Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Evolution of human nakedness

Expand Messages
  • Marc Verhaegen
    Human nakedness Pagel and Bodmer suggest human nakedness can be explained through a combination of parasite load, sexual selection, and the human use of fire,
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 15 11:55 AM
      Human nakedness

      Pagel and Bodmer suggest human nakedness can be explained through a
      combination of parasite load, sexual selection, and the human use of fire,
      shelter and/or clothing (1). Here we argue: that (a) this 'parasite load'
      hypothesis is at best only a partial explanation, and possibly no
      explanation at all; (b) that human nakedness can best be understood in the
      context of a waterside evolution of human ancestors, as proposed by Alister
      Hardy (2); and that (c) this waterside phase did not happen during the
      Miocene like Hardy hypothesized at the time, but much later, possibly during
      the Pleistocene.

      Pagel and Bodmer have recently suggested that human nakedness can be
      explained through a combination of parasite load, sexual selection, and the
      human use of fire, shelter and/or clothing (1). Here we argue that; (a) this
      'parasite load' hypothesis is at best only a partial explanation, and
      possibly no explanation at all; (b) their theory lacks confirmation from
      studies of extant primate and insect species; (c) and that human nakedness
      can better understood in the context of a waterside evolution of human
      ancestors, as proposed by Alister Hardy (2).
      We estimated that about 5 % of the more than 1000 mammal
      genera and about 2 % of the almost 5000 species are furless or sparsely
      haired. All of these, like all mammals, have to cope with parasites as well
      as with sexual partners, and all of these - except humans, aardvarks and
      naked molerats - lack clothes, shelter and fire. Mammals that are at least
      as naked as humans are either aquatic (ca. 88 % of the genera, ca. 94 % of
      the species), tropical (35 %, 26 %, resp.) or both (23 %, 20 %, resp.),
      which means that all non-tropical non-aquatic mammals have fur. Since most
      humans are non-aquatic and non-tropical, we are an apparent exception to
      this rule - unless clothes, shelter or fire substitute for fur:
      - Clothes are clearly the most analogous match for fur: they are worn next
      to the skin, provide thermal and mechanical protection, are taken off when
      we go swimming, and tropical people wear less clothes than non-tropical
      people. Clothes, however, cannot fully explain nakedness, since adult humans
      have pubic and axillar hair or hairy chests underneath their clothes, and
      baldness in men is not correlated to wearing hats. We think it more likely
      that humans invented clothing to compensate for their nakedness, which
      evolved for some other reason: clothes not only have apparent advantages to
      fur (for instance, you can take them off when you go swimming or bathing),
      but also disadvantages. For instance, some ectoparasites such as body lice
      specialize on living in clothes. And how did our Pleistocene ancestors clean
      their 'clothes'? Fur, on the other hand, can be groomed and cleans itself by
      growing and falling out.
      - Shelters alone are insufficient to explain nakedness, unless the animal
      lives completely underground and is tropical (naked molerat): even moles
      retain a thick fur. Moreover, several ectoparasite species inhabit beds,
      clothes, blankets etc. Large mammals spending part of their time in shelters
      are not naked (for instance, bears), unless they are tropical (for instance,
      aardvarks).
      - Fire is a theoretical possibility for why humans lack clothes - Darwin's
      ideas on singeing ectoparasites are interesting (1) - but it can't be
      tested, since no other mammal uses fire, and it leaves unanswered why humans
      have scalp hairs, beards, axillar and pubic hair. Note that, when living
      next to fires, wearing clothes is probably more dangerous than being furred.
      The other possibilities Pagel and Bodmer mention (1) -
      except one - are even less likely:
      - We agree with their views (1) on the unlikely 'body-cooling' hypothesis,
      so we will not discuss this further here.
      - Also, sexual selection can not be the answer, because men, women and
      children are all naked. Moreover, it leaves unanswered why no other mammal
      has evolved nakedness in one or both sexes for this purpose.
      - The 'parasite load' hypothesis fails to explain why our ancestors would
      favour hairlessness over the accepted primate method of dealing with
      parasites, which is grooming. These grooming sessions are a vital part of
      primate bonding and are at the core of their social infrastructure. It is
      hard to believe that we were - in some mysterious way - so susceptible to
      parasites that we had to evolve a unique method of dealing with them that no
      other primate has adopted. What were these special ectoparasites? Until
      Pagel and Bodmer can identify a unique parasite load that would cause this
      trait to evolve only in us, their hypothesis has to be rejected. They say
      that human ectoparasite infections are largely confined to the head and
      pubic hair, but fail to show that we differ in this respect from other
      mammals. It could even be argued that infections such as scabies or ticks,
      not hindered by fur, can more easily reach the skin, and this could also be
      the case for the remarkably frequent disease of eczema (house mite allergy).
      Moreover, our naked skin can be pricked more easily by insects, or
      mechanically hurt (with the risk of bacterial and other surinfections).
      Obviously, no single factor can explain nakedness. Furlessness
      in mammals is correlated to many factors, such as skin friction as in
      burrowing and swimming, or being of large size, or being tropical. Of small
      mammals, only naked molerats and most newborn marsupials and nestlings are
      naked - these are permanently in direct contact with their surroundings. All
      fully aquatic mammals, except the smaller sea otters, are naked, but mammals
      that spend some time outside the water in cold regions retain fur, except
      the very large adult male Steller sealions, walruses and elephant seals. Of
      medium-sized tropical mammals, aardvarks and wart hogs are sparsely haired -
      they spend a lot of time in burrows - and some babirusa races that regularly
      swim to islands are about as naked as humans are.
      In fact, human nakedness is hardly mysterious if we follow
      the view of Hardy who asked 'Was Man more aquatic in the past?' (2). He
      described how a tropical sea-side life - wading, swimming, collecting figs,
      coconuts, intertidal shellfish, fish, turtles, turtle eggs, birds' eggs,
      stranded whales, crabs, seaweeds - explains many typically human traits
      (absent in our nearest relatives the chimpanzees) more satisfactorily than
      the traditional savannah scenarios do: very large brain, reduced olfactory
      bulb, greater breathing control, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness
      and tool use, reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more
      subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, a high need (4) of
      iodine, sodium and poly-unsaturated fatty acids.
      Pagel and Bodmer's objections (1) that Hardy's theory (2)
      does not explain the differences in body hair between men and women, and
      that it happened too long ago (we should have regrown our hair) are easily
      answered:
      - Detailed specific explanations have been proposed for the differences in
      length and distribution of female and male head and body hair in a
      semi-aquatic context (4). Even if these explanations are wrong - although no
      contra-arguments have been forwarded so far - Hardy's hypothesis has no more
      problems with sexual differences than the 'parasite load' hypothesis has.
      - Most students favouring a semi-aquatic hypothesis now agree this waterside
      phase probably did not occur during the Miocene like Hardy (2) and Morgan
      (4) proposed at the time, but rather much later. Some arguments (3,5)
      suggest that a seaside phase may have occurred during the Pleistocene, when
      Homo populations spread out of Africa to Europe and South Asia along the
      coasts of the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, before traveling
      inland along rivers and lakes. Early Pleistocene Homo tools or fossils have
      been found from Algeria in the West (A�n Hanech) to Java in the East
      (Mojokerto). Pleistocene Homo remains come from coasts all over the Old
      World, such as Boxgrove and Terra Amata in Europe, Table Bay and Eritrea in
      Africa, Flores island (which could only be reached by sea (6)) in Asia,
      sometimes in ancient coral reefs (Eritrea (7)) or seabeds (Table Bay (8)).
      Convincing evidence for large scale marine resource exploitation by Homo
      species, such as shell middens, have been found from the Middle Stone Age
      onwards (5); this systematic exploitation may have been preceded by a
      'gathering and eating on the go' (no middens) phase in the early
      Pleistocene.
      It is not unexpected for a tropical medium-sized mammal to
      be naked if it spends part of its time in water - as the example of the
      babirusa shows. So far, all the available evidence suggests Hardy's question
      of 43 years ago (2) has to be answered positively.


