Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways
The New York Times (Science Times) ^ | August 19, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

Posted on 08/19/2003 5:41:06 AM PDT by Pharmboy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last
To: RipSawyer
Given the choice, I'll take wasted efforts over a wasted life, RS.
51 posted on 08/19/2003 7:59:28 AM PDT by Gargantua (Embrace clarity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
<< The compilers of Genesis write that as soon as Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they sewed themselves aprons made of leaves from the fig tree, and that the Creator himself made them more durable skin coats before evicting them. But if Dr. Rogers and Dr. Stoneking are correct, humans were naked for a million years before they noticed their state of undress and called for the tailor. >>

At least this shows clearly that certain theories are contradictory with Scripture. So is the Bible correct or Drs. Rogers and Stoneking? hmmmmmmm...
52 posted on 08/19/2003 8:29:09 AM PDT by pkjeff ( <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WKB
I thought that was 600,003 years ago!!

You forgot to take leap years into account. That's the 3-year difference.

53 posted on 08/19/2003 12:06:57 PM PDT by talleyman (E=mc2 (before taxes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
We are the only part of the primate order to be without fur, have (slightly) webbed fingers and toes, hugely developed brains, and a subcutaneous layer of body fat. All of these are characteristics of aquatic mammals (whales, dolphins, etc.).

I've always thought the fossils they keep digging up in Olduvai Gorge and elsewhere are basically what they seem, chimpanzee progenitors or other now extinct forms of primates. If they really want to find ancient homo sapiens, they need to look near ancient shorelines, which because of changes in sea levels are now far off shore. This in turn makes the chances of finding genuinely ancient (100,000 years BCE plus) human remains all but impossible.

This is at least what I've drawn from a lifetime of watching National Geographic specials and IMHO probably as valid as the conclusions of PhD carrying believers in current "scientific" dogma.

54 posted on 08/19/2003 12:25:59 PM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: talleyman
I thought that was 600,003 years ago!!


You forgot to take leap years into account. That's the 3-year difference.



I ALWAYS do that!
55 posted on 08/19/2003 12:29:29 PM PDT by WKB (3!~ ( You can hear it anywhere but only here can you tell the world what you think about it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
An Australopithecus, sporting full-bodied fur about four million years ago.

Someone help me out here please?

I missed any citation and documentation of the discovery or discoveries on which this statment is based.

56 posted on 08/19/2003 12:56:49 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
So the quality, not the quantity changed.
57 posted on 08/19/2003 1:01:23 PM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways


58 posted on 08/19/2003 1:01:43 PM PDT by paws_and_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
what about Robin Williams? now thats one hairy ape.
59 posted on 08/19/2003 1:08:56 PM PDT by southern cross forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katana
Click here for a good aquatic ape site. Elaine Morgan (from the UK) has written much about this subject.
60 posted on 08/19/2003 1:15:13 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Whether or not Australopiths had hair/fur or not is total conjecture, but it is likely they were covered more than we are.
61 posted on 08/19/2003 1:51:56 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Isnt there a medical condition where a person has hair EVERYWHERE, entire face, entire body and its thick, much like a animal coat...what is that called - anyone know?
62 posted on 08/19/2003 1:54:46 PM PDT by FeliciaCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Brazil wax.
63 posted on 08/19/2003 1:55:29 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FeliciaCat
Yes--it's called hypertrichosis

Congenital hypertrichosis

Congenital hypertrichosis is present from birth and usually persists throughout life. There are several different names used by dermatologists to describe this disease. "Congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa", and "congenital hypertrichosis universalis" are the most common names and they mean exactly the same thing, all over body hair growth which is long and non-pigmented. However, there is a variation called "congenital hypertrichosis terminalis". This condition involves all over body hair growth, but the hair is fully pigmented terminal hair and the condition is almost always associated with gingival hyperplasia (teeth defects). This is not the same as congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa and there is a separate page describing this condition.

