Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 4 of 202 (449629)
01-18-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LouieP
01-15-2008 12:27 PM


Ever try to run long distances in a fur coat?
We're runners. One hunting strategy is to chase the animal until it collapses. We can run over long distances whereas animals with fur coats overheat and drop from heat exhaustion. They might be able to sprint faster than us, but over the long haul they just cannot keep up with our pace. Even if it takes a few days (and I have heard accounts of such hunts by bushmen), we can run just about any other animal into the ground.
Ever see someone out jogging with their dog? The jogger sweats over the entire surface of his body and is thus able to throw off excess body heat over the entire surface of his body. The dog can only throw off excess body heat through his tongue and the pads on his feet. If the jogger isn't careful, he could easily run his best friend to death, especially on a hot day.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LouieP, posted 01-15-2008 12:27 PM LouieP has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 3:31 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2008 6:56 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 12 of 202 (449706)
01-18-2008 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
01-18-2008 6:56 PM


dwise1 writes:
We're runners. One hunting strategy is to chase the animal until it collapses. We can run over long distances whereas animals with fur coats overheat and drop from heat exhaustion.
Which explains why all the animals in Africa are covered in fur. Or are you saying that humans can run faster than animals?
Not faster, but farther. Take for example, the cheetah, which is the fastest land animal. In a 100-yard dash, it would beat us hands ... er ... paws-down. But who would win a 1-mile run? Not the cheetah, that's for sure. Though in the cheetah's case it wouldn't be from overheating, but rather from anoxia. As I recall, the cheetah holds its breath, or at least hardly breathes at all, when it runs. It's built for isolated sudden bursts of high speed, not for any kind of real distance. Remember, I was talking about distance running.
As Molbiogirl pointed out, there are many advantages to fur, so why shouldn't most animals in Africa have fur? Notice also that none of them are shaggy, but rather a smooth-hairs, which is in keeping with a hot climate. Notice also that we aren't the only nekkid critters out there, but there are also hippos, rhinos, and elephants.
Remember also that the excess body heat I'm talking about is generated by the act of running. Not just from walking about in the noon-day sun, but from running.
We are built for running long distances. Very few other animals are.
dwise1 writes:
Ever see someone out jogging with their dog? The jogger sweats over the entire surface of his body and is thus able to throw off excess body heat over the entire surface of his body. The dog can only throw off excess body heat through his tongue and the pads on his feet. If the jogger isn't careful, he could easily run his best friend to death, especially on a hot day.
Ever tried that with a horse?
I'm a city boy, myself. But I seem to recall that horses do sweat through their skin, whereas dogs don't. Even with its fur, the horse should have much more cooling effect from its sweating through its skin than a dog would through its "sweating" only through its tongue and paw pads.
Though that still begs the question of whether a man could out-run a horse given a great enough distance. Remember, the horse may be faster over a shorter distance, but can the horse keep up its pace for longer than a man could? That is the real question.
So what do you think doesn't "add up"?
Edited by dwise1, : can a man outrun a horse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2008 6:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 01-18-2008 7:57 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 01-18-2008 8:29 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2008 9:10 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 15 of 202 (449711)
01-18-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by MartinV
01-18-2008 6:18 PM


People are also so to say born prematurely, they should have been in uterus for one year more.
(and there is no physiological explanation why they are not. Those mothers who bear children longer should have had some survival advantage)
So the first year of their life they are totally dependent on their mothers and we can speak about social-uterus development. It coincides with following development of language, stance etc which cannot be reduced and compared to other primates. Human are special and on my opinion their evolution cannot be explained by evolution of primates.
Suggest that to a woman, if you dare. In particular one who has given birth.
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.
Rather, a human neonate has only a partially grown brain and a partially developed skull, just so it can squeeze through the birth canal -- and it's a very tight squeeze even then. The rest of the development of the brain and skull occurs after it is born. Yes, that means that it's much more dependent and unable to care for itself when it's born, but the survival advantages are very obvious (in case they are not obvious to you: bigger brain, survival of the mother, development of social structures to ensure care of the infant, development of marital bonds between the parents to also ensure care of the infant, continued nurturing of the child to full maturity).

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by MartinV, posted 01-18-2008 6:18 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by MartinV, posted 01-19-2008 3:28 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-23-2008 11:46 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 26 of 202 (449750)
01-18-2008 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
01-18-2008 8:56 PM


Of course, horses sweat over their entire bodies.
So sweating explains bare appearance in humans how?
The context would tell you what he was talking about. He was not talking about humans. He was pointing out a major difference between dogs and horses. You were the one who brought up horses.
The point was that, in terms of eliminating excess body heat through the ability to sweat and hence be cooled when that sweat evaporates, dogs are at a distinct disadvantage while horses fare better. And humans happen to fare even better, but what you responded to didn't say anything about humans.
The OP asks why lack of fur would be beneficial for humans. The ability to run without overheating is one. The question is not whether that is how or why that trait evolved, but rather why that trait would be advantageous.
BTW, note the common error expressed in the thread title. "positive Progression"? Evolution isn't about progress, but rather about adaptation.
A further thought about running occurred to me, though it's a bit off-topic. Thermo-regulation is only one factor. We are bipedal and the other animals we've discussed are quadrapedal. It would seem that the act of running would affect a quadraped's rib cage and hence its ability to breathe. It would seem that the stresses on the rib cage could make it harder to keep sucking in air at the rate that the animal's body would require for a long-distance run. As bipeds, we have two legs up (well, two forelimbs up, literally) on them by freeing our own ribcage from the stresses of running on our forelimbs, thus freeing us to suck air in at whatever rate we need.
Of course, that would need to be verified by somebody who actually knows something about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2008 8:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-18-2008 10:03 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2008 10:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024