Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,509 Year: 6,766/9,624 Month: 106/238 Week: 23/83 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the evolution of clothes?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 161 (177767)
01-17-2005 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Jack
01-17-2005 8:04 AM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
that still doesn't get us to loss of hair from the running hunting bit.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 01-17-2005 8:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by contracycle, posted 01-17-2005 9:49 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 161 (177787)
01-17-2005 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Abshalom
01-16-2005 8:09 PM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
quote:
The hyenas are more hairy than leopards, chettahs, and female lions, and more mottled (camoflaged) than many large cats. So, why haven't hyenas specialized through the hair reduction stage according to this long range stalking theory?
Two miles is not very much. The proposition for humans goes as far as multiple days at 3-5 km/h for a total range in the order of 100+km.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-17-2005 09:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Abshalom, posted 01-16-2005 8:09 PM Abshalom has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 161 (177789)
01-17-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
01-17-2005 8:09 AM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
quote:
that still doesn't get us to loss of hair from the running hunting bit.
It shows that hair loss for running in humans would have contributed to hunting efficiency where it might not have done for other animals.
Incidentally I think you are badly wrong to claim that no other animals have heat dissipation ctonrols for running. I say this becuase ALL mamaals have heat regulation systems; heat regulation is a "fundamental" technology for mammals. An adaptation of that system is not terribly suprising imo. Some whales have blood vessels built as heat exchangers as an adaptation to the cold depths they inhabit.
tjhere is a general continuum of larger, heavy-furred animals in cold environmants and smaller, lighter-furred animals in hot environments. We fit into that paradigm well enough that no extraneous answer is called for IMO; heat exchange is a fundamental parameter of an animals operating envelope.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-17-2005 09:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2005 8:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2005 12:29 PM contracycle has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 161 (177838)
01-17-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by contracycle
01-17-2005 9:49 AM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
contracycle writes:
It shows that hair loss for running in humans would have contributed to hunting efficiency where it might not have done for other animals.
actually it doesn't make a strong case, and if anything is just another contributing factor. humans can continue to do the walk-run-walk-run fully clothed, and they spend more time walking when it is hot to a greater degree related to temperature than to clothing. Certainly clothing blocks the transfer of heat (sweat) to a greater degree than thinner hair contributes to it ... if it really does: bald people are more prone to heat stroke than fully haired ... maybe hats make a bigger contribution to cooling? Hair actually provides shade for the skin, and increased surface for sweat to evaporate from.
Incidentally I think you are badly wrong to claim that no other animals have heat dissipation ctonrols for running.
I don't believe I ever said that or even implied it. My only question is that if thinning hair is a benefit to humans in the survival selected trait of getting fed then why isn't it more prevalent in other similar sized hunters?
AND If it is not more prevalent then either (1) the concept is invalid or (2) there are other factors involved that {accent\mitigate} the action of this factor or (3) there are other factors that are way much more involved in the selection for thinner hair (like sexual selection) and this aspect is a bit-player on a larger stage.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by contracycle, posted 01-17-2005 9:49 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 7:16 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 161 (178056)
01-18-2005 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
01-17-2005 12:29 PM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
[quote] humans can continue to do the walk-run-walk-run fully clothed, and they spend more time walking when it is hot to a greater degree related to temperature than to clothing.[/.quote]
OK - next new york marathon, I'll bet on a runner in trunks and you can bet on a runner in a gorilla suit.
quote:
maybe hats make a bigger contribution to cooling? Hair actually provides shade for the skin, and increased surface for sweat to evaporate from.
Thats taken as a supporting data point by the running ape argument - our main area still exhibiting hair is on the tops of heads where the sun beats down. Hair that blocks sunlight would still be useful; hair that impedes sweat would not be.
quote:
I don't believe I ever said that or even implied it. My only question is that if thinning hair is a benefit to humans in the survival selected trait of getting fed then why isn't it more prevalent in other similar sized hunters?
