or this guy...
Posted on 03/24/2007 9:12:40 AM PDT by aculeus
A prize-winning paper suggests that humans are hairless apes because Stone-Age mothers regarded furry babies as unattractive
Medical Hypotheses, an Elsevier publication, has announced the winner of the 2006 David Horrobin Prize for medical theory. Written by Judith Rich-Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike, the article, "Parental selection: a third selection process in the evolution of human hairlessness and skin color" was judged to best embody the spirit of the journal. The £1,000 prize, launched in 2004, is awarded annually and named in honour of Dr. David Horrobin, the renowned researcher, biotechnology expert and founder of Medical Hypotheses, who died in 2003.
Harris' paper describes Stone Age societies in which the mother of a newborn had to decide whether she had the resources to nurture her baby. The newborn's appearance probably influenced whether the mother kept or abandoned it. An attractive baby was more likely to be kept and reared.
Harris' theory is that this kind of parental selection may have been an important force in evolution. If Stone Age people believed that hairless babies were more attractive than hairy ones, this could explain why humans are the only apes lacking a coat of fur. Harris suggests that Neanderthals must have been furry in order to survive the Ice Age. Our species would have seen them as "animals" and potential prey. Harris' hypothesis continues that Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them.
This year's prize judge was Professor Jonathan Rees FMedSci of Edinburgh University, Scotland - co-discoverer of the 'red hair gene'. Professor Rees said: "This paper is an excellent example of the kind of bold thinking and theorizing which David Horrobin intended to encourage when he began Medical Hypotheses. I hope that Judith Rich Harris' idea provokes debate and further investigation of this topic."
I have just as good baloney hypotheis: Children with hair were more apt to go out into the wilds and explore & play, rather than hairless childern who were more likely to stay in the arms of their hairy mother. The one's not warmed by their mother's bosom, were more apt to get killed, being out and about. Now I am a baloney expert. I feel good.
ping.
People are soft hearted toward babies -- all babies. Humans, cats, puppies, colts, etc. all draw our oohs and aahs. Hair or the lack thereof has little to do with the "cuteness" of babies. "Cuteness" of mates?? Perhaps there is something else here. Plus, there are other reasons for the loss of body hair (freedom from body parasites and cooling once we left the jungle cover are two that have been advanced).
Just more excuse making for killing babies. Besides, in the good old days, it was the men who decided if the baby was allowed to live.
lololol
Lighter (brown) skin allowed for more production of vitamin D in less sunny regions, thus staving off rickets. Blond hair: northern Europe had, and to some extent still has, as small population. A small population breeding among itself is bound to produce a fair amount of recessive gene mutations that can spread across the meager population--hence the emergence of blond hair and blue eyes (which also go along with less melanin, lighter skin, more vitamin D production).
Agreed. Good link and thanks. I read a good discussion of the AAT in a book called "The Red Queen".
Well some humans are "furry" in one way: we like cartoons
with anthropomorphic animals (and refer to ourselves as
furries) and I've attended a certain
furry convention every year for the past decade...
http://kdka.com/local/local_story_167193226.html
Yeah, we can be seen as wacko in some ways but we help
charities, entertain kids, write books, draw cartoons,
and are really just kids at heart. (The ones who aren't
in it for the pr0n, at least... :) )
Parts of us ARE furry.
Actually your hypothesis makes a good deal more sense, adaptation-wise. There is no rationale for why hairless babies would be more attractive to stone age moms than those with a nice full coat, who after all would look more like Mom herself.
Hairy bodies are harder for mosquitoes to bite. And malaria was a killer back then.
The theory has everything the lefties love - women killing babies, hyper-evoution and the feminist primary influence on human development.
At least the "aquatic ape" theory has existence proofs: there are aquatic species lacking fur.
There's only one problem with this: HUMANS AREN'T APES!!!!
Many babies are born with blue eyes and blond hair which they later lose when they are more viable, so this adds credence to the parents favoring attractive cute babies. Another interesting thing is for a while their faces often resemble their fathers, even if female. This is a sort of DNA test and was important. They later lose some of this resemblance, fortunately for many girls. I don't think this is the whole story but certainly a component driving the way humans now look.
***I think it's because humans, being damned smart, could guarantee themselves a consistent food supply comprised of high-energy, highly-digestible meat. They didn't need to hoard body heat the way some species do.***
Then please explain the fat cells....
or this guy...
Actually, more credible than the pro-abortion theory above.
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.