      Pagel, M. & Bodmer, W. A naked ape would have fewer parasites. Proc. R. Soc.
      Lond. B Suppl. DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041 (2003).
      Hardy, A. Was man more aquatic in the past? New Scientist 7, 642-645 (1960).
      Broadhurst, C. L., Cunnane, S. C. & Crawford, M. A. Rift Valley fish and
      shellfish provided brain-specific nutrition for early Homo. Brit. J. Nutr.
      79, 3-21 (1998).
      Morgan, E. The Descent of Woman (Souvenir, London, 1972).
      Parkington, J. The impact of the systematic exploitation of marine foods on
      human evolution, in Humanity from African naissance to coming millenia (eds
      Tobias, P. V., Raath, M. A., Moggi-Cecchi, J. & Doyle, G. A.) 327-336
      (Firenze University Press, Firenze, 2001).
      Tobias, P. V. Water and Human Evolution. Out There 35, 38-44 (1998).
      http://archive.outthere.co.za/98/dec98/disp1dec.html
      Walter, R. C. et al. Early human occupation of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea
      during the last interglacial. Nature 405, 65-69 (2000).
      Werz, B. E. J. S. & Flemming, N. C. Discovery in Table Bay of the oldest
      handaxes yet found underwater demonstrates preservation of hominid artefacts
      on the continental shelf. S. Afr. J. Sci. 97 (2001).
      ________


      "Al Klein" <rukbat@...> wrote in message
      news:u19gp0dnc3neb2j64rr4k3s4ka884rel00@......
      > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:22:44 -0500, "firstjois"
      > <firstjoisyike@...> said in alt.atheism:
      >
      > >asta wrote:
      > >>> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@...> wrote in message
      > >>>
      > >>> Would parasite born illnesses be a possibility?
      > >
      > >Yes, I can assure you that parasite born illnesses are also due to the
      AAT.
      > >Infact , AAT has 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
      > >e*v*e*r*y*t*h*i*n*g to AAT and furthermore parasite in this group is a
      card
      > >carrying true believer in AAT.
      >
      > >Gotta love those guys!
      >
      > Of course Elaine recanted the "theory" years ago, but ...
      > --
      > "Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They
      slander each
      > other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any
      sort of
      > agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of
      its own
      > with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins
      over to its
      > side."
      > - Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford
      University Press, 1987
      > (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
      > rukbat at verizon dot net
    • Jose & JW
      Excellent Marc. Has this been published? Jose
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 16 12:36 AM
        Excellent Marc. Has this been published? Jose

