the evolution of clothes?

quote:

---

{proposition}
I have read your post. I have also read pink sasquatch's post. The main conclusion I come to is that this nit-picking debate is not working for either of us - each feels that the other badly misunderstands\misrepresents the other, and concentrates on "correcting" that to the point of interfering with the discussion.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

n other words you can state what you think my position is and I will {adjust\correct} that until we can both agree on an understanding of the proposed process.

---

OK. In message 35 Mr Jack wrote:

quote:

---

There's some evidence that humans lost their fur as an adaptation for persistance hunting - our greater heat loss ability allows us to keep going for longer. Clothes, even furs, are not equivalent to having your own fur because you can just take them on and off.

---

to which you subsequently responded, in message 45, that if this were true cheetahs should have less hair. Mr Jack clarified in message 63, writing:

quote:

---

No. The hypothesis in human's is that furlessness is an adaptation to long-distance running; cheatah's are sprinters.

---

To which you replied in message 65:

quote:

---

attributing our {rare} loss of hair to our {unique} long-distance ability in this regard is a logical (causal) fallacy -- they are not necessarily connected.

---

And further, in message 75, this time to me arguing in defence of the running ape model:

quote:

---

heat regulation for running doesn't show up in other running animals, so to me there has to be another factor, such as running with a {camouflage\ceremonial} costume on that artificially reduces heat loss.

---

In message 87 you argued, in response to Jar:

quote:

---

a. variation within the population exists
b. significant advantage claimed for humans

​

see, I just don't see this as the major ne plus ultra reason for the reduction of hair size in humans.

​

I think it could well have been a contributing factor, but I think when push comes to shove that sexual selection trumps the running in heat model. your (b) is blocked by sexual selection ...

---

Whereupon I have tried to show that there can indeed be a significant actual benefit to hairlessness specifically and directly linked to bipedalism and long distance running. You have attacked either the mechanisms of heat dissipation, or argued that there is no other animal with the same engineering, or argued that sexual selection is the only viable explanation of hairlessness point blank.I have specifically disagreed with your message 65 saying that this is a logical/causal fallacy, and instead have argued that our hairlessness, bipedalism, and sweating facility all produce a particular mode of operation analogous to that of any other creature appropriately adapated to its environment, just as dolphins have fins, streamlining, a top-mounted blowhole and sonar. From my perspective the invocation of runaway sexual selection to explain these features is unnecessary, and even wrong, because the suite of adpatations we do have amount to an entirely plausible model of early human activity.But what I am not really able to do is give you anything approaching a description of the evolutionary process by which this arose. I am simply not qualified to do so. I favour the running ape model, IMO it explains harilessness, and a variety of other unique features, in a cogent and satiusfying way AFAIC. All I have argued is that this model should not be ruled out, as you appear to do - and especially not on some of the specious grounds presented. I really cannot see what a thread between us discussing this model would achieve - I can't make any better argument than those in the documents I linked. If its truly the case that you have never heard of this idea before, then referring you to those is the best thing I can do.

great. oops missed the point of the agreement?You are supposed to start another subthread titled {sexual selection process definition} and then provide a synopsis of the model, not another nit-picking history eh? The question is whether you really understand the model, and the best way to demonstrate this is to restate it in your words.let me show what I mean with the next post.

---

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

In this model for the reduction of hair on the human body we have:(1) A bipedal ape\hominid living in a forested region of Africa circa 4.5 million years ago. This bipedal ape\hominid is assumed to be as hairy as chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives who also would have had ancestors likely in the same environment.(2) The environment changed and the savannah opened up, allowing the dispersal of a creative species to move into a new niche.(3) The bipedal ape\hominid moved into this niche taking advantage of it's mode of mobility to run down other quickly winded species.(4) Over time this behavior has selected for {hominids\humans} that are better and better adapted to long distance running, including a number of features specific to running: long legs, good lungs, an efficient loping gait to cover ground without causing undo exhaustion, and the bone structure to enable the full expression of this behavior (from toe bones to ankles to knees to hips anyway).(5) Over time this behavior has also selected for increased cooling of this long distance behavior, and this has resulted in both the ability for sweating and the thinning of the hair.Any complaints\modifications to that definition?