And that point has been rebutted multiple times: just because something WOULD be beneficial if it happened does not mean that it WILL happen.
quote:
AND If it is not more prevalent then either (1) the concept is invalid or (2) there are other factors involved that {accent\mitigate} the action of this factor or (3) there are other factors that are way much more involved in the selection for thinner hair (like sexual selection) and this aspect is a bit-player on a larger stage.
Point 1 is silly. Point 2 can support my argument - it is a specific combination of factoirs in the human body form, such as being bipedal, that make long distance running a viable strategy at all. I'm not sure ther are any presently observed niches of which the same could be said. Point 3 is reasonable enough except for the fact that sexual selection describes only the mechanism and not the motive; that is I find it to be a perpetual non-answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2005 12:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2005 8:12 PM contracycle has replied

Graculus
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 161 (178106)
01-18-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
01-16-2005 9:03 PM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
the finer hair must actually provide an advantage when it comes to living long enough to reproduce.
However, there is also the possibility the mutation that causes finer hair is associated with a mutation that does provide advantage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-16-2005 9:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 01-18-2005 10:38 AM Graculus has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 161 (178110)
01-18-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Graculus
01-18-2005 10:33 AM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
However, there is also the possibility the mutation that causes finer hair is associated with a mutation that does provide advantage.
Of course. I'm not sure exactly what point you're making though?
To be valuable information we'd need to know what the physiological result of that other mutation was and what advantage it may have provided.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Graculus, posted 01-18-2005 10:33 AM Graculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Graculus, posted 01-19-2005 10:05 PM jar has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 161 (178312)
01-18-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by contracycle
01-18-2005 7:16 AM


Once more into the breeches ...
contracycle writes:
OK - next new york marathon, I'll bet on a runner in trunks and you can bet on a runner in a gorilla suit.
Strawman. Now you are adding fur AND blocking air passage. Neither of which are predicated by clothes. In fact at the last Olympics they were introducing full body tracksuits ... in Greece, hot humid Greece. Refuted.
Thats taken as a supporting data point by the running ape argument - our main area still exhibiting hair is on the tops of heads where the sun beats down. Hair that blocks sunlight would still be useful; hair that impedes sweat would not be.
You can loose 80% of your body heat through your head even with it covered by hair, sorry, your argument does not hold up here either. In fact one of the arguments for a large brain is that it makes the head operate as a better radiator for heat.
You also have the problem of the sweatiest parts of the body still being endowed with thick hair: pits and pubics. And as pits are already in the shade you cannot play the shade card here.
And that point {survival selected trait} has been rebutted multiple times: just because something WOULD be beneficial if it happened does not mean that it WILL happen.
Actually it hasn’t really been properly addressed at all, because you and jar both assume a totally new mutation is necessary rather than selection among existing, naturally occuring trait variations common to all life forms (as I have previously mentioned :rolleyes. You have not shown that it is due to a mutation in humans, so this claim is bogus (not substantiated) at the start.
There are many variations in hair density in dogs — all selected by choosing natural variations in existing traits without needing mutation to accomplish. Nothing more is needed to explain it in humans, except to argue about what the selection process was.
You might have more of a point if there were areas NOT covered by hair (however fine). Fine hair is nothing more than an extreme end variation precisely similar to the extreme tails of peacocks and scissortail flycatchers, which are, incidentally, also the result of sexual selection of preferred natural variation within existing traits.
Point 1 is silly.
That doesn’t refute it. In fact the same could be said for every theory in science, and that would have no effect on all those theories that are invalidated in just that way. Silly? Hardly. Don’t you think {If you don’t see a predicted result then the theory is not valid as described} is a pretty basic statement at the foundation of science?
Point 2 can support my argument - it is a specific combination of factoirs in the human body form, such as being bipedal, that make long distance running a viable strategy at all.