        |-----Original Message-----
        |From: Marc Verhaegen [mailto:fa204466@...]
        |Sent: 15 November 2004 20:56
        |To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
        |Subject: [AAT] Re: Evolution of human nakedness
        |
        |
        |
        |Human nakedness
        |
        |Pagel and Bodmer suggest human nakedness can be explained
        |through a combination of parasite load, sexual selection, and
        |the human use of fire, shelter and/or clothing (1). Here we
        |argue: that (a) this 'parasite load' hypothesis is at best
        |only a partial explanation, and possibly no explanation at
        |all; (b) that human nakedness can best be understood in the
        |context of a waterside evolution of human ancestors, as
        |proposed by Alister Hardy (2); and that (c) this waterside
        |phase did not happen during the Miocene like Hardy
        |hypothesized at the time, but much later, possibly during the
        |Pleistocene.
        |
        |Pagel and Bodmer have recently suggested that human nakedness
        |can be explained through a combination of parasite load,
        |sexual selection, and the human use of fire, shelter and/or
        |clothing (1). Here we argue that; (a) this 'parasite load'
        |hypothesis is at best only a partial explanation, and possibly
        |no explanation at all; (b) their theory lacks confirmation
        |from studies of extant primate and insect species; (c) and
        |that human nakedness can better understood in the context of a
        |waterside evolution of human ancestors, as proposed by Alister
        |Hardy (2).
        | We estimated that about 5 % of the more than
        |1000 mammal genera and about 2 % of the almost 5000 species
        |are furless or sparsely haired. All of these, like all
        |mammals, have to cope with parasites as well as with sexual
        |partners, and all of these - except humans, aardvarks and
        |naked molerats - lack clothes, shelter and fire. Mammals that
        |are at least as naked as humans are either aquatic (ca. 88 %
        |of the genera, ca. 94 % of the species), tropical (35 %, 26 %,
        |resp.) or both (23 %, 20 %, resp.), which means that all
        |non-tropical non-aquatic mammals have fur. Since most humans
        |are non-aquatic and non-tropical, we are an apparent exception
        |to this rule - unless clothes, shelter or fire substitute for fur:
        |- Clothes are clearly the most analogous match for fur: they
        |are worn next to the skin, provide thermal and mechanical
        |protection, are taken off when we go swimming, and tropical
        |people wear less clothes than non-tropical people. Clothes,
        |however, cannot fully explain nakedness, since adult humans
        |have pubic and axillar hair or hairy chests underneath their
        |clothes, and baldness in men is not correlated to wearing
        |hats. We think it more likely that humans invented clothing to
        |compensate for their nakedness, which evolved for some other
        |reason: clothes not only have apparent advantages to fur (for
        |instance, you can take them off when you go swimming or
        |bathing), but also disadvantages. For instance, some
        |ectoparasites such as body lice specialize on living in
        |clothes. And how did our Pleistocene ancestors clean their
        |'clothes'? Fur, on the other hand, can be groomed and cleans
        |itself by growing and falling out.
        |- Shelters alone are insufficient to explain nakedness, unless
        |the animal lives completely underground and is tropical (naked
        |molerat): even moles retain a thick fur. Moreover, several
        |ectoparasite species inhabit beds, clothes, blankets etc.
        |Large mammals spending part of their time in shelters are not
        |naked (for instance, bears), unless they are tropical (for
        |instance, aardvarks).
        |- Fire is a theoretical possibility for why humans lack
        |clothes - Darwin's ideas on singeing ectoparasites are
        |interesting (1) - but it can't be tested, since no other
        |mammal uses fire, and it leaves unanswered why humans have
        |scalp hairs, beards, axillar and pubic hair. Note that, when
        |living next to fires, wearing clothes is probably more
        |dangerous than being furred.
        | The other possibilities Pagel and Bodmer
        |mention (1) - except one - are even less likely:
        |- We agree with their views (1) on the unlikely 'body-cooling'
        |hypothesis, so we will not discuss this further here.
        |- Also, sexual selection can not be the answer, because men,
        |women and children are all naked. Moreover, it leaves
        |unanswered why no other mammal has evolved nakedness in one or
        |both sexes for this purpose.
        |- The 'parasite load' hypothesis fails to explain why our
        |ancestors would favour hairlessness over the accepted primate
        |method of dealing with parasites, which is grooming. These
        |grooming sessions are a vital part of primate bonding and are
        |at the core of their social infrastructure. It is hard to
        |believe that we were - in some mysterious way - so susceptible
        |to parasites that we had to evolve a unique method of dealing
        |with them that no other primate has adopted. What were these
        |special ectoparasites? Until Pagel and Bodmer can identify a
        |unique parasite load that would cause this trait to evolve
        |only in us, their hypothesis has to be rejected. They say that
        |human ectoparasite infections are largely confined to the head
        |and pubic hair, but fail to show that we differ in this
        |respect from other mammals. It could even be argued that
        |infections such as scabies or ticks, not hindered by fur, can
        |more easily reach the skin, and this could also be the case
        |for the remarkably frequent disease of eczema (house mite
        |allergy). Moreover, our naked skin can be pricked more easily
        |by insects, or mechanically hurt (with the risk of bacterial
        |and other surinfections).
        | Obviously, no single factor can explain nakedness.
        |Furlessness in mammals is correlated to many factors, such as
        |skin friction as in burrowing and swimming, or being of large
        |size, or being tropical. Of small mammals, only naked molerats
        |and most newborn marsupials and nestlings are naked - these
        |are permanently in direct contact with their surroundings. All
        |fully aquatic mammals, except the smaller sea otters, are
        |naked, but mammals that spend some time outside the water in
        |cold regions retain fur, except the very large adult male
        |Steller sealions, walruses and elephant seals. Of medium-sized
        |tropical mammals, aardvarks and wart hogs are sparsely haired
        |- they spend a lot of time in burrows - and some babirusa
        |races that regularly swim to islands are about as naked as humans are.
        | In fact, human nakedness is hardly mysterious
        |if we follow the view of Hardy who asked 'Was Man more aquatic
        |in the past?' (2). He described how a tropical sea-side life -
        |wading, swimming, collecting figs, coconuts, intertidal
        |shellfish, fish, turtles, turtle eggs, birds' eggs, stranded
        |whales, crabs, seaweeds - explains many typically human traits
        |(absent in our nearest relatives the chimpanzees) more
        |satisfactorily than the traditional savannah scenarios do:
        |very large brain, reduced olfactory bulb, greater breathing
        |control, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness and tool
        |use, reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more
        |subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, a
        |high need (4) of iodine, sodium and poly-unsaturated fatty acids.
        | Pagel and Bodmer's objections (1) that Hardy's
        |theory (2) does not explain the differences in body hair
        |between men and women, and that it happened too long ago (we
        |should have regrown our hair) are easily
        |answered:
        |- Detailed specific explanations have been proposed for the
        |differences in length and distribution of female and male head
        |and body hair in a semi-aquatic context (4). Even if these
        |explanations are wrong - although no contra-arguments have
        |been forwarded so far - Hardy's hypothesis has no more
        |problems with sexual differences than the 'parasite load'
        |hypothesis has.
        |- Most students favouring a semi-aquatic hypothesis now agree
        |this waterside phase probably did not occur during the Miocene
        |like Hardy (2) and Morgan
        |(4) proposed at the time, but rather much later. Some
        |arguments (3,5) suggest that a seaside phase may have occurred
        |during the Pleistocene, when Homo populations spread out of
        |Africa to Europe and South Asia along the coasts of the
        |Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, before traveling
        |inland along rivers and lakes. Early Pleistocene Homo tools or
        |fossils have been found from Algeria in the West (Aïn Hanech)
        |to Java in the East (Mojokerto). Pleistocene Homo remains come
        |from coasts all over the Old World, such as Boxgrove and Terra
        |Amata in Europe, Table Bay and Eritrea in Africa, Flores
        |island (which could only be reached by sea (6)) in Asia,
        |sometimes in ancient coral reefs (Eritrea (7)) or seabeds
        |(Table Bay (8)). Convincing evidence for large scale marine
        |resource exploitation by Homo species, such as shell middens,
        |have been found from the Middle Stone Age onwards (5); this
        |systematic exploitation may have been preceded by a 'gathering
        |and eating on the go' (no middens) phase in the early Pleistocene.
        | It is not unexpected for a tropical
        |medium-sized mammal to be naked if it spends part of its time
        |in water - as the example of the babirusa shows. So far, all
        |the available evidence suggests Hardy's question of 43 years
        |ago (2) has to be answered positively.
        |
        |
        |Pagel, M. & Bodmer, W. A naked ape would have fewer parasites.
        |Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Suppl. DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041
        |(2003). Hardy, A. Was man more aquatic in the past? New
        |Scientist 7, 642-645 (1960). Broadhurst, C. L., Cunnane, S. C.
        |& Crawford, M. A. Rift Valley fish and shellfish provided
        |brain-specific nutrition for early Homo. Brit. J. Nutr. 79,
        |3-21 (1998). Morgan, E. The Descent of Woman (Souvenir,
        |London, 1972). Parkington, J. The impact of the systematic
        |exploitation of marine foods on human evolution, in Humanity
        |from African naissance to coming millenia (eds Tobias, P. V.,
        |Raath, M. A., Moggi-Cecchi, J. & Doyle, G. A.) 327-336
        |(Firenze University Press, Firenze, 2001). Tobias, P. V. Water
        |and Human Evolution. Out There 35, 38-44 (1998).
        |http://archive.outthere.co.za/98/dec98/disp1dec.html
        |Walter, R. C. et al. Early human occupation of the Red Sea
        |coast of Eritrea during the last interglacial. Nature 405,
        |65-69 (2000). Werz, B. E. J. S. & Flemming, N. C. Discovery in
        |Table Bay of the oldest handaxes yet found underwater
        |demonstrates preservation of hominid artefacts on the
        |continental shelf. S. Afr. J. Sci. 97 (2001). ________
        |
        |
        |"Al Klein" <rukbat@...> wrote in message
        |news:u19gp0dnc3neb2j64rr4k3s4ka884rel00@......
        |> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:22:44 -0500, "firstjois"
        |> <firstjoisyike@...> said in alt.atheism:
        |>
        |> >asta wrote:
        |> >>> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@...> wrote in message
        |> >>>
        |> >>> Would parasite born illnesses be a possibility?
        |> >
        |> >Yes, I can assure you that parasite born illnesses are also due to
        |> >the
        |AAT.
        |> >Infact , AAT has 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
        |> >e*v*e*r*y*t*h*i*n*g to AAT and furthermore parasite in this
        |group is
        |> >a
        |card
        |> >carrying true believer in AAT.
        |>
        |> >Gotta love those guys!
        |>
        |> Of course Elaine recanted the "theory" years ago, but ...
        |> --
        |> "Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They
        |slander each
        |> other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot
        |come to any
        |sort of
        |> agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the
        |> head of
        |its own
        |> with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it
        |> wins
        |over to its
        |> side."
        |> - Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph
        |Hoffman, Oxford
        |University Press, 1987
        |> (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
        |> rukbat at verizon dot net
        |
        |
        |
        |
        |
        |Community email addresses:
        | Post message: AAT@onelist.com
        | Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
        | Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
        | List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
        |
        |Shortcut URL to this page:
        | http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
        |Yahoo! Groups Links
        |
        |
        |
        |
        |
        |
        |
      • Marc Verhaegen
        ... Thanks, Jose. Unfortunately not. We (with Bernard Harper & Stephen Munro) sent it to a few journals, but they all refused it. If somebody knows a possible
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 16 2:00 AM
          >Excellent Marc. Has this been published? Jose