---

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

quote:

---

Any complaints\modifications to that definition?

---

You ommitted hairlessness from the list of running-facilitative features.Apart from that, nothing significant. I speculate that perhaps a precursor migrated into an area of combined tropical forest and savannah as found on the east coast of africa, but thats all.

First, it is my understanding that we are not talking "hairlessness" as there is still a lot of hair on humans, but that we are talking hair thinning, and I thought that was covered by: Do you mean hair thinning started before the running? The timing of the developments is pretty crucial to each model, so I really want to be clear on this.{{edited to add emphasis to the point in question}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-27-2005 19:07 AM

---

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

quote:

---

Do you mean hair thinning started before the running? The timing of the developments is pretty crucial to each model, so I really want to be clear on this.

---

I'm afraid I cannot answer that question. I would suggest you take it up with those professionals who articulated the theory. Indeed, there was an email address on one of the links I provided, although I have no idea if it is current.As I have already pointed out, I am not willing to enagge you in a technical debate with your specialty. As I have already pointed out, all I did was defend the existence of A theory of hair thinning. That is the sum total of the point at issue.

okay we have reached the end of defining the running ape model, (it looks like I understand it as well as you do, which is the point of this proceedure).now it is your turn to provide the same level (or better) of detail in the definition of the sexual selection process.just the definition of the process with no editorial comments at this point eh?This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-28-2005 07:31 AM

---

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

quote:

---

now it is your turn to provide the same level (or better) of detail in the definition of the sexual selection process.

---

quote:

---

I'm afraid I cannot answer that question. I would suggest you take it up with those professionals who articulated the theory. Indeed, there was an email address on one of the links I provided, although I have no idea if it is current.

---

Not unexpected. In other words:Your claim that I misunderstood your mechanism has been demonstrated to be false, as I have defined it in one post to the point where you have no argument with it and need to refer to a "higher authority" for any more work on the definition. I obviously know it at least as well as you, and possibly better.My claim that you misunderstand my mechanism appears to be true, as you are unable to define it at all.How can you possibly say that your mechanism explains the evidence better when you don't even understand what it is being measured against?Let’s take it one step at a time: what is run-away sexual selection?

Intelligence came so did clothes.

welcome to the frayyou might notice from the first poist that the person only posted the one thing and has either left or has not had anything more to say.

---

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

bump to repeat:

---

---

Do you need help or are you busy with other things? (I don't see you signed in, but that was not unusual before either)

---

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

quote:

---

How can you possibly say that your mechanism explains the evidence better when you don't even understand what it is being measured against?

---

I didn;t say that. All I said was that THERE IS ANOTHER THEORY. You have contended that there is not, and my claims that there was were being "sucked out of my thumb".I said it is a theory I find PREFERABLE, becuase it explains many more features, and does not require the recursion and meaninglessness of sexual selection.Do you now finally acknowledge the existance of a rival argument as to the origin of hairlessness in humans?[and yes, I already openly admitted that I don't know the process and am not trained in this field, whch is precisely why I turned down your bait, RAZD. Play like an adult.]

