[shawnhcorey]

Does anyone have any references to this? I'm asking because it seems to me that when our ancestors' hair started to thin out, they had to start carrying their babies. Their hair was too thin for the babies to grip onto. I'm curious because of an article I read on big babies shaping society where they state that no-one seems to know when our babies started to get big. It seems to me that they could get big if they were relying on their own strength to hold on to their mothers. So when our ancestors hair started to thin out, they had to carry their babies and the barrier to big babies was gone. So I was wondering how far back in time this might be.

[michel123456]

Quote

When Did Our Ancestors Lose Their Hair?

That was exactly after the invention of marriage.

[insane_alien]

Our ancestors din't suddently give birth to kids that were bald. it was and still is a gradual process with some individuals being balder than others.

There are some very hairy people still around and there are some people who will never really grow much body hair.

so the answer should be 'some time in the future'

[JustinW]

Shawnhcorey, You are also basing this on the assumption that this was the reason babies stopped hanging onto there parents after birth. How do we know if it was the same time frame as when the ancestrial paths split between apes and humans? The babies could have already stopped hanging from there parents before the gradual loss of hair do to other reasons.

[Santalum]

shawnhcorey, on 1 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Does anyone have any references to this? I'm asking because it seems to me that when our ancestors' hair started to thin out, they had to start carrying their babies. Their hair was too thin for the babies to grip onto. I'm curious because of an article I read on big babies shaping society where they state that no-one seems to know when our babies started to get big. It seems to me that they could get big if they were relying on their own strength to hold on to their mothers. So when our ancestors hair started to thin out, they had to carry their babies and the barrier to big babies was gone. So I was wondering how far back in time this might be.

Probably at about the same time that our ancestors became persistence hunters and evolved sweat glands.

I believe we are unique in the animal kingdom in having seat glands in our skin that enables us to cool ourselves while still running.

All or most other animals have to stop in order to pant or throat flutter etc, as sweat glands would simply not work in a full coat of fur or feathers.

Sweat glands give us a major evolutionary edge over them when it comes to hunting and sweat glands are probably genetically linked to hairlessness.

This post has been edited by Santalum: 17 January 2012 - 02:51 AM

[JustinW]

Quote

Sweat glands give us a major evolutionary edge over them when it comes to hunting and sweat glands are probably genetically linked to hairlessness.

Good point.

[Dekan]

Perhaps we lost our human body hair, when we started to become very good hunters.

As efficient hunters, we readily caught other animals, killed them, and stripped them of their body-hair, or fur. Then used it to make warm coats or clothes for our own bodies. This ability to make warm clothing, must have been a huge survival advantage. Especially in cold regions, during the Ice Ages.

The Ice Ages were very strong in Europe. There, people would be glad of warm fur coats. A man who could present such a coat to a woman, would find favour in her eyes. She would regard the offered garment, as proof of the man's hunting prowess. And hence, of the man's fitness to be her mate.

Just consider: what was, until recent PC times, considered an irresistable gift, to win the heart of a European woman?

Wasn't it - a fur coat?

[Santalum]

Dekan, on 17 January 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Perhaps we lost our human body hair, when we started to become very good hunters.

As efficient hunters, we readily caught other animals, killed them, and stripped them of their body-hair, or fur. Then used it to make warm coats or clothes for our own bodies. This ability to make warm clothing, must have been a huge survival advantage. Especially in cold regions, during the Ice Ages.

The Ice Ages were very strong in Europe. There, people would be glad of warm fur coats. A man who could present such a coat to a woman, would find favour in her eyes. She would regard the offered garment, as proof of the man's hunting prowess. And hence, of the man's fitness to be her mate.

Just consider: what was, until recent PC times, considered an irresistable gift, to win the heart of a European woman?

Wasn't it - a fur coat?

That 's confusing cause and effect. WE started wearing animal skins because we became hairless. We did not become hairless because we started wearing animal skins.

[JohnB]

I have to agree with Santalum. There is probably a genetic linkage that prevents sweat glands and large amounts of body hair. As one turns "on" the other turns "off".

@ Dekan. Even today, few and far between are the women who will say "No" to a mink coat.

[Suxamethonium]

I'm am curious about the sweat glands/loss of hair thing... It seems that it would make sense, except that people sweat under their arms, where there is a significant amount of hair? I've never much been interested in evolutionary biology, but I strayed here, and now I'm curious.