          Thanks, Jose. Unfortunately not. We (with Bernard Harper & Stephen Munro)
          sent it to a few journals, but they all refused it. If somebody knows a
          possible publisher... Perhaps if we elaborate a bit on the unlikelyness of
          the body cooling hypothesis etc. (not any more as a reply to Pagel &
          Bodmer), we could send it to a few other journals? --Marc
          ______

          |-----Original Message-----
          |From: Marc Verhaegen [mailto:fa204466@...]
          |Sent: 15 November 2004 20:56
          |To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
          |Subject: [AAT] Re: Evolution of human nakedness
          |
          |
          |
          |Human nakedness
          |
          |Pagel and Bodmer suggest human nakedness can be explained
          |through a combination of parasite load, sexual selection, and
          |the human use of fire, shelter and/or clothing (1). Here we
          |argue: that (a) this 'parasite load' hypothesis is at best
          |only a partial explanation, and possibly no explanation at
          |all; (b) that human nakedness can best be understood in the
          |context of a waterside evolution of human ancestors, as
          |proposed by Alister Hardy (2); and that (c) this waterside
          |phase did not happen during the Miocene like Hardy
          |hypothesized at the time, but much later, possibly during the
          |Pleistocene.
          |
          |Pagel and Bodmer have recently suggested that human nakedness
          |can be explained through a combination of parasite load,
          |sexual selection, and the human use of fire, shelter and/or
          |clothing (1). Here we argue that; (a) this 'parasite load'
          |hypothesis is at best only a partial explanation, and possibly
          |no explanation at all; (b) their theory lacks confirmation
          |from studies of extant primate and insect species; (c) and
          |that human nakedness can better understood in the context of a
          |waterside evolution of human ancestors, as proposed by Alister
          |Hardy (2).
          | We estimated that about 5 % of the more than
          |1000 mammal genera and about 2 % of the almost 5000 species
          |are furless or sparsely haired. All of these, like all
          |mammals, have to cope with parasites as well as with sexual
          |partners, and all of these - except humans, aardvarks and
          |naked molerats - lack clothes, shelter and fire. Mammals that
          |are at least as naked as humans are either aquatic (ca. 88 %
          |of the genera, ca. 94 % of the species), tropical (35 %, 26 %,
          |resp.) or both (23 %, 20 %, resp.), which means that all
          |non-tropical non-aquatic mammals have fur. Since most humans
          |are non-aquatic and non-tropical, we are an apparent exception
          |to this rule - unless clothes, shelter or fire substitute for fur:
          |- Clothes are clearly the most analogous match for fur: they
          |are worn next to the skin, provide thermal and mechanical
          |protection, are taken off when we go swimming, and tropical
          |people wear less clothes than non-tropical people. Clothes,
          |however, cannot fully explain nakedness, since adult humans
          |have pubic and axillar hair or hairy chests underneath their
          |clothes, and baldness in men is not correlated to wearing
          |hats. We think it more likely that humans invented clothing to
          |compensate for their nakedness, which evolved for some other
          |reason: clothes not only have apparent advantages to fur (for
          |instance, you can take them off when you go swimming or
          |bathing), but also disadvantages. For instance, some
          |ectoparasites such as body lice specialize on living in
          |clothes. And how did our Pleistocene ancestors clean their
          |'clothes'? Fur, on the other hand, can be groomed and cleans
          |itself by growing and falling out.
          |- Shelters alone are insufficient to explain nakedness, unless
          |the animal lives completely underground and is tropical (naked
          |molerat): even moles retain a thick fur. Moreover, several
          |ectoparasite species inhabit beds, clothes, blankets etc.
          |Large mammals spending part of their time in shelters are not
          |naked (for instance, bears), unless they are tropical (for
          |instance, aardvarks).
          |- Fire is a theoretical possibility for why humans lack
          |clothes - Darwin's ideas on singeing ectoparasites are
          |interesting (1) - but it can't be tested, since no other
          |mammal uses fire, and it leaves unanswered why humans have
          |scalp hairs, beards, axillar and pubic hair. Note that, when
          |living next to fires, wearing clothes is probably more
          |dangerous than being furred.
          | The other possibilities Pagel and Bodmer
          |mention (1) - except one - are even less likely:
          |- We agree with their views (1) on the unlikely 'body-cooling'
          |hypothesis, so we will not discuss this further here.
          |- Also, sexual selection can not be the answer, because men,
          |women and children are all naked. Moreover, it leaves
          |unanswered why no other mammal has evolved nakedness in one or
          |both sexes for this purpose.
          |- The 'parasite load' hypothesis fails to explain why our
          |ancestors would favour hairlessness over the accepted primate
          |method of dealing with parasites, which is grooming. These
          |grooming sessions are a vital part of primate bonding and are
          |at the core of their social infrastructure. It is hard to
          |believe that we were - in some mysterious way - so susceptible
          |to parasites that we had to evolve a unique method of dealing
          |with them that no other primate has adopted. What were these
          |special ectoparasites? Until Pagel and Bodmer can identify a
          |unique parasite load that would cause this trait to evolve
          |only in us, their hypothesis has to be rejected. They say that
          |human ectoparasite infections are largely confined to the head
          |and pubic hair, but fail to show that we differ in this
          |respect from other mammals. It could even be argued that
          |infections such as scabies or ticks, not hindered by fur, can
          |more easily reach the skin, and this could also be the case
          |for the remarkably frequent disease of eczema (house mite
          |allergy). Moreover, our naked skin can be pricked more easily
          |by insects, or mechanically hurt (with the risk of bacterial
          |and other surinfections).
          | Obviously, no single factor can explain nakedness.
          |Furlessness in mammals is correlated to many factors, such as
          |skin friction as in burrowing and swimming, or being of large
          |size, or being tropical. Of small mammals, only naked molerats
          |and most newborn marsupials and nestlings are naked - these
          |are permanently in direct contact with their surroundings. All
          |fully aquatic mammals, except the smaller sea otters, are
          |naked, but mammals that spend some time outside the water in