Now this sounds like a chicken and egg problem if not a causal logical fallacy. One could argue that long distance running then evolved with long-legged bi-pedalism prior to hair loss, that hair loss is not necessary for the trait and it is incidental rather than required.
Much more likely that sexual selection chose young looking sexually {active\attractive} mates (see temporary hair loss in certain areas of female apes during heightened sexual receptiveness), imho, but that takes us back to point 3 ...
Point 3 is reasonable enough except for the fact that sexual selection describes only the mechanism and not the motive;
Ultimately all selection is sexual in sexual species: the mating is chosen by one or more of the participants for sex, it is not spontaneous contact or one reached by logic. I have provided links to sites that discuss the motives as well as the mechanisms, although I would think the motives of adolescent males is hard to avoid .
One major problem with your theory is that hair fineness is more extreme in females than in males, extending further over the body with finer hair on average, and being particularly fine in the breast "sexual signal area" in females compared to males. This would argue that the selected trait is in the female sex and the expression of it in males is secondary.
that is I find it {sexual selection} to be a perpetual non-answer.
As have victorian thinkers for generations. That won’t stop it from being true.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 7:16 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 5:11 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 161 (178460)
01-19-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
01-18-2005 8:12 PM


Re: Once more into the breeches ...
quote:
Strawman. Now you are adding fur AND blocking air passage.
Because that is what fur does/ It traps air and thus insulates the body.
quote:
Neither of which are predicated by clothes. In fact at the last Olympics they were introducing full body tracksuits ... in Greece, hot humid Greece. Refuted.
Thats just silly - evolving animals don't have access to sophisticated breathing fabrics.
[quote] You can loose 80% of your body heat through your head even with it covered by hair, sorry, your argument does not hold up here either. In fact one of the arguments for a large brain is that it makes the head operate as a better radiator for heat.[/qupte]
Er it does I'm afraid - bald men lose heat faster. Bald men suffer from sun-stroke more easily. Your rebuttal is rebutted. Furthermore, it is senseless to say that the brain makes the head operate as a better heat radiator - the brain accounts for a third of our energy budget and is a major cause of heat generation. So IF you had a heat raditation problem, a big empty space would be much better than one packed solid with high-energy machinery.
quote:
You also have the problem of the sweatiest parts of the body still being endowed with thick hair: pits and pubics. And as pits are already in the shade you cannot play the shade card here.
Correct. Fortunately Desmond Morris swings in to my rescue, arguing that these places are still hairy in order to trap pheremones in sweat.
quote:
Actually it hasn’t really been properly addressed at all, because you and jar both assume a totally new mutation is necessary rather than selection among existing, naturally occuring trait variations common to all life forms (as I have previously mentioned ).
I have absolutely never made this claim.
quote:
Now this sounds like a chicken and egg problem if not a causal logical fallacy. One could argue that long distance running then evolved with long-legged bi-pedalism prior to hair loss, that hair loss is not necessary for the trait and it is incidental rather than required.
You are over-extending my argument as you have done previously. Id did not say REQUIRED. ALL I argued was that the model of the running ape makes sense to me, MORE SO than the idea that hair loss is related to clothing. If I were to stoop to your pathetic reasoning I would challenge that proposition that saying that since elephants do not have clothes its obviously false. Yes?
quote:
You might have more of a point if there were areas NOT covered by hair (however fine). Fine hair is nothing more than an extreme end variation precisely similar to the extreme tails of peacocks and scissortail flycatchers, which are, incidentally, also the result of sexual selection of preferred natural variation within existing traits.
Wouldn't you say that baleen is a pretty extreme variation on the theme of hair? Again your argument is pathetically limited.
quote:
One major problem with your theory is that hair fineness is more extreme in females than in males, extending further over the body with finer hair on average, and being particularly fine in the breast "sexual signal area" in females compared to males. This would argue that the selected trait is in the female sex and the expression of it in males is secondary.
