"The Well-Dressed Ape" by Hannah Holmes

[DaveDecker]

The January 26 issue of Time magazine reviews subject book. Here is an indirectly related, but interesting review passage within the review:

"... even though humans are covered in hair follicles -- we have more of them than chimpanzees do -- most of our fur grows in an 'extravagant topknot' on our heads. In the context of the wider animal kingdom, this is a bizarre, even perverse evolutionary innovation..."


The review or author may suggest that this phenomenon is "perverse," but I would claim that they just haven't bothered to try to understand it. :)

[EdG]

Agreed. As bizarre traits in animals go, I much prefer having a human's long hair to having say, the proboscis monkey's huge nose, or the peacock's feathers that drag on the ground.

Every time I see a picture of that monkey, I think to myself "I'm glad I only have long hair." :lol:
Ed

[Alun]

The January 26 issue of Time magazine reviews subject book. Here is an indirectly related, but interesting review passage within the review:

"... even though humans are covered in hair follicles -- we have more of them than chimpanzees do -- most of our fur grows in an 'extravagant topknot' on our heads. In the context of the wider animal kingdom, this is a bizarre, even perverse evolutionary innovation..."


The review or author may suggest that this phenomenon is "perverse," but I would claim that they just haven't bothered to try to understand it. :)

There was an old thread on this. I posted some stuff about the "Aquatic Ape" theory of human evolution there, although I'm not sure to what extent I believe it. I can only say I find it more plausible than the Savannah theory, but it still seems to have a few holes as well.

I think that various people have actively tried to understand it, but I don't think anyone really does.

[Dianyla]

It's no more perverse than any other extravagant trophy that has evolved in nature. Like other trophies in the animal kingdom, these rarely provide any benefit and in fact are usually considered a biological handicap (http://www.amazon.com/Handicap-Principle-Missing-Darwins-Puzzle/dp/0195129148/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2YKKZ98JEZRMA&colid=3MXLRV0WFZDFP). :agree:

[SpecialKitty]

I used to think that the evolutionary purpose of hair on the head was to keep the head warm, since we supposedly lose a lot of body heat through the head. But I recently read that that is a myth - that we actually don't lose much body heat through our heads. All I know is, on a very cold day, I'm glad I'm not bald!

[Heidi_234]

If we evolved from horses we would have natural mohawks.

[Vivien']

Yes... It's strange that we're the only animal having a "fur" that can grow so long.

[EdG]

The original purpose of hair, like fur, was to keep the head warm. But human hairs grow several feet longer than is necessary for that purpose. Surely, there must be a reason. :confused:

I believe our ancestors can be credited for encouraging the evolution of our long hair. The story goes something like this:


"Many years ago, the long-haired caveman chased after the long-haired cavewoman. And the long-haired cavewoman, upon seeing the long-haired caveman, didn't run as fast as she could." :eyebrows:


That's why we have long hair. :D


Ed

[Heidi_234]

The original purpose of hair, like fur, was to keep the head warm. But human hairs grow several feet longer than is necessary for that purpose. Surely, there must be a reason. :confused:

I believe our ancestors can be credited for encouraging the evolution of our long hair. The story goes something like this:


"Many years ago, the long-haired caveman chased after the long-haired cavewoman. And the long-haired cavewoman, upon seeing the long-haired caveman, didn't run as fast as she could." :eyebrows:


That's why we have long hair. :D


Ed
You just said yourself that the hair grow longer than necessary to keep the head warm. My best guess is that growing and evolving in the hot sunny places like Africa made fur on the human body less desirable, but long hair to cover the head and protect from the sun - very much. Hence the eyebrows and eyelashes remained as well. I remember reading somewhere and that in terms of evolution and natural selection, good healthy mane of hair indicates good head protection from the sun, therefore indicates good genes.

[EdG]

I think it's generally believed that thousands of years of wearing clothing and living indoors caused humans to lose all bodily fur. I remember once reading that humans in the future were expected to be bald for the same reason. :(

I don't think that will ever happen because, as Heidi_234 points out, long hair is much more than a means to protect against the elements; it's an indicator of health and a way to select a mate. As long as the descendents of the long-haired caveman and long-haired cavewoman continue to chase after each other, humans will have long hair. :)
Ed

[Schmoomunitions]

Wouldnt it be nice to have a flaming red butt !!! Now thats attractive, monkeys got it right, the nose, butts, lip movements. Im gonna go play with a little leaf on my mouth now, keeps me busy for hours.