          |cold regions retain fur, except the very large adult male
          |Steller sealions, walruses and elephant seals. Of medium-sized
          |tropical mammals, aardvarks and wart hogs are sparsely haired
          |- they spend a lot of time in burrows - and some babirusa
          |races that regularly swim to islands are about as naked as humans are.
          | In fact, human nakedness is hardly mysterious
          |if we follow the view of Hardy who asked 'Was Man more aquatic
          |in the past?' (2). He described how a tropical sea-side life -
          |wading, swimming, collecting figs, coconuts, intertidal
          |shellfish, fish, turtles, turtle eggs, birds' eggs, stranded
          |whales, crabs, seaweeds - explains many typically human traits
          |(absent in our nearest relatives the chimpanzees) more
          |satisfactorily than the traditional savannah scenarios do:
          |very large brain, reduced olfactory bulb, greater breathing
          |control, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness and tool
          |use, reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more
          |subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, a
          |high need (4) of iodine, sodium and poly-unsaturated fatty acids.
          | Pagel and Bodmer's objections (1) that Hardy's
          |theory (2) does not explain the differences in body hair
          |between men and women, and that it happened too long ago (we
          |should have regrown our hair) are easily
          |answered:
          |- Detailed specific explanations have been proposed for the
          |differences in length and distribution of female and male head
          |and body hair in a semi-aquatic context (4). Even if these
          |explanations are wrong - although no contra-arguments have
          |been forwarded so far - Hardy's hypothesis has no more
          |problems with sexual differences than the 'parasite load'
          |hypothesis has.
          |- Most students favouring a semi-aquatic hypothesis now agree
          |this waterside phase probably did not occur during the Miocene
          |like Hardy (2) and Morgan
          |(4) proposed at the time, but rather much later. Some
          |arguments (3,5) suggest that a seaside phase may have occurred
          |during the Pleistocene, when Homo populations spread out of
          |Africa to Europe and South Asia along the coasts of the
          |Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, before traveling
          |inland along rivers and lakes. Early Pleistocene Homo tools or
          |fossils have been found from Algeria in the West (Aïn Hanech)
          |to Java in the East (Mojokerto). Pleistocene Homo remains come
          |from coasts all over the Old World, such as Boxgrove and Terra
          |Amata in Europe, Table Bay and Eritrea in Africa, Flores
          |island (which could only be reached by sea (6)) in Asia,
          |sometimes in ancient coral reefs (Eritrea (7)) or seabeds
          |(Table Bay (8)). Convincing evidence for large scale marine
          |resource exploitation by Homo species, such as shell middens,
          |have been found from the Middle Stone Age onwards (5); this
          |systematic exploitation may have been preceded by a 'gathering
          |and eating on the go' (no middens) phase in the early Pleistocene.
          | It is not unexpected for a tropical
          |medium-sized mammal to be naked if it spends part of its time
          |in water - as the example of the babirusa shows. So far, all
          |the available evidence suggests Hardy's question of 43 years
          |ago (2) has to be answered positively.
          |
          |
          |Pagel, M. & Bodmer, W. A naked ape would have fewer parasites.
          |Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Suppl. DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041
          |(2003). Hardy, A. Was man more aquatic in the past? New
          |Scientist 7, 642-645 (1960). Broadhurst, C. L., Cunnane, S. C.
          |& Crawford, M. A. Rift Valley fish and shellfish provided
          |brain-specific nutrition for early Homo. Brit. J. Nutr. 79,
          |3-21 (1998). Morgan, E. The Descent of Woman (Souvenir,
          |London, 1972). Parkington, J. The impact of the systematic
          |exploitation of marine foods on human evolution, in Humanity
          |from African naissance to coming millenia (eds Tobias, P. V.,
          |Raath, M. A., Moggi-Cecchi, J. & Doyle, G. A.) 327-336
          |(Firenze University Press, Firenze, 2001). Tobias, P. V. Water
          |and Human Evolution. Out There 35, 38-44 (1998).
          |http://archive.outthere.co.za/98/dec98/disp1dec.html
          |Walter, R. C. et al. Early human occupation of the Red Sea
          |coast of Eritrea during the last interglacial. Nature 405,
          |65-69 (2000). Werz, B. E. J. S. & Flemming, N. C. Discovery in
          |Table Bay of the oldest handaxes yet found underwater
          |demonstrates preservation of hominid artefacts on the
          |continental shelf. S. Afr. J. Sci. 97 (2001). ________
          |
          |
          |"Al Klein" <rukbat@...> wrote in message
          |news:u19gp0dnc3neb2j64rr4k3s4ka884rel00@......
          |> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:22:44 -0500, "firstjois"
          |> <firstjoisyike@...> said in alt.atheism:
          |>
          |> >asta wrote:
          |> >>> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@...> wrote in message
          |> >>>
          |> >>> Would parasite born illnesses be a possibility?
          |> >
          |> >Yes, I can assure you that parasite born illnesses are also due to
          |> >the
          |AAT.
          |> >Infact , AAT has 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
          |> >e*v*e*r*y*t*h*i*n*g to AAT and furthermore parasite in this
          |group is
          |> >a
          |card
          |> >carrying true believer in AAT.
          |>
          |> >Gotta love those guys!
          |>
          |> Of course Elaine recanted the "theory" years ago, but ...
          |> --
          |> "Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They
          |slander each
          |> other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot
          |come to any
          |sort of
          |> agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the
          |> head of
          |its own
          |> with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it
          |> wins
          |over to its
          |> side."
          |> - Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph
          |Hoffman, Oxford
          |University Press, 1987
          |> (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
          |> rukbat at verizon dot net
          |
          |
          |
          |
          |
          |Community email addresses:
          | Post message: AAT@onelist.com
          | Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
          | Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
          | List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
          |
          |Shortcut URL to this page:
          | http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
          |Yahoo! Groups Links
          |
          |
          |
          |
          |
          |
          |