To which I respond that Gelada baboons have a signal very much like that but nevertheless display dense body hair in most places. So this fails to answer the question as to why it has spread over the body in humans or what utility this may bring.
quote:
As have victorian thinkers for generations. That won’t stop it from being true.
What an absurd non sequitur. Sexual selection appears to be a get-out-of-explaining-free card in actual use; what it does not explain is WHY a trait is being selected sexually. As a result it merely frustrates rather than illuminates, in my experience. To date the sole value I have seen in "sexual selection" is describing how counterproductive strategies like the peacocks feathers can become embedded, but its use as a general answer is meaningless. As it is in this case - 'sexual selection' being used as a substitute for thought and analysis.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-19-2005 05:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2005 8:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 8:05 AM contracycle has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 161 (178481)
01-19-2005 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by contracycle
01-19-2005 5:11 AM


Re: Once more into the breeches ...
contracycle writes:
Thats just silly - evolving animals don't have access to sophisticated breathing fabrics.
That is exactly what {fur\hair} is, complete with high-tech wicking technology.
bald men lose heat faster. Bald men suffer from sun-stroke more easily.
Sorry those are contradictory. Sunstroke is due to excessive build up of heat. A large brain is not necessarily a more complex one.
Correct. Fortunately Desmond Morris swings in to my rescue, arguing that these places are still hairy in order to trap pheremones in sweat.
Pheromones that the human nose is basically incapable of sensing and that we have much lower response to compared to other species? When we have much higher visual response than olfactory? Have you even heard of smell porn?
I have absolutely never made this claim.
Sorry then. But the point still has NOT been addressed about selection of naturally occuring variation. It happens all the time in species across the board. OR do you deny that some people are much ‘hairier’ than others? AND that they are not considered sex stars (certainly not the women anyway, and certainly not in ‘beefcake’)
If I were to stoop to your pathetic reasoning I would challenge that proposition that saying that since elephants do not have clothes its obviously false. Yes?
They do. They wear mud and clay, intentionally layered on. But my point is not loss due to clothes so much as loss due to sexual selection, but that there are likely a number of factors that contributed to it showing up. It shows the features of sexually selected characteristics. I also think that voice, song, and dance — with {make-up\clothes} — were powerful sexual selected characteristics that help define us as the creative thinking humans that we are.
Wouldn't you say that baleen is a pretty extreme variation on the theme of hair? Again your argument is pathetically limited.
Selected due to better filtering of food? My moustache does that too. What I notice is that my pathetically limited argument is once again dismissed instead of addressed. Do you deny that sexual selection exists? Do you deny that it can and does result in extra-ordinary features? Do you deny that humans have extra-ordinary features?
To which I respond that Gelada baboons have a signal very much like that but nevertheless display dense body hair in most places. So this fails to answer the question as to why it has spread over the body in humans or what utility this may bring.
And you also have to compare the continuous sexual state of humans compared to the baboons. That would make the signal area more permanent and likely selected for amount of uncoverage compared to coverage. The pattern of fine hair in humans starts with the female breast area and spreads from there. Consider that all porn stars of late appear to be fully shaved .... male and female.
What an absurd non sequitur. Sexual selection appears to be a get-out-of-explaining-free card in actual use; what it does not explain is WHY a trait is being selected sexually. As a result it merely frustrates rather than illuminates, in my experience. To date the sole value I have seen in "sexual selection" is describing how counterproductive strategies like the peacocks feathers can become embedded, but its use as a general answer is meaningless. As it is in this case - 'sexual selection' being used as a substitute for thought and analysis.