[RedStripe]

If we evolved from horses we would have natural mohawks.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Brillliant!

[getoffmyskittle]

I think it's generally believed that thousands of years of wearing clothing and living indoors caused humans to lose all bodily fur. I remember once reading that humans in the future were expected to be bald for the same reason. :(


Hmmm, I don't think so. Modern humans appeared 100,000 years ago and there has been little/no genetic change since then; all changes have been sociocultural rather than biological.

ETA: Wikipedia says 200,000 years, but 100,000 is what I learned in school and I'm sticking with that. :shrug:

[EdG]

Hmmm, I don't think so. Modern humans appeared 100,000 years ago and there has been little/no genetic change since then; all changes have been sociocultural rather than biological.

ETA: Wikipedia says 200,000 years, but 100,000 is what I learned in school and I'm sticking with that. :shrug:Maybe humans have been wearing clothes and living indoors for 100,000 years? ;)
Ed

[getoffmyskittle]

Maybe humans have been wearing clothes and living indoors for 100,000 years? ;)
Ed

Nah, the immediate ancestor of humans would have to have been wearing clothes and living indoors. :p Well, unless the hair thing WAS the change... and, you know, I think I've heard something about skull shape and bone structure, so I dunno.

ETA: Seriously, though, I think it is an unlikely theory for several reasons. 1 - If we had fur, why would we make clothes? 2 - The shift from a nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle to a more settled horticultural lifestyle didn't even begin until 10,000 years ago; humans have been nomadic for most of their existence. 3 - There are still societies of naked people! And still more societies wherein most people go topless. :shrug:

[Beatnik Guy]

humans in the future were expected to be bald for the same reason. :(
Y'know, I don't think natural selection would allow that, Ed. :frog:

[EdG]

Y'know, I don't think natural selection would allow that, Ed. :frog:Hee, hee! 'Tis true. :)
Ed

[Dianyla]

Wearing clothes and controlling fire was what enabled humans to leave the tropics, where they (eta: had already) evolved to be mostly hairless.

Hair as a trophy is really a display of biological wealth. And, as Ed pointed out facetiously, it is sexually selected by females. Essentially all sexually selected evolutionary traits are determined by the pickier sex which is generally the one with higher parental investment.

One of the amazon reviews for the book I linked to in my previous post said it quite well:


Why does the peacock grow that tail? Why does the springbok leap straight up into the air when it sees a predator? Why do people behave heroically? The handicap principle answers these questions, eloquently, simply and with an overwhelming sense of conviction. The peacock is advertising his fitness. He is saying to the female in essence, I am so fit I can carry around this cumbersome adornment and still scratch out a very fine living. The springbok is saying to the predator: don't even think about going after me. I am in such good shape I can waste energy jumping up and down and still have plenty of reserves to outrun you. Save us both the bother and go after someone weaker. (By the way, the springbok jumps straight up instead of sideways because by jumping straight up its performance can be effectively judged by a predator from any direction.) And the man who dives into the swiftly flowing river to save a drowning child is actually advertising his fitness and improving his station in society. He is so fit he can take chances that others dare not. He's the man the women want to mate with.

[EdG]

Hair as a trophy is really a display of biological wealth. And, as Ed pointed out facetiously, it is sexually selected by females. Essentially all sexually selected evolutionary traits are determined by the pickier sex which is generally the one with higher parental investment.I feel so... selected. :bigeyes:

Clearly, the male peacock's feathers are an example of selection by females. I think men's beards may be another example.

Long hair seems to be a little different in that both sexes have it and look for it in a mate. I think humans, both men and women, collectively bred long hair into our genes. Just my thoughts. :twocents:
Ed

[Dianyla]

I feel so... selected. :bigeyes:
No. You haven't been selected. At least, I'm assuming so because you're a member of the Child-Free social group... :ponder:

But you are the product of your ancestor's selection, yes.

Clearly, the male peacock's feathers are an example of selection by females. I think men's beards may be another example.

