Comments on: Why We Don't Have Fur

By: Dentists Carrollton

Dentists Carrollton — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:47:38 +0000

This is a very interesting post. Well, it is how human being adapted to our environment. Thanks for posting this.

By: Phil Bowermaster

Phil Bowermaster — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:52:42 +0000

I’m not sure whether that last one is funny. Sad, maybe.

By: MDarling

MDarling — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:34:33 +0000

Yikes.
Good comedy is hard in many ways. This works on many levels.
RJ is a furry guy.
We know who RJ is.
We know he’s furry.
Phil washes his mouth with listerine while on the web.

By: Phil Bowermaster

Phil Bowermaster — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:38:07 +0000

Good oral hygiene and blog reading don’t always mix. Triticale, you just made me spit Listerine all over my monitor.

By: triticale

triticale — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:09:23 +0000

Better yet, rather than a small child, do a close examination of every square inch of Ron Jeremy’s skin.

By: mythusmage

mythusmage — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:50:54 +0000

Take a small child, do a close examination of every square inch of the child’s skin. You will find that the only spots lacking hair are the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet. legs, lap, back, abdomen, arms all have fine, light hair.

In fact, we have about as much hair as a chimpanzee, only ours is light and fine in contrast to the dark, coarse hair of the chimp. It only looks like we’re hairless.

By: Michael Anissimov

Michael Anissimov — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:35:18 +0000

I’m actually reading “The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” right now and I have to tell you, there’s a lot more meat to this hypothesis than you might think. When I’m done I’ll give my final verdict on my blog, but seriously – the book presents cogent arguments and I have yet to see a serious, in-depth refutation of the AAH by mainstream science. People are starting to take it somewhat seriously because it has not been definitively knocked down in over 30 years, and if it were flat wrong, it probably would have been already. Not to say that it’s right for sure… just that it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, as many mainstream anthropologists unfairly do before even taking a close look at it.

By: rjschwarz

rjschwarz — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:54:13 +0000

I like Stephen’s idea and figure it’s probably right, still…

There is always the chance we stared off with limited hair. Lack of hair might have forced us to adapt and use our brains more to survive.

By: Stephen Gordon

Stephen Gordon — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:05:41 +0000

Maybe hairlessness is an indirect product of the Ice Age. Let’s say that humanity started the Ice Age relatively hairy.

Being smart, people used fur (from other animals) and fire to suppliment naturally furry bodies during the worst of the Ice Age. Using clothing and fire would continue even after the world began warming.

BUT as the need for fur diminished in a warmer world, the selective pressure to grow it would be gone.

In fact, since growing fur is metabolically expensive, evolutionary pressure would eliminate fur from any animal that doesn’t need it.

Add the benefits of pest reduction AND perhaps sexual selection, and you got both a stick and a carrot moving us toward hairless bodies.