Again, this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I think your denial is blinding you, but that is my opinion. The why is easy: specimen A is sexy specimen B is not, I’ll have sex with specimen A. Gee that results in children looking more like specimen A than specimen B: who woodathunk? All you need to do is look at how sex is used to sell everything to see what a factor it is in human life. To deny that it has contributed to the way we look, think, sing, dance, and choose mates is, IMAO, incredibly clothed minded.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 5:11 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 9:29 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 161 (178492)
01-19-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
01-19-2005 8:05 AM


Re: Once more into the breeches ...
quote:
That is exactly what {fur\hair} is, complete with high-tech wicking technology.[/qupte]
Except they, unlike us, don't get to choose what they wear. Thus I return to my original offer: next NY marathon, I'll bet on a runner in trunks, and you can prove your point by betting on a runner in a gorilla suit. The fact remains that having the WRONG TYPE of "fabric" for a given environment limits your operational envelope.
quote:
Sorry those are contradictory. Sunstroke is due to excessive build up of heat.
Correct except: you are much more prone to it if your head is not covered, despite the capacity dissipate heat through the head. The REASON the head CAN radiate heat effectively is exactly the same reason that it can take heat in easily: a large number of blood vessels lying close to the surface. Thus the temeperature of the blood in these vessels is much more affected by external conditions than blood in the abdominal cavity. And thus the need for a head-top covering in humans.
quote:
A large brain is not necessarily a more complex one.
Sure, but it still requires an energy budget that generates heat. Any increase in the capacity for heat disspiation created by increasing the surface area of the head will be offset by the head generated by the increased mass.
quote:
Pheromones that the human nose is basically incapable of sensing and that we have much lower response to compared to other species? When we have much higher visual response than olfactory? Have you even heard of smell porn?
None of which are particularly relevant - are you asserting that we CANNOT detect pheremones at all and that they are now totally redundant? Thats going to be a hard case to make. See boilded sentence below:
quote:
So where is it that these pheromones come from anyway?
The most likely answer is our apocrine glands. The three types of glands that are present in humans are sebaceous glands, sweat glands and apocrine glands. Sebaceous glands exist around the body’s openings and secrete substances that kill potentially dangerous microorganisms. Sweat glands help regulate our body temperature and release water and salt. Apocrine glands in humans do not regulate body temperature as they do in other animals. They are found in large concentrations on the face, chest and wherever body hair exists. Interestingly, apocrine glands become functional after puberty which is when we would most likely be searching for a mate. In other animals apocrine glands are known to release substances which effect sexual behavior, so it seems likely that if human pheromones do exist this is where they would come from (Furlow 1996).
http://www.macalester.edu/...hap/UBNRP/Smell/attraction.html
quote:
But the point still has NOT been addressed about selection of naturally occuring variation. It happens all the time in species across the board. OR do you deny that some people are much ‘hairier’ than others? AND that they are not considered sex stars (certainly not the women anyway, and certainly not in ‘beefcake’)
Actually just the other day I read an article to the effect that absent other criteria, men rate long-haired women as sexier than short-haired women. I suspect that male-pattern baldness is not an unconnected phenomenon, as this would reduce the sexiness of older men, reduce pheremone trapping by them, and open an opportunity space for younger men.
I';m not sure what the relevance of "naturally occurring variation" might be. I've never heard of any adaptation appearing en bloc in a whole population without any variation. Please expand.
quote:
They do. They wear mud and clay, intentionally layered on.
That... is at best dubious. Elephants are smart enough that they MIGHT be doing it intentionally, but rhinos also role in mud for the same reason - it cools them off. Not because it stays on afterward, to the best of my knowledge. This observation I think supports the contention that in big savannah animals heat dissipation is a big problem tackled by multiple strategies.
quote:
But my point is not loss due to clothes so much as loss due to sexual selection, but that there are likely a number of factors that contributed to it showing up. It shows the features of sexually selected characteristics.
Well I am not able to discern the features of a sexually selected modification from one selected by other means, so feel free to expand.
quote:
Selected due to better filtering of food? My moustache does that too.
Er, yes. Which pretty much dmeonstrates that hair can be adapted to many things, which supports the connection that in the case of humans it might be the running ape model that is responsible.
quote:
What I notice is that my pathetically limited argument is once again dismissed instead of addressed.