Long hair seems to be a little different in that both sexes have it and look for it in a mate. I think humans, both men and women, collectively bred long hair into our genes. Just my thoughts. :twocents:
Ed
Regardless of which sex develops the trait, sexual selection of evolutionary traits is still controlled by the higher-investment parent. In the case of most mammals, that is the female sex. Due to length of pregnancy and lactation, female mammals are limited in how many times they can mate and bear offspring, so they are extremely picky about who they choose to mate with. Very few males will refuse an offer to mate with an eligible fertile female.

You can also observe sexual selection in another way if a certain trait is considered to confer higher status and gains the female mating privilege or not. E.g. in a pack of wolves, the alpha female will often not allow any of the other females to mate.

[EdG]

No. You haven't been selected. At least, I'm assuming so because you're a member of the Child-Free social group... :ponder:

But you are the product of your ancestor's selection, yes. Hmmm... long hair implies good genes, member of child-free group implies :confused:... (head explodes).

We're both paradoxes. :D



Regardless of which sex develops the trait, sexual selection of evolutionary traits is still controlled by the higher-investment parent. In the case of most mammals, that is the female sex. Due to length of pregnancy and lactation, female mammals are limited in how many times they can mate and bear offspring, so they are extremely picky about who they choose to mate with. Very few males will refuse an offer to mate with an eligible fertile female.Yes, that the female controls selection is well-accepted.

Humans must have totally suppressed their instincts, given how rare long hair is today (even more rare on men). :hmm:
Ed

[Dianyla]

Hmmm... long hair implies good genes, member of child-free group implies :confused:... (head explodes).
Good hair only implies good hair genes. Can't vouch for the rest of the package. :frog:

[atlantaz3]

What about orangutans? They have very long hair. Zoo Atlanta used to have one named Big Al (which was also the name of my boss at that time) who I always wanted to take a brush and comb to his fur.

[Spike]

But unless I totally miss my guess, even orangutan fur doesn't grow over a foot long. (As LHC measurements have it, that's not even shoulder-length!) Humans seem to be the only ones with a luxuriant "topknot" of fur that can grow over three feet long.

I've read that the various colors and textures helped work as a tribal flag to identify who was coming from a distance. Is that an "us" or a "them"? Interesting idea, that.

[Alun]

You just said yourself that the hair grow longer than necessary to keep the head warm. My best guess is that growing and evolving in the hot sunny places like Africa made fur on the human body less desirable, but long hair to cover the head and protect from the sun - very much. Hence the eyebrows and eyelashes remained as well. I remember reading somewhere and that in terms of evolution and natural selection, good healthy mane of hair indicates good head protection from the sun, therefore indicates good genes.

You've just summed up the Savannah theory. Try googling the Aquatic Ape theory for a comparison. I'm not saying either is necessarily right. Long hair may be due to neither, but due to sexual selection instead, which seems to be the more popular theory on here. Me, I've no idea!

[Heidi_234]

You've just summed up the Savannah theory. Try googling the Aquatic Ape theory for a comparison. I'm not saying either is necessarily right. Long hair may be due to neither, but due to sexual selection instead, which seems to be the more popular theory on here. Me, I've no idea!
Sexual selection is one tiny bit if the overall natural selection. Even if individuals are attracted to all sort of things, the overall tendency is for the improvement of the race in the long run. And it is the natural selection that made us attracted to qualities that possibly indicate good genes, as the ones that were were attracted to not so good genes ceased to exist long long time ago.
I'm personally a firm believer in the Ceiling Cat (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1) myself. :cool:

[nastasska]

I believe our ancestors can be credited for encouraging the evolution of our long hair. The story goes something like this:


"Many years ago, the long-haired caveman chased after the long-haired cavewoman. And the long-haired cavewoman, upon seeing the long-haired caveman, didn't run as fast as she could." :eyebrows:


That's why we have long hair. :D


Ed

:rollin:

What about long haired breeds of dog? There are some amazingly hairy canines out there

[EdG]

What about long haired breeds of dog? There are some amazingly hairy canines out thereDogs are the best example of selective breeding. Of course, the selection was done by humans rather than other dogs. ;)

Hmmm, not only did we breed long hair into ourselves, but we also bred long hair into man's best friend. :ponder:
Ed

[getoffmyskittle]

Dogs are the best example of selective breeding. Of course, the selection was done by humans rather than other dogs. ;)

Hmmm, not only did we breed long hair into ourselves, but we also bred long hair into man's best friend. :ponder:
Ed

Yes, long hair is clearly the superior case, as shown by the fact that we grow it and we've bred some dogs do so as well! :thumbsup:

[rhubarbarin]

Humans must have totally suppressed their instincts, given how rare long hair is today (even more rare on men).