In addition to congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa where hair develops all over the body, there are other case reports of individuals with hypertrichosis lanuginosa limited only to the face with the torso, arms, and legs being mostly unaffected. Some research reports have tried to collect these case reports together and have called the condition "ambras syndrome"

Lanugo hair is the very first hair to be made by an embryo’s hair follicles when still inside the womb. This hair can grow quite long but it is usually very fine and unpigmented. This first wave of hair growth is normally shed by the embryo at around 8 months gestation and replaced by fine vellus hair and terminal scalp hair in preparation for birth. Normally a few of the long lanugo hairs might survive through birth but are shed shortly after. However, sometimes a child can be born with most or all of the lanugo hairs still growing. This gives the appearance of the child being covered in a light colored fur. This excessively long hair all over the body persists throughout life. Congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa is a very rare form of hypertrichosis affecting less than 1 in 1000 million children. It seems to have a genetic component with family histories of hypertrichosis being reported in relations of those affected. People described as "werewolves" or "wolfmen" for their excessive hair growth most likely have congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa or terminalis. There is no known treatment available other than depilation.

64 posted on 08/19/2003 2:03:27 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Wow! Thanks for the info.
65 posted on 08/19/2003 2:06:19 PM PDT by FeliciaCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: katana; Pharmboy
That aquatic ape stuff feels right to me.

Most humans are strongly, almost mystically, drawn to shorelines. I sure am, anyway. So was my mother. But it adds meaning to the aquatic theory.
66 posted on 08/19/2003 2:07:54 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I don't buy the lice/parasite explanation.

Because lice can easily still hide in the hair on our heads, so not having body hair but still retaining hair on our heads won't get rid of lice.

67 posted on 08/19/2003 2:14:18 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: happygrl
"So the quality, not the quantity changed."

Apparently.

68 posted on 08/19/2003 2:32:40 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Why is it that the apemen are always shown as clean shaven?

I always thought we got lost our hair because of all the diseases that are carried by all the fleas, ticks and chiggers, it's a lot easier to get rid of the bugs without hair all over us.

69 posted on 08/19/2003 2:37:26 PM PDT by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



Hmmmmm...
70 posted on 08/19/2003 2:45:49 PM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Any evolutionary theory that posits why humans lost their fur must also specify why those same conditions did not cause the other primates to lose their fur. For instance humans moved onto the savanna and the sun and heat worked to select those with no hair; so then why did the baboons not lose theirs out there? If it's a parasite-free sexual selection process -- so then why have chimpanzees retained their hair since they are fastidious about grooming parasites out of each others fur? None of the theories in the article, save the aquatic one, account for why the other primates kept their fur.
71 posted on 08/19/2003 2:47:08 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul; PatrickHenry; Quila; Rudder; donh; VadeRetro; RadioAstronomer; Travis McGee; ...
Hairless ape ping.


72 posted on 08/19/2003 2:48:13 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Viva la 187!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paws_and_whiskers
That's the dude!! Definitely a robustus, though.
73 posted on 08/19/2003 2:49:42 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
"We didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor."

And what would be the name of that 'common ancestor'?
74 posted on 08/19/2003 2:55:34 PM PDT by Maria S ("..I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end" Uday H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Maria S
You had to ask, I'm so out of date :) But here's a good link with good info. Enjoy!
75 posted on 08/19/2003 3:06:19 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
A better suggestion is that loss of body hair helped our distant ancestors keep cool when they first ventured beyond the forest's shade and across the hot African savannah.

Then explain hair on Cape Buffalo, kudu, wildabeasts, zebras and lions ...... sounds like faith science.

76 posted on 08/19/2003 3:11:49 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
You know, the one with more hair than Bigfoot.

Janet Reno ?

77 posted on 08/19/2003 3:12:59 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Humans lost their body hair, they say, to free themselves of external parasites that infest fur — blood-sucking lice, fleas and ticks and the diseases they spread.

And kept the pubic hair because we enjoy scratching our ba___? Give me a break.

This stuff is so, so ridiculous.

78 posted on 08/19/2003 3:26:51 PM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
So our 'common ancestor' is "hominid Kenyanthropus platyops" dating back to the middle Pliocene, 3.5 million years ago. Naaah, I don't buy it. I'm going with the other version. The one that starts out, "In the beginning..."

However, thanks for the interesting website!
79 posted on 08/19/2003 3:57:28 PM PDT by Maria S ("..I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end" Uday H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Maria S
If we "evolved" from apes, why are there still apes?

Even creationists are embarrassed by such statements. Look at the ninth item in: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.

80 posted on 08/19/2003 4:00:07 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
What shakey suppositions? These guys did actual research and testing, and the testing bore out their hypotheses. You come along, who has never done a lick of research in this field, and really have no clue as to what's being discussed, and airily dismiss the work of actual researchers
81 posted on 08/19/2003 5:11:19 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Hairless ape ping.

HEY!

