Infanticide and Cannibalism

[BDC]

I read somewhere humans lost hair because they stood upright, so got a pleasant breeze to keep cool. Hair is kept on the head because otherwise you get really badly burned.

In other news pubic lice lept from gorillas to humans. What ever were our ancestors up to...

[ShadeHonestus]

I read somewhere humans lost hair because they stood upright, so got a pleasant breeze to keep cool. Hair is kept on the head because otherwise you get really badly burned.

The breeze only helps because, of course, sweat glands. Hair is only covering a small portion of the body surface area that is likely to get burned. There are theories that the retention of hair on the head, beards in men, and hair other places were retained as a display of sexuality in early man.

[Vladimir]

Humans are not and never were great apes, therefore it is illogical and incorrect to use the word "other great apes" in that statement. The one thing has no such relation to the other.

Upon reading the crackpot idea quoted in the original post, I see that Harris makes the same error.

It's true that you don’t see many dwarf women. That’s given rise to the belief that they just pop out of holes in the ground , or, from the sky.

It must be the beards. Thank goodness that humans have lost a lot of their body hair.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There is an answer: sexual preference.

If there would be a strong enough sexual preference to allow that alone to lead to devolvement of a fur, then chimps wouldn't have hair either. Sexual preference is quite interesting though - basically sexually preference strives to evolve to match what is good for survival, resistance to disease, good match making (to avoid inbreeding and allow genetical variety etc) and good effects for the entire herd. If the sexual preference is drastically different from what benefits survival, the branches of populations with such devolved sexuality eventually self-destruct in favor of those with more accurate sexual preferences, however sometimes the species has such a strong niche that that doesn't need to happen - there are a few extreme examples such as peacocks, but they aren't representative of the majority. I'd say sexual preference is the key to human fur devolution, but not alone and in a single way, but through several indirect mechanisms:
- invention of clothes makes fur unneeded, which means it doesn't matter if the fur devolves
- furs cost a lot of energy and so on to maintain and grow, so if it loses it's meaning, there's a moderate pressure to remove it
- the human brain has evolved/devolved in a way such that we use reasoning rather than instincts even for thinking over things that our instincts would be better suited to. While this transformation into reasoning thought gave many disadvantages it also gave the advantage of more complex interaction (especially during hunting) etc., that it didn't mean the extinction of mankind, but allowed mankind to survive despite taking such an untraditional path of evolution. As a result of this, many thought mechanisms involved in things such as sexual preference would change in an unspecified and rather random way, since the reasoning thought hasn't gone through any evolution seeking to improve partner choice etc. similar to how instincts have. As a result of this, less hair could possibly have been preferred over more hair, as a rather random effect.
- furs create hygiene and infection problems for open wounds, from what I've heard. It would probably improve survival for a species capable of complex reasoning, to not have a fur. The reasoning species would be able to detect the wound, and easily clean it, if it would be visible and not covered in greasy, unhygienic fur. This could very well have provided a survival advantage.

I don't think there's one answer, but rather a matter of several causes and effects working together. What I've described are 4 reasons why humans would have lost their furs, I'm sure there are at least 10 more reasons of major impact. And we can notice that there's still traces left of the fur, which suggests any form of rudiment evolution - either the fur lost it's importance or actively was subdued by being disadvantageous, but not disadvantageous enough to pressure it to go away entirely.

That modern human beings consider furs unsexy is not necessarily a sign that sexual preference was the first and major cause of the fur removal. It would be natural for the sexual preference to adapt to like less hairy individuals, if less hairy individuals were more successful. Again, I'd like to suggest a multitude of factors cooperating, through intertwined feedback loops, together forming the result. I've mentioned 4 that I consider likely, but that by my intuitive, approximate statistics wouldn't be enough to alone cause the effect in such a short time. I'm sure there are more causes.

On intuition, I'm not convinced by Rich-Harris' third selection process: maternal preference.

Agreed. From a game theory and statistical perspective, the individuals born by the same mother aren't really that much different in survival capability. So the amount of resources at hand would probably be much more crucial than the appearance of the baby for making the decision on whether to commit infanticide or not as a means of birth control. However, it's possible that Harris' suggestion could have had some part in devolving the human fur, though I doubt it would have been THE major cause of it.

Secondly, there is a clear distinction between female and male hair patterns, which again undermines the first and third mechanisms, pointing to the second.

This seems to be common for many other mammals than humans AFAIK. The sexes often have very different hair, so it isn't necessarily a sign of anything special that humans too have this.

[ShadeHonestus]

I'd say sexual preference is the key to human fur devolution, but not alone and in a single way, but through several indirect mechanisms:

I would have to disagree on it being key outside of Homo sapiens themselves and the greatest amount of fur devolution occured prior.

- invention of clothes makes fur unneeded, which means it doesn't matter if the fur devolves

- furs cost a lot of energy and so on to maintain and grow, so if it loses it's meaning, there's a moderate pressure to remove it

The pressures for hair loss is anything but moderate. Any conservation of energy whether through heat dispensation or its cultivation as you put it, allows the average female specimen to bear more children in their lifetime, this is itself key, accepted and indisputable. Its been coined in any species as, "evolutionary gold dust".