Long hair is just not too stylish at the moment.. but hair itself is still an extremely important factor in someone's attractiveness. The length isn't what's important for many, it's what it symbolizes about someone's health and status.

[Shield31]

I think our hair becoming long has much to do with the ever popular "string theory" talked about in those uber-high intelligent think tank places and universities. It goes something like this.....

Strings hold everything throught the universe together. They are very small things, kind of like a strand of hair. Well, sometimes the strings get lost or confused. So, in their despiration they attach themselves to the ends of our stings. Our hair. After a while, and only if your hair is allowed to get long enough, those strings transport us into an alternate universe. A universe of other string-o-philes who clearly see that hair doesn't grow from the root. Hair extends from the tip. It is added to at the ends; by those strings from the string theory. Simple!

And, the alternate universe is THLC.:magic:

The Science Channel had a show about this just a short time ago.

[Kleis]

I feel so... selected. :bigeyes:

Clearly, the male peacock's feathers are an example of selection by females. I think men's beards may be another example.

Long hair seems to be a little different in that both sexes have it and look for it in a mate. I think humans, both men and women, collectively bred long hair into our genes. Just my thoughts. :twocents:
Ed

Hmm. Dianyla already pointed out the fact that you're in childfree communities. Let's look at this further. How many super-longhaired women (past knee length) on this board have biological children? (As opposed to non-biological kids or kittehs? :lol:) There are probably some on this enormous board, but I can't think of any offhand. At least not who currently have super long hair. I can think of one person who used to fit this who now has shorter hair.

I'll be easier on the men: how many men on this board with hair past hip length have children? Intend to have children? Any of them? *crickets* I know Merlin has kids, but he also has a passing acquaintance with haircuts. Beards are easier, but I wouldn't draw a correlation between having a beard and having kids. That's a little like wearing clothes and having kids--too common and very easily achieved.

Sounds more like we longhairs (myself included, although I'm not past knee length) are selecting ourselves OUT of the gene pool. It seems to me that the shorter the hair, the likelihood of children increases. Of course, the population also vastly increases and tons of other confounding factors that makes this a poor correlation, but my point is that evolutionarily speaking, long hair isn't all that. At least not freakishly long hair.

[EdG]

Hmm. Dianyla already pointed out the fact that you're in childfree communities. Let's look at this further. How many super-longhaired women (past knee length) on this board have biological children? (As opposed to non-biological kids or kittehs? :lol:) There are probably some on this enormous board, but I can't think of any offhand. At least not who currently have super long hair. I can think of one person who used to fit this who now has shorter hair.Interesting. Although I know only a few super-longhaired members of this board, they are all child-free. BTW, those super-longhairs include you. :)


I'll be easier on the men: how many men on this board with hair past hip length have children? Intend to have children? Any of them? *crickets* I think the men on this board have a much higher-than-average probability of being single. ;)


Sounds more like we longhairs (myself included, although I'm not past knee length) are selecting ourselves OUT of the gene pool. It seems to me that the shorter the hair, the likelihood of children increases. Of course, the population also vastly increases and tons of other confounding factors that makes this a poor correlation, but my point is that evolutionarily speaking, long hair isn't all that. At least not freakishly long hair.There seem to be a lot of moms on this board. I agree that the super longhairs on LHC don't support the theory of genetic selection. Maybe we're just... unusual. :D
Ed

[Kleis]

That's us, all right! Unusual. It's funny, I hadn't picked up on the childfree connection until yesterday. I wonder if I'm missing anyone? :ponder:

[EdG]

That's us, all right! Unusual. I didn't want to say freaky. :o
Ed

[Dianyla]

I think we're all too busy having fun to settle down. :frog:

[Beatnik Guy]

Freaky's fine. No need for bad connotations on that word. :frog: