Why don't we have fur?

[Deamiter]

Somebody recently asked in another thread why humans no longer have fur if we evolved from a common ancestors with other apes. I thought I'd give a quick answer, though somebody suggested a new thread so here it is.

Quite simple, we ARE covered with fur. Our entire bodies are covered with hair -- it just falls out more frequently than with other apes. Seriously -- look at your arms and legs and you'll see hair everywhere (to the horror of the women among us who shave).

 

[crawfish]

You think the advent of clothes MIGHT have had something to do with it?

Perhaps men are hairier than women because, as their role as hunter/gatherer, they were exposed to the elements for far longer periods of time; they still needed the extra protection, while it became a nuisance to women sitting in a warm cave nursing children?

Just off the top of my head, I'm sure someone has investigated this further. It does make some sense, though.

 

[vossler]

Perhaps men are hairier than women because, as their role as hunter/gatherer, they were exposed to the elements for far longer periods of time; they still needed the extra protection, while it became a nuisance to women sitting in a warm cave nursing children?

Maybe we haven't evolved as much. Isn't that basically how modern society portrays men?

 

[gluadys]

You think the advent of clothes MIGHT have had something to do with it?

Perhaps men are hairier than women because, as their role as hunter/gatherer, they were exposed to the elements for far longer periods of time; they still needed the extra protection, while it became a nuisance to women sitting in a warm cave nursing children?

Just off the top of my head, I'm sure someone has investigated this further. It does make some sense, though.

One theory was the aquatic ape, but I don't think that is given much credence anymore.

Another is that having less hair (though as Deamiter points out, not fewer hairs) allowed for more effective sweating, needed as a cooling agent when we began running around on savannahs after prey (or from predators).

 

[pgp_protector]

 

[lucaspa]

One theory was the aquatic ape, but I don't think that is given much credence anymore.

Another is that having less hair (though as Deamiter points out, not fewer hairs) allowed for more effective sweating, needed as a cooling agent when we began running around on savannahs after prey (or from predators).

Those are two theories. A third hypothesis was proposed in the last couple of months: humans lost their fur as a result of sexual selection by females.

None have attained complete acceptance.

So, bottom line: we don't know why humans evolved to be hairless.

 

[juvenissun]

Somebody recently asked in another thread why humans no longer have fur if we evolved from a common ancestors with other apes. I thought I'd give a quick answer, though somebody suggested a new thread so here it is.

Quite simple, we ARE covered with fur. Our entire bodies are covered with hair -- it just falls out more frequently than with other apes. Seriously -- look at your arms and legs and you'll see hair everywhere (to the horror of the women among us who shave).

I asked the question.

Fur is functional and is a good creation. It makes the creature warm in winter and cool in summer. Just look animals in the winter. Without fur, they die. If we had it, by no means we should lose it. Clothing is not a cause of loosing fur. It is a conseqence of having no fur.

The reason I asked this question is to argue that we are NOT the consequence of evolution. We are created as we are now. Evolution Christians reject creation "by scientific evidence". Now, try to convince me by scientific evidence on this tiny problem.

 

[juvenissun]

Somebody recently asked in another thread why humans no longer have fur if we evolved from a common ancestors with other apes. I thought I'd give a quick answer, though somebody suggested a new thread so here it is.

I was reluctant to open new thread for the fur problem because it is just one problem among multitude which cast serious doubt to the evolution theory. I am not going to open another thread, but here is another biological one interested me.

What is the origin of bone? It seems that none of the "early" creatures had bone. Today, there are still many creatures have no bone.

 

[Deamiter]

I asked the question.

Fur is functional and is a good creation. It makes the creature warm in winter and cool in summer. Just look animals in the winter. Without fur, they die. If we had it, by no means we should lose it. Clothing is not a cause of loosing fur. It is a conseqence of having no fur.

The reason I asked this question is to argue that we are NOT the consequence of evolution. We are created as we are now. Evolution Christians reject creation "by scientific evidence". Now, try to convince me by scientific evidence on this tiny problem.