          Community email addresses:
          Post message: AAT@onelist.com
          Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
          Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
          List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com

          Shortcut URL to this page:
          http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Jose & JW
          Have you tried Current Anthropology? Perhaps in a shorter version it could be accepted in the section Anthropological Currents. Or in a slightly extended
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 16 2:26 AM
            Have you tried Current Anthropology? Perhaps in a shorter version it could
            be accepted in the section Anthropological Currents. Or in a slightly
            extended version, it could be submitted in the Forum section, where
            discussion is excplicitly stimulated. Jose

            |-----Original Message-----
            |From: Marc Verhaegen [mailto:marc.verhaegen@...]
            |Sent: 16 November 2004 11:00
            |To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
            |Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Evolution of human nakedness
            |
            |
            |
            |>Excellent Marc. Has this been published? Jose
            |
            |Thanks, Jose. Unfortunately not. We (with Bernard Harper &
            |Stephen Munro) sent it to a few journals, but they all refused
            |it. If somebody knows a possible publisher... Perhaps if we
            |elaborate a bit on the unlikelyness of the body cooling
            |hypothesis etc. (not any more as a reply to Pagel & Bodmer),
            |we could send it to a few other journals? --Marc ______
            |
          • m3dodds
            Would attribute nakedness to three factors: a) Adaptation to waterside environments. b) The need for better cooling as the brain increased in size. c) Sexual
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 16 11:18 AM
              Would attribute "nakedness" to three factors:

              a) Adaptation to waterside environments.
              b) The need for better cooling as the brain increased in size.
              c) Sexual selection.

              a) an b) Reduced the need for a fur coat.
              c) Sexual selection came into play, when our predecessor's
              realised sex was more pleasurable without the fur coat…


              m3d
              -----
            • Marc Verhaegen
              ... From: wbarwell Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,a
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 16 11:55 AM
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "wbarwell" <wbarwell@...>
                Newsgroups:
                sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,a
                lt.talk.creationism
                Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:46 PM
                Subject: Re: Evolution of human nakedness


                > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
                >
                > > "asta" <empirroar@...> wrote in message
                > > news:<CiKld.2$Pe3.5657@...>...
                > >
                > >> Would parasite born illnesses be a possibility?
                > >
                > > Parasite reduction is one of the more respectable theories.
                > >
                > > See 'A Naked ape would have fewer parasites' Pagel & Bodmer 2003
                > > Biological Letter 03BL 0060.S2
                > >
                > > I'm sceptical myself because - like so many of the arguments - it
                > > fails a simple test: If it were parasite reduction how come no other
                > > primate or mammal adopted it?
                >
                > Many other animals don't have mutual grooming.
                > Those large animals that don't have much fur, elephants
                > rhino, hippos, are indeed groomed by birds who feast on ticks
                > and vermin. On the other hand, large tropical carnivores
                > need fur since they tend to be bothered by flies. Lions
                > are often plagued by flies, drawn by their kills.
                > Large animals like elephants tend to take mud bathes
                > in fly season.
                > Large animals don't have trouble with heat loss, small
                > ones may, especially in desert settings that have large
                > temperature swings will. Fur remains necessary.
                > Animals that live in cold climates find fur indespensible.
                > Some large animals, horses and cows tend to have enough fur to
                > help them with with cool conditions, but short enough to allow
                > grooming by birds. Fur also offers possibilities such as camoflague
                > such as cats use so effectively tigers, leopards, ocelots et al. Or zebras
                > use to confuse carnivores.
                >
                >
                > >
                > > For me it's a combination of drag reduction whilst swimming + more
                > > efficient sweat/dip cooling consolidated by, in the very latest
                > > phases, a small degree of sexual selection.
                >
                > Probably sweat related. Fur or hair would probably be
                > for more likely to harbor bacteria or funguses when repeatedly
                > soaked in sweat. Actually we do have hair, just not thick or long.
                > Such hair is probably useful for things like detecting breezes and
                > other enviromental cues a hunter-gatherer animal would find useful.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
                > Bush? Well they don't give medals
                > for going AWOL, missing your medical and
                > getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
                > Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
                >
                > Cheerful Charlie
              • Empress9@aol.com
                ... I find it even MORE pleasurable wearing a fur coat!!! Are you telling me a male is going to let a little fur stop him???? [Non-text portions of this
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 16 12:02 PM
                  In a message dated 11/16/04 11:29:45 AM, m3d@... writes:


                  > c) Sexual selection came into play, when our predecessor's
                  > realised sex was more pleasurable without the fur coat…
                  >

                  I find it even MORE pleasurable wearing a fur coat!!! Are you telling me a
                  male is going to let a little fur stop him????


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • m3dodds
                  ... MORE PLEASURABLE... wearing a fur coat in bed...???? ... NO... but its more fun without the fur coat... m3d
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 16 12:41 PM
                    --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Empress9@a... wrote:
                    >
                    > In a message dated 11/16/04 11:29:45 AM, m3d@l... writes:
                    >
                    >
                    > > c) Sexual selection came into play, when our predecessor's
                    > > realised sex was more pleasurable without the fur coat...
                    > >
                    >
                    > I find it even MORE pleasurable wearing a fur coat!!!

                    MORE PLEASURABLE...
                    wearing a fur coat in bed...????


                    >Are you telling me a male is going to let a little fur stop him????

                    NO...
                    but its more fun without the fur coat...


                    m3d
                  • Empress9@aol.com
                    ... Fun doesn t matter, the only thing that matters for changes is successful procreation. I don t see how sexual selection is going to have anything at all to
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 16 12:59 PM
                      In a message dated 11/16/04 12:56:52 PM, m3d@... writes:


                      > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Empress9@a... wrote:
                      > >
                      > > In a message dated 11/16/04 11:29:45 AM, m3d@l... writes:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > c) Sexual selection came into play, when our predecessor's
                      > > > realised sex was more pleasurable without the fur coat...
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > I find it even MORE pleasurable wearing a fur coat!!! 
                      >
                      > MORE PLEASURABLE... 
                      > wearing a fur coat in bed...????
                      > (guess you had to be there...)
                      >
                      > >Are you telling me a male is going to let a little fur stop him????
                      >
                      > NO...
                      > but its more fun without the fur coat...
                      >
                      Fun doesn't matter, the only thing that matters for changes is successful
                      procreation. I don't see how sexual selection is going to have anything at all to
                      do with relative hairlessness - especially at the first, gradual stages.
                      Hairlessness MIGHT bring an infant survival factor, however, if fungal
                      infestations are a factor (such as where it's constantly moist).


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Marc Verhaegen
                      ... was more pleasurable without the fur coat… If we like furlessness, it s becasue we are furless. We are not furless because we like furlessness. In that
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 16 10:25 PM
                        >> c) Sexual selection came into play, when our predecessor's realised sex
                        was more pleasurable without the fur coat…

                        If we like furlessness, it's becasue we are furless. We are not furless
                        because we like furlessness. In that case, all mammals would be furless.

                        > I find it even MORE pleasurable wearing a fur coat!!! Are you telling me
                        a male is going to let a little fur stop him????

                        :-)

                        --Marc
                      • m3dodds
                        ... an intriguing use of a fur coat... ... him???? ... successful procreation. I don t see how sexual selection is going to have anything at all to do with
                        Message 11 of 18 , Nov 17 10:53 AM
                          --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Empress9@a... wrote:
                          >
                          > In a message dated 11/16/04 12:56:52 PM, m3d@l... writes:
                          >
                          >
                          > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Empress9@a... wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > In a message dated 11/16/04 11:29:45 AM, m3d@l... writes:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > c) Sexual selection came into play, when our predecessor's
                          > > > > realised sex was more pleasurable without the fur coat...
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I find it even MORE pleasurable wearing a fur coat!!! 
                          > >
                          > > MORE PLEASURABLE... 
                          > > wearing a fur coat in bed...????
                          > > (guess you had to be there...)

                          an intriguing use of a fur coat...



                          > > >Are you telling me a male is going to let a little fur stop
                          him????
                          > >
                          > > NO...
                          > > but its more fun without the fur coat...
                          > >
                          > >Fun doesn't matter, the only thing that matters for changes is
                          successful procreation. I don't see how sexual selection is going to
                          have anything at all to do with relative hairlessness - especially
                          at the first, gradual stages. Hairlessness MIGHT bring an infant
                          survival factor, however, if fungal infestations are a factor (such
                          as where it's constantly moist)...


                          If a relative loss of body hair resulted in increased tactile
                          awareness (sensitivity to being touched) during intimacy, it may
                          have resulted in a heightened sexual response, making intimacy a
                          highly desirable experience, while strengthening the pair bond. We
                          tend to undervalue our sense of touch; touch is the first way a
                          newborn gets to know its mother. Without our sense of touch, we
                          would not be able to take a single step...

                          m3d
                        • Empress9@aol.com
                          I think you are way off base here. First off, touch is heightened by hair, not by baldness - ask a cat or rat how they would function with shaved whiskers.
                          Message 12 of 18 , Nov 17 11:20 AM
                            I think you are way off base here. First off, touch is heightened by hair,
                            not by baldness - ask a cat or rat how they would function with shaved whiskers.
                            Secondly, touch is not the first way an infant knows its mother - sound is
                            first followed by smell then taste. I don't know any infant studies or anecdotes
                            regarding an infant knowing its mother by touch.
                            In a message dated 11/17/04 11:00:01 AM, m3d@... writes:
                            > > >Fun doesn't matter, the only thing that matters for changes is
                            > successful procreation. I don't see how sexual selection is going to
                            > have anything at all to do with relative hairlessness - especially
                            > at the first, gradual stages. Hairlessness MIGHT bring an infant
                            > survival factor, however, if fungal infestations are a factor (such
                            > as where it's constantly moist)...
                            >
                            >
                            > If a relative loss of body hair resulted in increased tactile
                            > awareness (sensitivity to being touched) during intimacy, it may
                            > have resulted in a heightened sexual response, making intimacy a
                            > highly desirable experience, while strengthening the pair bond. We
                            > tend to undervalue our sense of touch; touch is the first way a
                            > newborn gets to know its mother. Without our sense of touch, we
                            > would not be able to take a single step...
                            >
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • m3dodds
                            Light touches the eye, and we see. Sound touches the ear, and we hear. Touch, first in the womb. Touch, last before death. Touch... heightened by hair, a
                            Message 13 of 18 , Nov 17 12:23 PM
                              "Light touches the eye, and we see. Sound touches the ear, and we
                              hear. Touch, first in the womb. Touch, last before death."

                              Touch... heightened by hair, a full glossy thick coat of body hair...
                              Somehow, I don't think so...

                              m3d
                              ---

                              --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Empress9@a... wrote:
                              > > I think you are way off base here. First off, touch is
                              > > heightened by hair, not by baldness - ask a cat or rat how they
                              > > would function with shaved whiskers. Secondly, touch is not the
                              > > first way an infant knows its mother - sound is first followed
                              > > by smell then taste. > > I don't know any infant studies or
                              > > anecdotes regarding an infant knowing its mother by touch.
                              > >
                              > > In a message dated 11/17/04 11:00:01 AM, m3d@l... writes:
                              > > Fun doesn't matter, the only thing that matters for changes is
                              > > successful procreation. I don't see how sexual selection is
                              > > going to have anything at all to do with relative hairlessness -
                              > > especially at the first, gradual stages. Hairlessness MIGHT
                              > > bring an infant survival factor, however, if fungal infestations
                              > > are a factor (such as where it's constantly moist)...
                              > >
                              > > If a relative loss of body hair resulted in increased tactile
                              > > awareness (sensitivity to being touched) during intimacy, it may
                              > > have resulted in a heightened sexual response, making intimacy a
                              > > highly desirable experience, while strengthening the pair bond.
                              > > We tend to undervalue our sense of touch; touch is the first way
                              > > a newborn gets to know its mother. Without our sense of touch, we
                              > > would not be able to take a single step...
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Empress9@aol.com
                              ... where do you think the nerve endings for touch are located???? (hint: try around the hair shaft) p.s. what kind of dog do you like to pet, a chow or a
                              Message 14 of 18 , Nov 17 1:45 PM
                                In a message dated 11/17/04 12:38:53 PM, m3d@... writes:


                                > Touch... heightened by hair, a full glossy thick coat of body hair...
                                > Somehow, I don't think so... 
                                >

                                where do you think the nerve endings for touch are located???? (hint: try
                                around the hair shaft)

                                p.s. what kind of dog do you like to pet, a chow or a mexican hairless?


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • m3dodds
                                ... hairless? ... Agree... There are sensors (nerve endings) in the skin; around the base of individual hair follicles, that can detect the displacement
                                Message 15 of 18 , Nov 18 10:33 AM
                                  --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Empress9@a... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 11/17/04 12:38:53 PM, m3d@l... writes:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Touch... heightened by hair, a full glossy thick coat of body
                                  > hair...Somehow, I don't think so... 
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > where do you think the nerve endings for touch are located????
                                  >(hint: try around the hair shaft)
                                  >
                                  > p.s. what kind of dog do you like to pet, a chow or a mexican
                                  hairless?
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Agree...
                                  There are sensors (nerve endings) in the skin; around the base of
                                  individual hair follicles, that can detect the displacement
                                  (movement) of a single hair. Whilst other sensors in the skin, can
                                  detect even the lightest pressure on the skin, for example when a
                                  fly momentary touches the skin…

                                  Disagree???
                                  Is it your opinion, that there is no tactile difference, between the
                                  relatively hairless skin of AMH, and that of our predecessors who
                                  had a coat of thick hair (fur)?

                                  m3d
                                • Empress9@aol.com
                                  ... I agree there is a difference. I just don t think it matters one whit when it comes to procreation. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Nov 18 11:36 AM
                                    In a message dated 11/18/04 10:47:45 AM, m3d@... writes:


                                    > Disagree???
                                    > Is it your opinion, that there is no tactile difference, between the
                                    > relatively hairless skin of AMH, and that of our predecessors who
                                    > had a coat of thick hair (fur)?
                                    >

                                    I agree there is a difference. I just don't think it matters one whit when it
                                    comes to procreation.


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Empress9@aol.com
                                    ... P.s. I don t think our predessors had a thick coat of hair. Chimps have relatively sparse hair compared to other furry animals. [Non-text portions of this
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Nov 18 11:37 AM
                                      In a message dated 11/18/04 10:47:45 AM, m3d@... writes:


                                      > Disagree???
                                      > Is it your opinion, that there is no tactile difference, between the
                                      > relatively hairless skin of AMH, and that of our predecessors who
                                      > had a coat of thick hair (fur)?
                                      >

                                      P.s. I don't think our predessors had a thick coat of hair. Chimps have
                                      relatively sparse hair compared to other furry animals.


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Marc Verhaegen
                                      ... relatively sparse hair compared to other furry animals. Yes. AFAIK, great apes have no underfur. --Marc
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Nov 18 2:15 PM
                                        > P.s. I don't think our predessors had a thick coat of hair. Chimps have
                                        relatively sparse hair compared to other furry animals.

                                        Yes. AFAIK, great apes have no underfur.

                                        --Marc
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.