[Sergeant Bilko]

Hormones have a lot to do with it as well, it would be interesting to examine the evolution of our bodies hormonal responses to the differing challenges faced by us as a species through time.

[shawnhcorey]

Sergeant Bilko, on 19 January 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Hormones have a lot to do with it as well, it would be interesting to examine the evolution of our bodies hormonal responses to the differing challenges faced by us as a species through time.

The problem is that no-one knows what those challenges were. The other problem is that things people read in high-school textbooks are taken as absolute truths. For example: we lost our fur so that we can sweat better. There is no evidence that this is true; it's all conjecture. Questions like "Why did we have to sweat so much?" "Where did this occur?" "When in the evolution of our ancestors did this happen?" None of them have answers.

[michel123456]

In relation to another thread: maybe evolution wanted to get rid of us. Maybe we lost our hair because we are degenerated beings, we should have died. Fortunately we were clever enough to wear the fur of other animals and later to use vegetation transforming it into textile.
The other thread is about dinosaurs, maybe they lost their feathers and went extinct before getting intelligent.

This post has been edited by michel123456: 19 January 2012 - 03:21 PM

[shawnhcorey]

Evolution does not have a will of its own and it's not intelligent. Evolution is a process and that which survives does so because of its abilities and is not the will of something else.

[JohnB]

One idea that I did hear on this quite some time ago was different.

Our ancestors weren't the big strong cavemen until relatively recently, for most of our history we were more prey than predator. Did we start to have a semi aquatic existence to avoid predators? This would also explain the rudimentary webbing between our fingers and toes.

It's just a thought.

[Keenidiot]

JohnB, on 19 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

One idea that I did hear on this quite some time ago was different.

Our ancestors weren't the big strong cavemen until relatively recently, for most of our history we were more prey than predator. Did we start to have a semi aquatic existence to avoid predators? This would also explain the rudimentary webbing between our fingers and toes.

It's just a thought.

Escaping to the water to escape land predators ignores the number of aquatic predators and aggressive herbivores.

Many aquatic or semi aquatic mammals retained their fur (like for example otters, seals, ect.) which is part of the biggest claim of the aquatic ape hypothesis. Hairlessness is not linked to being aquatic. If anything, it's linked more to body size and thermo regulation.

Our skin doesn't support this idea either. If it were to be believed, we'd see similarities between our skin and the skin of aquatic mammals that provide adaptions to an aquatic life. Yet, we don't.

Most animals have the webbing between their digits, this a result of cell death of skin cells that connects digits together at a early stage in development.

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
Aquatic Ape Critique

[shawnhcorey]

Keenidiot, on 19 January 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Hairlessness is not linked to being aquatic. If anything, it's linked more to body size and thermo regulation.

Or it was cause by sexual selection rather than natural selection. That is, our ancestors thought lack of fur indicated a better mate. The question becomes why would that be?

[Keenidiot]

shawnhcorey, on 19 January 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Or it was cause by sexual selection rather than natural selection. That is, our ancestors thought lack of fur indicated a better mate. The question becomes why would that be?

My apologies for vague sentence structure. I meant that in aquatic species, hairlessness was linked to size and thermo regulation. Thanks for the correction.

[Moontanman]

Santalum, on 16 January 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

Probably at about the same time that our ancestors became persistence hunters and evolved sweat glands.

I believe we are unique in the animal kingdom in having seat glands in our skin that enables us to cool ourselves while still running.

All or most other animals have to stop in order to pant or throat flutter etc, as sweat glands would simply not work in a full coat of fur or feathers.

Sweat glands give us a major evolutionary edge over them when it comes to hunting and sweat glands are probably genetically linked to hairlessness.

This is easily demonstrated not to be true, ever ride a horse? Horses sweat as do many other hairy and hairless mammals...

[Mike Waller]

Moontanman, on 19 January 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

This is easily demonstrated not to be true, ever ride a horse? Horses sweat as do many other hairy and hairless mammals...

A controversial idea put out about 20 years ago was that the use of fire was the key event; the point being that hairy creatures playing with fire are quite likely to incinerate themselves. Many on the the list I was then on were very strongly opposed to this (to a degree that was well beyond the merits or otherwise of the suggestion) but when I experimentally put a match to the hair on my forearm I was surprised at how much it flared up. I should say that I suffered no permanent harm!