The other glaring problem with this is that benefits of hair loss occured prior to the enlargement of our brains. We walked upright and in the open, before we developed brain capacity. The ability to walk upright, hair loss, conservation of energy allowed for new models of sustenance and nutrition which eventually allowed for increase and maintenance of brain capacity.

- the human brain has evolved/devolved, etc etc.

Within Homo sapiens the loss of hair from the beginning state of being human to the modern day is incredibly minute. In fact the biggest impact is in hair placement and sexual dimorphism seen in hair patterns. This largely came about as the human brain had more than one function and as the need for surival lessoned, the ability to reason is cultivated. This isn't meaning that it evolved, that capacity was there in homo sapiens, but untapped until survival allowed for it. Early homo sapiens didn't have the time or need to assign value to a potential mates' charming sense of humor rather in their ability to provide.

The varied body hair among populations of people today that have their origin in isolated and independant development supports this.

Also this would include skin color as sexual preference as in the flawed Darwinian theory on human evolution of body hair and race. People suddenly didn't become less attracted to dark skin...it was the onset of diseases due to vitamin D deficiency that led pigmentation differentiation in different climates. The drastic changes suggest that it can only have happened due to survival pressures and not cultural.


I believe a fellow by the name of Miller at New Mexico (State?) University has some interesting inights into the human brain being one of sexual preference over survival and he is not without his critics. However most of his good theory is shadowed by those without a firm grasp on the human evolutionary voyage and who quote his research out of the context of the discipline therefore inviting rabid criticism.

. As a result of this, many thought mechanisms involved etc etc

Advancement of culture, not evolution of species, impact on hair minute, see above

- furs create hygiene and infection problems for open wounds, from what I've heard...etc etc

Goes to conservation of energy see above and previous posts...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sexual preference is quite interesting though - basically sexually preference strives to evolve to match what is good for survival, resistance to disease, good match making (to avoid inbreeding and allow genetical variety etc) and good effects for the entire herd.

It is very interesting indeed, isn't it?

I am really not well versed in evolutionary biology. Most of what I wrote is based on Jared Diamond's -of Guns, Germs and Steel fame - book 'The Third Chimpansee'. A 'popular' exposition of human evolution. I do remember one thing striking me as very odd, because it went against my intuition and preconceived notions so much: sexual preference can prefer genes that by any account must be considered counter-productive from a survivalist point of view. The mechanism of sexual preference can override the mechanism of survival of the fittest.

Brightly coloured, loud singing birds really do die at a faster rate than their silent and camouflaged competitors from the same species. But this disadvantage is offset by their attracting more mates and out-reproducing their longer living rivals. It is a near suicidal strategy, a strategy of showing off one's superior genes: the attention grabbing brightly coloured birds show that despite this they still managed to outwit and outrun their predators.

In similar fashion, having beatiful, shiny long hair on one'shead is very cost-inefficient and entirely superflous. Again it is a sign of superior genes. One is so healthy, that one can afford this complete waste of energy. It is flaunting one's superior genes.

The former especially, Diamond argues, could be the explanation why (young) human males smoke and drink so much, why they bungee-jump, drive recklessly, do stupid self-destructive things in general.

And it is why I think those Darwin awards have got it all wrong - there is often a perfectly logical evolutionary explanation for all the apparent stupidity they like to mock so much. They should really be handing out Darwin Awards to 'clever' femaleless nerds behind computer screens.

* downs a bottle of Vodka and goes off to the nearest highway to film himself evading speeding cars to show to all the girls tomorrow *

[ShadeHonestus]

The former especially, Diamond argues, could be the explanation why (young) human males smoke and drink so much, why they bungee-jump, drive recklessly, do stupid self-destructive things in general.

Become liberals...

[Lemur]

Become liberals...

It's odd, you'll be going along, making very reasonable and interesting arguments, and then you can't help yourself but indulge in cheap shots at the "liberals." It's sort of surprising, as it needlessly takes you to a lower level. Everybody's free to indulge in attacks in the Backroom, of course, and pointed humor is encouraged, but pointless and unsupported attacks on "the liberals" are just weird and out of date, man. We've just come out of six years of total Republican rule in this country, where the "conservatives" (a loosely-defined term) held every lever of power. And yet there is still a sub-culture of Limbaugh and Coulter listeners who think it's witty and amusing to blame every ill known to mankind on "the liberals" (a loosely-defined term if ever there was one.)

If you want to shout into a right-wing echo chamber (or left-wing, for that matter), there are better venues than the Org.

[ShadeHonestus]

etc etc etc.