Well, contracycle, welcome back ... I think. Except that I never said either of those statements. In fact if you look back I wager you will see that not only do I consider there two be more than one theory, I consider there to be more than two. There are a bunch of theories; the question is which one {or ones} best answer for the evidence. Do you want to talk about the "aquatic ape" theory? I believe I have mentioned it early in this thread (not that I think it is valid -- that is a different issue). There is also the theory that we are "naked" because of wearing clothes that (a) abrade the hairs and (b) negate the need for thick fur -- we can discuss that too if you want. I don't believe I ever said that the "running ape" theory was not a theory nor that it does not produce and explanatory benefit; I just question whether it is better at predicting the observed results, particularly in regards to hair thinness patterns on the human body.It seems to me that the one person championing one theory and claiming all others were not scientific was you, but, hey, that could be just my memory. Have you mentioned any others? Or you find it preferable because you understand it and you don't understand sexual selection? Meaningless? Hardly. Explains more features? Seems to me that has not been shown yet. If you want we can discuss just the issue of long head hair and how it relates to sexual selection - and see whether it is a meaningless concept or not. As noted above, this is your latest strawman argument. Have you stopped beating your best friend? I recognize that many rival theories exist, the question is which theory is best at explaining the evidence. Bait? BAIT? The proposition was to discuss the different theories like adults, first by ensuring that each fully understood the other theory, and then comparing predictions with observed results to see where that leads us in understanding human evolution. If you can think of a more adult way to approach this issue then by all means suggest it: I am always willing to learn new things.{Art in all it's forms} is an expression and recognition of creativity: why is creativity a good measure of {future\current} fitness?Or to pick up on an earlier {comment\suggestion} -- why should someone with long hair be chosen over someone without long hair purely as a marker for {past\current} fitness?Consider it as an intellectual exercise, not a game. Stretch a little.Enjoy.

---

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

quote:

---

Except that I never said either of those statements. In fact if you look back I wager you will see that not only do I consider there two be more than one theory, I consider there to be more than two

---

Ahuh. Do you still maintain that:

quote:

---

attributing our {rare} loss of hair to our {unique} long-distance ability in this regard is a logical (causal) fallacy -- they are not necessarily connected.

---

Yes or no?do you still assert that an effectiveness improvement through hair loss is "blocked" by sexual selection? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Do you want to talk about the "aquatic ape" theory? I believe I have mentioned it early in this thread (not that I think it is valid -- that is a different issue).

---

Now you are weavoing about. above, you are trying tio sidle out of the storng statements you made previously and instead claim that your arghument was not the rejection of any other thweory but the expression of your preference for that theory. Now you say the validity of the aquatic ape theory is irrelevant.No, I do not want to discuss the aqatic ape theory, becuase a) I find it less compelling than the runnning ape model, and b) it was the specific argument to hairlessness in the running ape model WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. The one about clothes, you may recall.

quote:

---

Or you find it preferable because you understand it and you don't understand sexual selection? Meaningless? Hardly. Explains more features? Seems to me that has not been shown yet. If you want we can discuss just the issue of long head hair and how it relates to sexual selection - and see whether it is a meaningless concept or not.

---

Yes, meaningless. It's a suitable explanation for a feature that is otherwise inexplicable. It is not suitable for feature that can otherwise be explained. Because that model adds no information, it should be a last resort only adopted when all other possible analyses have been exhausted. I have already explained this.

quote:

---

As noted above, this is your latest strawman argument. Have you stopped beating your best friend? I recognize that many rival theories exist, the question is which theory is best at explaining the evidence.

---

It is not a straw man argument; if that were true, your various attacks on the running ape model and my comprehgension of sexual selection would be senseless. You have manifestly attempted to deny that the running ape model is worthy of consideration; you have asserted without qualifications that it is BLOCKED by sexual selection, necessarily assiming the validity of sexual selection thereby. I have nbot ever enagegd with you in an argument in defencd of the actual reality or truth of the running ape model becuase I am well aware I am not competent to advance such a claim.

quote:

---

Bait? BAIT? The proposition was to discuss the different theories like adults, first by ensuring that each fully understood the other theory, and then comparing predictions with observed results to see where that leads us in understanding human evolution. If you can think of a more adult way to approach this issue then by all means suggest it: I am always willing to learn new things.

---

Yes, bait - it was completely manipulative, attempting to hold me to a process and methodology with which I am totally unfamiliar. It was an overt attempt to bait me on to ground of your choosing where I can be destroyed at leasure, and I correctly declined that bait.Please note I have never done anything similar; even when arguiuing against McCarthyist slanders of communism, I have not suggested that I will only discuss matters if the other side adopts the
historical-materialist dialectical method and constructs its arguments accordingly.

quote:

---

Or to pick up on an earlier {comment\suggestion} -- why should someone with long hair be chosen over someone without long hair purely as a marker for {past\current} fitness?

---

Well by your own argument, the very question of "why" is irrelevant if this was produced by recursive sexual selection. There is no why.