Yes. All I had to do to counter that argument was that hair can show signs of being adaopated by non-sexual pressures. That is all. And I did.
quote:
Do you deny that sexual selection exists? Do you deny that it can and does result in extra-ordinary features? Do you deny that humans have extra-ordinary features?
By what standard is "extraordinary" judged? My default response would be "no" to that. I don;t deny the
And you also have to compare the continuous sexual state of humans compared to the baboons. That would make the signal area more permanent and likely selected for amount of uncoverage compared to coverage.
An easy counter-argument here is that strong outlines are better prompts than weak ones, so a strong fur/skin border may well work better for signal strength.
quote:
Again, this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I think your denial is blinding you, but that is my opinion. The why is easy: specimen A is sexy specimen B is not, I’ll have sex with specimen A.
WHY is specimen A sexy? What ABOUT specimen A is sexy?
"Sexual selection" is a non-answer. But it is the strength of my answer - Specimen A is sexy BECAUSE they look better adapted to running, they have long thighs, smooth calves, well-formed feet, a tight arse (sexual interest in the buttocks of course being present in both men and women). Specimen B over there is squat, hairy, with a flabby arse.
Selection FOR running VIA sex is a meaningful statement. "Sexual selection" alone is not.
quote:
Gee that results in children looking more like specimen A than specimen B: who woodathunk?
Everyone.
quote:
All you need to do is look at how sex is used to sell everything to see what a factor it is in human life.
Indeed - and one of Desmond Morris's depictions was of an advert for coke or similar showing a girl with legs that were one and half times her body length. In other words, grossly disproportionate; and yet it takes someone mentioning this to see it. It is precisely becuase we are so interested in legs et al that IMO reinforces the running ape view.
To deny that it has contributed to the way we look, think, sing, dance, and choose mates is, IMAO, incredibly clothed minded

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 8:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Abshalom, posted 01-19-2005 1:11 PM contracycle has not replied
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 10:39 PM contracycle has replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 161 (178574)
01-19-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by contracycle
01-19-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Gelada Baboon Breast Display Area
Contracycle: I don't know how or if the following information fits into your "fine hair" discussion, but here goes ...
Years ago I was a zookeeper and cared for primates including a pair of Gelada baboons.
I remember the male having a "necklace" of fleshy polyps that he from time to time fingered like prayer beads. I think the female had these, too; and they swelled slightly when she was "in season," if my memory serves me well.
Anyway, the male would get sexually aroused and mount the female only to have his erect penis go flacid right at the point of insertion. This went on for a couple of years until one day a zoo visitor told me, "those two baboons are related ... probably brother and sister."
This floored me, that baboons might actually be physically incapable of incest. But I reported the comment to the curator of mammals as he was very frustrated that the pair of baboons had not produced any infants over the past two years.
Subsequently, the zoo traded off the male for another Gelada. I asked why, and was told that a computer check had verified that both animals came from the same mother a couple of years apart, but had been purchased from two separate zoos. They had never had previous contact until they were housed together in our zoo!
Well, anyway, to the point ...
While we were still trying to find a way to excite the male Gelada's sex interest, I had shown him a Playboy magazine photo of a young human female wearing nothing but a strand of pearls. The male Gelada was totally absorbed by the pearls strung around the nude's neck. He looked at them quizically, and repeatedly touched the pearls in the photo with his index finger while smacking his lips and showing his teeth. He was not interested in any other feature of the photograph.
Regards, Abshalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 9:29 AM contracycle has not replied

Graculus
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 161 (178772)
01-19-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
01-18-2005 10:38 AM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
Of course. I'm not sure exactly what point you're making though?
Wedll, the argument is centering around why we would have lost our fur. This is a possibility that has not been discussed.
To be valuable information we'd need to know what the physiological result of that other mutation was and what advantage it may have provided.