I was referring to a popular opinion in the 1990's, which incidentally was taken as a joke with a grain of salt, within "on topic" a number of anthropology departments, especially around those cultural folk. Leaving a line to see if anyone would pick up on it. That being the youth in college conforming to the pathos of young women, hence becoming liberals, during their university years in pursuit of getting laid. (sexual selection) This I believe was quite on topic and if you need for me to spell out in detail what is meant so that sensibilities on either side of the aisle are not hurt....well I'm not. This is not the PC backroom. In fact this very topic and my well thought out statements, aka educated, that I contribute are greatly offensive to some, probably some that visit the backroom, so don't pick and choose the sensitivity. I've seen more political blood spilled in a room of high academia jockeying for associate professorships than you'll see in a lifetime of the backroom. The levity here is something I will roll in, cover myself up naked in and streak through the quad with...even in serious discussions.

In other words, lighten up...

[Lemur]

That being the youth in college conforming to the pathos of young women, hence becoming liberals, during their university years in pursuit of getting laid. (sexual selection)

I have to admit, much to my shame, I didn't spot the logic of the joke. Bad lemur! Bad, naughty lemur! Exrta-painful body-hair removal for the lemur tonight!

[ShadeHonestus]

I have to admit, much to my shame, I didn't spot the logic of the joke. Bad lemur! Bad, naughty lemur! Exrta-painful body-hair removal for the lemur tonight!

I apologize if my response was a bit imperious to an honest mistake...

[Watchman]

Isn't one theory about human males having facial hair pretty much the same as why male lions have manes - intimidation effect ? 'Course, for the lions it also pretty much armours the exact only vulnerable spot on the animal's body as far as the teeth of others are concerned - the throat - but you can't have everything.

Plus some lion populations living in bushy, semi-forested areas - where there IIRC weren't hyenas for competition either - have apparently started thinning theirs out noticeably, since obviously too thick and long a mane is a real pain for hunting among the branches...

[Devastatin Dave]

I believe the Org should have a Neanderthal recipe contest...
Here's my submission...

Cream of Caveman
1½ hours 30 min prep
Change to: servings US Metric
3 1/2 cups mamoth broth
1 cup sliced carrots
1/2 cup sliced celery
1/3 cup wild rice
1/3 cup sliced onions
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
2 tablespoons butter
3 tablespoons flour
1 cup half-and-half cream
1 1/2 cups cut-up cooked caveman

Mix broth, carrots, celery, uncooked rice, onions, thyme, and 1/4 teaspoon pepper.
Bring to a boil; reduce heat, cover and simmer 1 hour, until the rice is tender.
Melt butter, stir in the flour, then the half-half.
Cook and stir 1 minute. Slowly add half-half mixture to the rice mixture, stirring constantly. Stir in the caveman and heat through.

mmmm,mmmm good!!!

[Ice]

Humans are not and never were great apes, therefore it is illogical and incorrect to use the word "other great apes" in that statement. The one thing has no such relation to the other.

Upon reading the crackpot idea quoted in the original post, I see that Harris makes the same error.

Why bother posting? We know you don't believe in evolution, thus you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the thread, other than starting a flame war and pissing people off.

Oh and for the record, our ancestors did take the many forms of ape and apelike creatures.

[Adrian II]

I believe the Org should have a Neanderthal recipe contest...
Here's my submission...

Cream of Caveman
1½ hours 30 min prep
Change to: servings US Metric
3 1/2 cups mamoth broth
1 cup sliced carrots
1/2 cup sliced celery
1/3 cup wild rice
1/3 cup sliced onions
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
2 tablespoons butter
3 tablespoons flour
1 cup half-and-half cream
1 1/2 cups cut-up cooked caveman

Mix broth, carrots, celery, uncooked rice, onions, thyme, and 1/4 teaspoon pepper.
Bring to a boil; reduce heat, cover and simmer 1 hour, until the rice is tender.
Melt butter, stir in the flour, then the half-half.
Cook and stir 1 minute. Slowly add half-half mixture to the rice mixture, stirring constantly. Stir in the caveman and heat through.

mmmm,mmmm good!!!

Oh brutha ..

[King Henry V]

Is it only me who has this insane idea that the invention of clothing had something to do with the gradual loss of body hair?

[ShadeHonestus]

Isn't one theory about human males having facial hair pretty much the same as why male lions have manes - intimidation effect ? 'Course, for the lions it also pretty much armours the exact only vulnerable spot on the animal's body as far as the teeth of others are concerned - the throat - but you can't have everything.

Its been more described as the residue of physical sexual display from earlier, but yeah that theory was thrown out there (the intimidation idea) but more for inviting discussion than serious theory.

Is it only me who has this insane idea that the invention of clothing had something to do with the gradual loss of body hair.

No, but its been universally dismissed for the most part as the relative amount of hair loss after our ability to clothe ourselves was minute and in some populations you could see a retro increase, even in warm climates.

The loss of hair having been described in prior posts along the evolutionary chain.

Oh and for the record, our ancestors did take the many forms of ape and apelike creatures.

Very true my friend and something esle that's interesting to think about is just how many upright walking apes there were at one time not to mention the fine line between survival and the extinction of the that which brought us to be Orgahs and not that of bamboo gnawing GAH's.

[Watchman]

Oh and for the record, our ancestors did take the many forms of ape and apelike creatures.

I would say we do as well, having occasionally traversed the city late at Friday night...