to me that you are equivocating now: the term "less" can lead to confusion because it can mean both less {quantity} number and less {undefined} volume. That would make it a bad term to use without further qualifications: wasn't the point to be more precise, not less?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}