How about as a side effect of neoteny/paedomorphism/prolonged fetal development? Or our subcutaneous fat deposits? An endocrin change? The last one is quite interesting, as per the dog/wolf split*, and the fact that most hirsutism involves the endocrine system.
*The wolves that became dogs were less fearful/aggressive than their siblings. Well, it turns out that several mechanisms use the same pathways... the result of less fear and aggression in canids is curly tails and drooping ears.
BTW, I turned up a couple of interesting facts concerning hiarlessness and clothes. Genetic studies of skin pigmentation genes indicate that we have been hairless since at least 1.2 MYA, the same time as our longer limbs and extended noses appeared. A study of louse genetics indicates that we started wearing clothes no later than 55 KYA 15 KYA, possibly much earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 01-18-2005 10:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 01-19-2005 10:10 PM Graculus has not replied
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2005 7:43 AM Graculus has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 161 (178775)
01-19-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Graculus
01-19-2005 10:05 PM


Re: This Whole Reduction of Hair for Running Down Prey Thing
But is there such a relationship or is this simply speculation?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Graculus, posted 01-19-2005 10:05 PM Graculus has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 161 (178780)
01-19-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by contracycle
01-19-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Once more into the breeches ...
contracycle writes:
and you can prove your point by betting on a runner in a gorilla suit.
You know this is absurd for several reasons having nothing to do with this argument. For this to be a test you would have to control for all these other factors: weight, abrasion, rigidity, inertia, etcetera etcetera. As I said before this is a strawman argument and it is bogus. Your continued use of it is bad form. I have already demonstrated that it does not represent this issue in the slightest.
The REASON the head CAN radiate heat effectively is exactly the same reason that it can take heat in easily: a large number of blood vessels lying close to the surface. ... Any increase in the capacity for heat disspiation created by increasing the surface area of the head will be offset by the head generated by the increased mass ...
You really like arguing in circles don’t you. You contradict yourself again. So increasing the head size does increase the radiator effect, but hair on the head to keep from getting sunstroke insulates the overheating increased mass of the brain causing even more heat buildup ... dizzy yet?
are you asserting that we CANNOT detect pheremones at all and that they are now totally redundant?
your reference writes:
In other animals apocrine glands are known to release substances which effect sexual behavior, so it seems likely that if human pheromones do exist this is where they would come from (Furlow 1996).
Yeah, that’s a rebutal ... if they exist ... it’s been almost 10 years since that was published: any found yet? (color is my emphasis in the article).
I read an article to the effect that absent other criteria, men rate long-haired women as sexier than short-haired women.
And yet, this does not address the issue of being more bare in the sexual signal areas. But let us talk about long hair: what other ape has hair that grows as long as human head hair? What is this but another in a list of extra-ordinary (NOT extraordinary — the - is there for a purpose) features that are selected for sexual attraction? Long tails? Long hair: what purpose does long hair serve?
I';m not sure what the relevance of "naturally occurring variation" might be.
Gosh. This is not a difficult concept. Variation in height, weight, skin color, eye color, hair color, proportionate lengths of arm, thigh, leg, torso, body hair, toe lengths, finger lengths, deepness of eye sockets, etcetera etcetera etcetera ad nauseum ... the one thing that is constant is that there are variations in the final characteristics of every feature in every species. There are mouse species that are bred to reduce variation so that they can control for this aspect in experiments.
I've never heard of any adaptation appearing en bloc in a whole population without any variation. Please expand.
See there ya go again. I never said that. I never even implied it. And you wonder where I got
because you and jar both assume a totally new mutation is necessary
I have absolutely never made this claim.
From? What adaptation is needed to have variation? What adaptation is needed to have (sexual) selection operate on that variation? None. All that is needed is for some variation to be perceived as more attractive, and nothing more.
Elephants are smart enough that they MIGHT be doing it intentionally ... This observation I think supports the contention that in big savannah animals heat dissipation is a big problem tackled by multiple strategies.