I still have some left!

82 posted on 08/19/2003 5:45:34 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Junior
YOU are the one who has not a clue, as you sound like a fool. For them to leap from a gene for skin color to hairlessness is a MAJOR shaky supposition. And what made US so special as to be the only primates to use this strategy for survival? But based on the deductive reasoning you've displayed so far, I would not expect a room-temperature IQ such as yours to grasp this point.

Buh-bye Junior (a good handle for you, BTW).

83 posted on 08/19/2003 5:54:17 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
You are on the money!
84 posted on 08/19/2003 5:55:33 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Maria S
Maria: dogs evolved from wolves and wolves still exist. OKAY?
85 posted on 08/19/2003 5:56:34 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"Even creationists are embarrassed by such statements."

Golly! And I, too, am darned embarrassed! Wow, is my face red! It's always a joy to read how much pleasure (downright joy, actually!)my naivete gives someone else!

Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that man was created in God's image, and apes were a separate created species that fell under the heading of "animal". I CAN accept Pharmboy's comment about dogs and wolves, because we can see how dogs have been bred over the centuries to become different animals. But they ARE all still some form of canine, they still bark, and like meat.

Thanks for the info about the website; I haven't heard of it, so I can't comment on it. There are a lot of similar websites out there, and the great counterfeitor can convince us that scripture actually means something else. I will check it out and see what and who it's affiliated with.
86 posted on 08/19/2003 6:14:45 PM PDT by Maria S ("..I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end" Uday H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Okay, so you have nothing substantive to say, so of course you resort to personal attacks.
87 posted on 08/19/2003 6:15:11 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
The loss of fur is part of human devolution.
88 posted on 08/19/2003 6:17:51 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
"Australopithecus terroristus or something."

Good thing I didn't have a beverage in hand! Priceless!
89 posted on 08/19/2003 6:17:51 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG.. that's worthy of a friday night vanity post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
What does evolutionism have to do with "science". Stories relating thereof belong in non-fiction
90 posted on 08/19/2003 6:19:09 PM PDT by Tigercap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Perhaps you cannot read as well as reason. I gave you a specific example of their shaky supposition. Re-read my post before you say something else even more stupid...
91 posted on 08/19/2003 6:20:51 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Er, those would be my relatives.
92 posted on 08/19/2003 6:24:13 PM PDT by FourPeas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
"And kept the pubic hair because we enjoy scratching our ba___? Give me a break."

I always supposed that we retained pubic hair to act as a cushion to mitigate friction during sexual intercourse.

93 posted on 08/19/2003 6:47:20 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Tigercap
Er...non-fiction is reality.
94 posted on 08/19/2003 6:48:17 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray; Maria S
We didn't evolve "from" apes. According to evolution theory, we share common ancestors with apes. Apes are as highly evolved for their environments as we are.

That's a bit of a cop-out. True, we didn't evolve directly from any of the modern ape species. However, we're most closely related to the chimpanzees, with whom we share a fairly recent common ancestor. The evidence suggests that that last common ancestor probably looked a lot more like a chimp than it did like us.

"A" in the upper left above is a modern chimp skull. "B" next to it is an Australopithecus africanus from 2.6 million years ago. In fact, "B" up to "N" (a modern human) are fossil hominids of decreasing age. But "A," the chimp, which is as modern as "N," the human, seems to fit in well right at the beginning of the sequence. Again, that last common ancestor looked a lot like a chimp.

What about the grosser mischaracterization that "We came from monkeys?" An ape is not a monkey, but apes arose from monkeys maybe 30 million years ago. If you could take a time-machine voyage to 35 million years ago, the most human-looking species you could find would be some sort of monkey.

In fact, go back far enough, and the "most advanced vertebrate" is some kind of fish. Farther back, and there are no true vertebrates, only chordates. And so forth.

95 posted on 08/19/2003 6:51:57 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
...we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes.

"No. Way."

"Way, Garth"

"Party on, Wayne."

"Party on, Garth."


96 posted on 08/19/2003 6:52:21 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
The hedgehog lookalike?

You're looking for this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/855884/posts

97 posted on 08/19/2003 6:53:20 PM PDT by e_engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
What are those L and M things?
98 posted on 08/19/2003 6:54:30 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Beauty...
99 posted on 08/19/2003 7:01:41 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
What are those L and M things?

Well, "M" looks a little like James Carville.

100 posted on 08/19/2003 7:02:38 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson