Human evolution News

BBC: Lack of hair gave humans an edge

Spread the love

From Melissa Hogenboom at BBC:

Unlike hairy chimpanzees and bonobos – and all other primates – most of our skin is on display. We have evolved this way, even though fur is beneficial: it insulates and protects the skin, and in some cases acts as a useful camouflage. So if it is so advantageous, why did we lose so much of it?

Many speculations follow.

“It would be [an] enormous advantage to be able to spend the entire midday foraging, finding mates or fighting enemies,” he says. “Sweating allows that, and for sweat to be efficient you need to be mostly hairless. That is the reason why sweating is a useful thing and hence why hair loss is a useful thing.”

Our sweaty hairlessness, the theory goes, allowed us to hunt for longer, chasing nutritious large game that eventually helped give us the energy we needed to fuel growing brains. More.

Strange, then, that so few other life forms that could grow hair ever decided to go bald.

The Darwinian propensity to try to derive characteristics such as consciousness (“growing brains”) from factors that may be incidental is becoming ridiculous but political correctness prevents anyone noting it as such.

See also: Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “BBC: Lack of hair gave humans an edge

  1. 1
    J-Mac says:

    Unlike hairy chimpanzees and bonobos – and all other primates – most of our skin is on display. We have evolved this way, even though fur is beneficial: it insulates and protects the skin, and in some cases acts as a useful camouflage. So if it is so advantageous, why did we lose so much of it?/i>

    What about baldness? What advantage or disadvantage does it have? Let’s compare Larry Moran and Barry Arrington in this case because apparently “God made them bald”or evolution missed the mark. Which one is it?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Humans are far more different from chimpanzees and apes than just having no fur. Moreover “For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3”.

    Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack – Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide – 2005
    Excerpt: we have many characteristics that are uniquely human. Table 1 lists some of the definite and possible phenotypic traits that appear to differentiate us from chimpanzees and other “great apes”2. For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species. The chimpanzee has also long been seen as a model for human diseases because of its close evolutionary relationship. This is indeed the case for a few disorders. Nevertheless, it is a striking paradox that chimpanzees are in fact not good models for many major human diseases/conditions (see Table 2) (Varki 2000; Olson and Varki 2003).
    http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
    Table 1. Some phenotypic traits of humans for comparison with those of great apes

    LIFE HISTORY
    Secondary Altriciality
    Helplessness of the Newborn
    Prolonged Helplessness of Young
    Extended Care of Young
    Childhood
    Adolescence
    Age at First Reproduction
    Longevity
    REPRODUCTIVITY BIOLOGY
    Concealed Ovulation
    Virgin Breast Development
    Female Pituitary Menopause
    Placentophagy
    Female Labia Majora
    Vaginal Hymen
    Baculum (Penis Bone)
    Sperm Count
    Copulatory Plug
    EMBRYOLOGY
    Early Fetal Wastage/Aneuploidy
    Hydatiform Molar Pregnancy
    Umbilical Cord Length
    PREGNANCY/PARTURITION
    Cephalo-pelvic Disproportion
    Duration of Labor
    Maternal Mortality in Childbirth
    Pain During Childbirth
    Need for Assistance with
    Childbirth
    Neonatal Cephalhematoma
    POSTNATAL DEVELOPMENT
    Late Closure of Cranial Sutures
    Duration of Infant Arousal
    Inconsolable Infant Crying
    Infant-Caregiver Attunement
    Maternal-Infant Eye-To-Eye Gaze
    ANATOMY
    Sagittal Crest of Skull
    Brow Ridge
    Protuberantia Menti (Chin)
    Length of Sphenoid Sinus
    Choroid Plexus Biondi Bodies
    Inner Ear Canal Orientation
    Apical Phalangeal Tufts
    Age of Pelvic Bone Fusion
    Bone Cortex Thickness
    Laryngeal Position
    Pharyngeal Air Sacs
    Ear Lobes
    Sexual Body Size Dimorphism
    Lacrimal Gland Structure
    Visible Whites of the Eyes
    Small/Large Intestine Length Ratio
    Meningeal Artery Source
    BIOMECHANICS
    Bipedal Gait
    Adductive Thumb
    Skeletal Muscle Strength
    Hand-Eye Coordination
    Fine Motor Coordination
    ORGAN PHYSIOLOGY
    Aldosterone Response to Posture
    Salt-Wasting Kidneys
    Ability For Sustained Running
    Voluntary Control of Breathing
    Ability to Dive Underwater
    Diving Reflex
    Ability to Float/Swim
    Emotion Lacrimation
    Salt Content of Tears
    Olfactory Sense
    CELL BIOLOGY
    Mitochrondria
    BIOCHEMISTRY
    Placental Alkaline Phosphatase
    N-Glycolylneuraminic Acid Expression
    Alpha 2-6-Linked Sialic Acid Expression
    ENDOCRINOLOGY
    Thyroid Hormone Metabolism
    PHARMACOLOGY
    Methylation of Inorganic Arsenic
    ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY
    Cortical Neurofibrillary Tangles
    CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
    Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate
    Serum Alkaline Phosphatase Level
    RBC and Serum Folate
    Serum Vitamin B12/B12 Binding
    Total Leukocyte Count
    Absolute Neutrophil Count
    Absolute Lymphocyte Count
    DENTAL BIOLOGY/DISEASE
    Canine Tooth Diastema
    Canine Tooth Dysmorphism
    Tooth Enamel Thickness
    Retromolar Gap
    Third Molar Impaction
    Dental Eruption Sequence/Timing
    MEDICAL/SURGICAL DISEASES
    HIV Progression to AIDS
    P. falciparum malaria
    Viral Hepatitis B/C Complications
    Influenza A Infection Severity
    Incidence of Carcinomas
    Hemorrhoids
    Varicose Veins
    Pelvic Phleboliths
    Foamy Virus (Spumavirus) Infections
    Sexually Transmitted Diseases
    IMMUNOLOGY
    Sialoadhesin on Macrophages
    SKIN BIOLOGY AND DISEASE
    Eyebrows
    Eccrine Sweat Glands
    Acne Vulgaris
    Subcutaneous Fat
    Body Lice
    NUTRITION
    Frugivory
    Carnivory
    Aquatic Foods
    Underground Foods
    Cooking
    NEUROANATOMY
    Relative Brain Size
    Direct Cortical Projections
    Relative Volume of Frontal Cortex
    Relative Volume of Corpus Callosum
    Relative Volume of Cerebellum
    % of Brain Growth Complete at Birth
    Rate of Postnatal Brain Growth
    NEUROBIOLOGY
    Population Distribution of
    Handedness
    Postnatal Dendritic Growth
    Postnatal Synapse Formation
    Cortical Synapse Density
    Cortical Neuron Density
    Dendrites Per Neuron
    Synapses Per Neuron
    Adult Neurogenesis
    Cingulate Cortical Spindle Neurons
    Finger Tip Sensory Nerve Endings
    NEUROCHEMISTRY
    Brain Aromatisation of Testosterone
    Tyrosine Hydroxylase Heterogeneity
    MENTAL DISEASE
    Schizophrenia
    Bipolar Psychosis
    Autism
    Suicide
    BEHAVIOR
    Control of Facial Expressions
    Planning Ahead
    Intentional Deception
    Deliberately Delaying Gratification
    Long-Range Transport of Materials
    Secondary Tool-Making
    Mechanical Multi-Tasking
    Physical Abuse of the Young
    Torture
    Organized Warfare
    Adult Play
    Symbolic Play
    Abuse of Other Animals
    Inter-Group Coalition Formation
    Use of Containers
    Care of Infirm and Elderly
    Grandparenting
    Home Base
    Control of Fire
    Food Preparation
    Organized Gathering of Food
    Domestication of Animals
    Domestication of Plants
    Altruistic Punishment
    Peace-Making
    Somnambulism
    Mind-Altering Drug Use
    COGNITIVE CAPACITY
    Declarative Memory
    Imitative Learning
    Teaching
    Symbolic Representation
    Awareness of Death
    Awareness of the Past
    Awareness of the Future
    Theory of Mind
    Theory of Other Minds
    Empathy
    Numeracy
    COMMUNICATION
    “Parentese” Sounds
    Infant “Protoconversations”
    Gestural Communication
    Symbolic Communication
    Semantics
    Grammar and Syntax
    Recursion
    Writing
    SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
    Institutions
    Social Conventions
    Governments
    Enforcement Through
    Sanctions
    CULTURE
    Composition of Art
    Composition of Music
    Composition of Rhythms
    Death Rituals
    Clothing (Covering of
    Body Parts)
    Rites of Passage
    Genocide
    Competitive Sports
    Practicing of Skills
    Physical Modifications of
    the Body
    Inheritance of Resources
    and Status
    Rythmic Dance
    Sculpture
    Belief in Supernatural/
    Religion
    Body Adornment
    Childbirth Customs
    Sexual Intercourse in Private
    Gift-Giving
    Hospitality
    Intertwining (e.g., weaving)
    Meal Times
    Poetry
    Property
    Construction of Shelters
    Taboos
    Taxonomy of Species
    Trade
    Measurement of Time
    Weapons
    Toys
    A major limitation in translating genomic comparative information into an understanding of “humanness” is that we know relatively little about the basic phenotypic features of the great apes, relative to humans. This table lists topic areas in which there are real or claimed “differences” between humans and the great apes (as a group). A given “difference” listed here could be a suggested gain or loss in humans, with respect to the great apes.
    This is a partial listing of topics that will appear later at a Web-based “Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny”
    http://genome.cshlp.org/conten.....nsion.html

    In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:

    A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,,
    The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-c.....umans.html

    As to dental comparisons:

    No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
    Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
    They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
    “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....153202.htm

    In fact, besides dental morphology, “nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart”,,,

    In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two (approx. 99% amino acid similarity) ! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
    “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
    Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
    Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
    King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
    David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
    Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975

    Moreover, since multiple bones and tissues obviously have to be changed simultaneously in order to avoid catastrophic results,

    K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems – June 11, 2010
    Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-systems/

    “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create….
    (Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011)

    “Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. …However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability… [If you have the time, read all of the following paper, which concludes] The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism.” (IGOR POPOV, THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT, 2009,

    Since multiple bones and tissues obviously have to be changed simultaneously in order to avoid catastrophic results, then this makes Darwinian explanations for how we humans came about all the more ridiculous:

    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpted from ‘Living Waters’ video) (2015)
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1161131450566453/?type=2&theater

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    Moreover, Darwinists cannot even explain how just one type protein can possibly evolve into another type of protein by Darwinian means, much less can they explain how one type of creature can possibly evolve into another type of creature.

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....t-collide/

    Of related note:

    Alternative Splicing Codes are Species Specific
    Excerpt: On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UMbNM8V2b7mRzPJt05mlev3UO4SG1bMTV5wkNunezjY/edit

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Oh no. the reason we have no hair, actually entirely covered but very light, is because we never did.
    We didn’t need it originally. Animals need hiar to keep them dry which keeps one warm. its not well known just how cold one gets if wet despite a hot/humid temperature. Animals in the tropics have hair because its wet in the jungle though always hot.
    the simple answer.
    Animals aplenty are always on the run. Horses, deer, antelops, millions. they sweat a great deal but are not hairless.
    In fact people being smarter primates would be running less and using thier smarts to hunt etc.
    The big clue I say is the hair we have, after puberity, that does no good.
    We clearly have hair under our armpits because of the reason we have deodorant. its wet. the body, back in the day, is triny to dry the area up..
    the body was triggered to dry the area up in fear of wetness bringing loss of warmth.
    It does no good and was not triggered to do a better job.
    so i say such hair on people is the clue to how it happens. Hair is triggered, after passing a threshold of wetness, and appears as needed.
    Yet it isn’t smart enough to do a better job or not do any. Hair is a reaction to wetness by a mechanism of sensitivity.
    Men, being originally outdoors more, being more sensitive.
    in our case hair is useless on the body but is a clue to biological operations.
    No evolving at all.
    Likewise colour, other attributes of man instantly were triggered as needed or thought needed.
    Its exactlly what it looks like.
    Hair is a covering for important protection.
    In humans, because we protect ourselves, hair is not important but thye mechanism kicked in a little under sensitivity.
    Simple.
    Its hard for evolutionists to say our hair evolved away except under the armpits etc. They need a purpose for it to have lingered.
    What can they say?

Leave a Reply