Because it blocks the transfer of heat by sweat? It also serves to keep bugs away, and who knows: they may choose the colors to use as well (does this red clay make me look fat?).
Well I am not able to discern the features of a sexually selected modification from one selected by other means, so feel free to expand.
Then you are not paying attention. Sexually selected features are those that help you get mates and do not have any survival benefit, in fact they may carry a survival burden. Features like long head hair that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like large female breasts 365.24 days a year that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like bright yellow hair or bright red hair that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like blue eyes that have {no or very small} survival benefit. Features like very fine hair that has {no or very small} survival benefit. We will come back to this later.
Yes. All I had to do to counter that argument was that hair can show signs of being adaopated by non-sexual pressures. That is all. And I did.
False logic again. The kiwi bird has adapted to living with feathers that are more like fur than normal feathers, and this means that the peacock tail cannot be developed by sexual selection? Want to try again? This time on the issue?
By what standard is "extraordinary" judged?
As I said above, I included the - intentionally to stay away from some of the connotations of that word. Let’s look at the definition (from dictionary.com):
extraordinary adj.
1. Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
2. Highly exceptional; remarkable.
I only need definition #1, although definition #2 could be argued for several human features (like that long head hair?).
Certainly humans are not normal looking apes for a number of reasons, not least of which is the super fineness of body hair, particularly in the sexual signal breast areas as previously mentioned (and buttocks too, seeing as you seem to like them ).
My default response would be "no" to that. I don;t deny the
Good. A start anyway.
An easy counter-argument here is that strong outlines are better prompts than weak ones, so a strong fur/skin border may well work better for signal strength.
Yes, and this is why the porn stars are shaved of any body hair, to augment those borders ... care to try again and address the issue instead of throwing out more wild ideas?
"Sexual selection" is a non-answer. But it is the strength of my answer - Specimen A is sexy BECAUSE they look better adapted to running, they have long thighs, smooth calves, well-formed feet, a tight arse (sexual interest in the buttocks of course being present in both men and women). Specimen B over there is squat, hairy, with a flabby arse.
By your argument, marathon runners should be the sexiest humans .... erm, not to me ... okay try it this way: by your argument all porn stars should look like marathon runners .... darn that doesn’t work either ... I know let’s try: by your argument all porn stars should look extremely fit ... well some do, but many don’t, gosh this just isn’t working!
WHY is specimen A sexy? What ABOUT specimen A is sexy?
What makes specimen A sexy is that {he\she} arouses sexual interest. By augmentation of the areas that signal sexual ability, receptivity and reproduction ability: big breasts feed kids, wide hips let em slide through, big penises make it fun to ride, long hair .......... (oops sorry, lost in a reverie there ...).
Sex is not a cognitive process, part of why one sexual apparatus is referred to as the dumb stick — that men only having enough blood for either that or the brain but not both.
Your picture implies a level of consciousness, of rationality to it that just does not happen. A man doesn’t ask why his penis is erect ..... he just goes in the direction it is pointing
Indeed - and one of Desmond Morris's depictions was of an advert for coke or similar showing a girl with legs that were one and half times her body length. In other words, grossly disproportionate; and yet it takes someone mentioning this to see it. It is precisely becuase we are so interested in legs et al that IMO reinforces the running ape view.
Or it is because of an interest in legs that such running became possible. The legs could be selected for due to the mating dance ritual as easily as running. Singing, dancing, play acting all are sexual behavior. Rock stars (with the ‘wild’ behavior on stage) have groupies, marathon runners don’t.
You need to look at the full picture of what is attractive to both sexes, and you need to look at the full behavior that is attractive as well as the features that are picked out specifically for sexual attraction. To do this, imha, means that you need to study porn, the industry founded on nothing else but catering to that attraction. They don’t show marathons ... not running ones anyway ...
You also need to ask yourself why people (men and women) shave if not to be more attractive ... and why dating is more about dancing than running.
Enough for now.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 9:29 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by contracycle, posted 01-20-2005 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024