In order for it to be a problem for evolution, it'd have to be unexplainable by evolutionary theory. So far in the thread there have been two good proposals to explain our light fur (not lack of fur mind you).

The first is that less fur allows more efficient cooling through sweating. Since humans first appeared (whether evolved or not) in Africa, keeping warm was not really a primary concern except at night when nesting (among many species of apes) and the invention of fire reduces the need for heat. Since the proto-human move from jungle to savannah coincided with the increased use of tools (as evidenced in the fossil record) it's not implausable that as the amount of fur decreased to aid in cooling when hunting and fleeing from predators, the amount of external warming increased. Anyway, you're quite right that it would be very odd for hairless humans to evolve in North America, but it's actually beneficial in Africa.

The second suggestion was that sexual selection played a significant role in our loss of heavy hair. This is the same reason many baboons have red, blue or yellow bums. The brightness and extent of the color directly correlates to an individual's aggressiveness and those with the most colorful bums often have more chances to reproduce (talking in generalities here since the details are wildly varied among species). If early females found larger nude areas to be attractive and the loss of heavy hair became advantageous in the new environment (savannah vs. forest/jungle) it would only be a matter of generations.

I'm no biologist, but these are explanations I've looked into in the past when I had the same question. A little time spent with google should pop up a number of similar explanations. Basically, our very light hair is entirely plausable given a hairy ape ancestor even if the precise details of what DID happen at each generation over millions of years are not certain.

 

[Deamiter]

I was reluctant to open new thread for the fur problem because it is just one problem among multitude which cast serious doubt to the evolution theory. I am not going to open another thread, but here is another biological one interested me.

What is the origin of bone? It seems that none of the "early" creatures had bone. Today, there are still many creatures have no bone.

I'll start a new thread since I think that's worthy of a new thread. I actually have no clue, but if I have time later (and nobody else tackles this one) I'll do a little research and see what scientists have proposed. It's not so important in this case since you're asking specific questions, but it's always a good idea to start a new thread for new questions both so it's more obvious to everybody on the forum (I sometimes skip threads if I get bored with them) and so you minimize cross-talk where people have multiple conversations over each other on the same thread.

 

[shernren]

To throw my two cents in: part of the same modification of our heat-adapting systems is that we sweat. Most mammals actually don't sweat all that much - a dog pants in the hot weather because its sweat alone can't evaporate off enough heat.

 

[Deamiter]

To throw my two cents in: part of the same modification of our heat-adapting systems is that we sweat. Most mammals actually don't sweat all that much - a dog pants in the hot weather because its sweat alone can't evaporate off enough heat.

Interesting that pigs have a different cooling system -- instead of sweating, they rely on wallowing in mud to cool them off.

 

[hithesh]

I was reluctant to open new thread for the fur problem because it is just one problem among multitude which cast serious doubt to the evolution theory. I am not going to open another thread, but here is another biological one interested me.:

How so? Someone here posted the picture of a man, with "fur" all over, even surrounding his face? A clear indication of a simple genetic deviation from other "less furry" humans.

There could be numerous factors that combined, could have played a role in why furry man, was selected over less furry man. Perhaps for the same reason, even today we prefer less "furry" people for mating rituals. Perhaps because less "furry" man allowed a clear distinction between the features of man and beast.

I do have to wonder: if less furry was a predetermined position by God on the physical features of man, why do such overtly "furry" people exist, as in the above example?

What is the origin of bone? It seems that none of the "early" creatures had bone. Today, there are still many creatures have no bone.

Well, here's a nice place to start for the bone:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4638587/

 

[Assyrian]

I remember seeing a program on the Bushmen of the Kalahari hunting. It sent shivers down my spine. They picked out a big bull eland (I think) and started to chase it. Now it could run faster than they could and quickly got away. They tracked it down and the chase began again. Each time the eland got away and each time they found it again. In the end it was so exhausted it just stood there. They killed it.

Our hominid ancestors weren't as strong as other other animals. (We have a mutation that leaves our muscle fibres a tenth the strength of chimps, but weaker jaw muscles may have allowed our cranium to grow). They weren't as fast as other animals either. They did not always have sophisticated weapons. They just needed to be clever enough to track and able to keep cool during a very long chase.

 

[juvenissun]

How so? Someone here posted the picture of a man, with "fur" all over, even surrounding his face? A clear indication of a simple genetic deviation from other "less furry" humans.

There could be numerous factors that combined, could have played a role in why furry man, was selected over less furry man. Perhaps for the same reason, even today we prefer less "furry" people for mating rituals. Perhaps because less "furry" man allowed a clear distinction between the features of man and beast.

I do have to wonder: if less furry was a predetermined position by God on the physical features of man, why do such overtly "furry" people exist, as in the above example?



Well, here's a nice place to start for the bone:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4638587/

fin already has a lot of bones. This one won't work.

 

[juvenissun]

I remember seeing a program on the Bushmen of the Kalahari hunting. It sent shivers down my spine. They picked out a big bull eland (I think) and started to chase it. Now it could run faster than they could and quickly got away. They tracked it down and the chase began again. Each time the eland got away and each time they found it again. In the end it was so exhausted it just stood there. They killed it.

Our hominid ancestors weren't as strong as other other animals. (We have a mutation that leaves our muscle fibres a tenth the strength of chimps, but weaker jaw muscles may have allowed our cranium to grow). They weren't as fast as other animals either. They did not always have sophisticated weapons. They just needed to be clever enough to track and able to keep cool during a very long chase.

All these discussion started from that LucasPa insists that the modern science could disprove YE. I am only given a tiny tiny biological example to show the difference. In my field (geology), there are also a bunch similar cases. But I have not seen a qualified person here to discuss that.

All these fur explanations are nothing but GUESSES. That is how good our science is right now. Needless to say disprove YE. Deameter said that I went to issue of too much detail. Well, that is where the real meat is in this whole debate. I would say 95% of what people argued about on this issue is built on sand.

But, how serious people could be when they talk on Internet forums?

 

[Citanul]

All these discussion started from that LucasPa insists that the modern science could disprove YE. I am only given a tiny tiny biological example to show the difference. In my field (geology), there are also a bunch similar cases. But I have not seen a qualified person here to discuss that.

All these fur explanations are nothing but GUESSES. That is how good our science is right now. Needless to say disprove YE. Deameter said that I went to issue of too much detail. Well, that is where the real meat is in this whole debate. I would say 95% of what people argued about on this issue is built on sand.

Just because this question (and others) can't be answered, doesn't mean that the original statement is invalid. Science may not be able to tell us why we don't have fur, but that doesn't mean that we can't determine the age of the Earth with sufficient accuracy to show that the YEC claim of it being 6,000 years is incorrect.

 

[Assyrian]

All these fur explanations are nothing but GUESSES. That is how good our science is right now.

More than guesses. It shows that fur, or the lack, of it is simply not a problem for evolution.

Our friend Danny here

shows how a small genetic change would make the difference between being furry and smooth.

The Kalahari bushman show how an efficient cooling system is a real advantage in hunting an animal stronger and faster than we are. Is that why we lost our fur? Who knows. There are a number of possible reasons the less hairy form could be selected, especially in a hot climate.

 

[juvenissun]

Our friend Danny here
http://meggan.typepad.com/quiddity/images/werewolfreal.jpg

If somebody can give 10 such examples, then people would take your guess more seriously.

 

[juvenissun]

Just because this question (and others) can't be answered, doesn't mean that the original statement is invalid. Science may not be able to tell us why we don't have fur, but that doesn't mean that we can't determine the age of the Earth with sufficient accuracy to show that the YEC claim of it being 6,000 years is incorrect.

How about other claims? Could any one disprove all of their claims as positive as the dating argument?

Provided that they did give "scientific" argument about the dating technique. I don't even have time to fully understand what they said in there. I doubt 200% you did. If you did not, how could you say they are wrong on the dating argument?

It is not the problem how other people said about the argument. It is YOUR problem. Because it is related to YOUR eternal reward.