Evolution of hair loss

[Robin Leech]

Yeah, right!
(I always taught my students that this is the only double positive that creates a negative.)
Robin Leech
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Grehan 
  To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:32 AM
  Subject: Evolution of hair loss


  The following link is to a NY Times article on the evolution of hair loss in humans that was brought to my attention:

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/19/science/19HAIR.html?ex62266528&ei=1&en= 
  c83c18de852e76fd
   
  The following comprise some comments and opinions - unreasonable or not - on why most of the content seems to represent teleological garbage that is more metaphysics than science when one analyses the reasoning. And people wonder why evolution has such a poor public reception. Apart from religious issues people can tell a bad product when they see it.

  "their idea, if true, goes far toward explaining contemporary attitudes about hirsuteness. 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."

  This states that one 'explanation' is an 'explanation' of another 'explanation'. Not only an explanation, but an explanation of purpose - humans lost body hair TO free themselves.... This is stating that in order to meet a future need evolution took prior action to meet that need. Maybe most people can swallow this since it feeds on religious purpose, but its not empirical science.

  "Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection"

  "became subject to sexual selection"

  "bare skin would have served, like the peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness"

   Not an empirical observations.  Theoretical presumptions.

  "The pains women take to keep their bodies free of hair - joined now by some men - may be now mere fashion statement but the latest echo of an ancient instinct"

  Metaphysical garbage.

  "these humid regions, dense with sweat glands, serve as launching pads for pheromones, airborne hormones known to convey sexual signals in other"

  Again, if something exists, it exists to serve purpose. Garbage, garbage, garbage.

  "the pressure of sexual selection in this case may be greater on women"

  Same as above.

  "advantage of hair loss, but they are all just-so stories," said Dr. Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York."

  Agreed, but they remain pervasive and dominant in evolutionary biology (especially the education of evolution in the US). At least Ian has some common sense (perhaps why he is the only primatologist apart from the theory's originator to take the orangutan theory seriously.

  "But outside Africa, in northern Asia and Europe, the gene was free to accept mutations, the constant natural changes in DNA, and produced skin colors that were not dark."

  Possible - although problematic with respect to India and southern Asia.

  "As soon as the ancestral human population in Africa started losing its fur, Dr. Rogers surmised, people would have needed dark skin as a protection against sunlight. Anyone who had a version of the MC1R gene that produced darker skin would have had a survival advantage, and in a few generations this version of the gene would have made a clean sweep through the population."

  In this core hypothesis selection acted to serve one purpose (losing hair) while at the same time serving another (increase melanization). As Tattersall says, its a just so story. Its also a presumption that the process was powered by natural selection.

  "Since the silent mutations accumulate in a random but steady fashion, they serve as a molecular clock,"

  A theoretical proposition. Problematic.

  "Both are assumed to be adaptations to help dissipate heat"

  Teleology again.

  "Dr. Rogers' argument was "completely plausible," he said. "

  Plausible - seemingly valid, giving deceptive impression of truth, acceptability, reliability. Specious. (dictionary definition)

  "Chimpanzees have pale skin and are born with pale faces that tan as they grow older. So the prototype hominid too probably had fair skin under dark hair"

  That chimp theory again.

  "Humans must have been wearing clothes at least since this time"

  Or before.

  "Perhaps the body lice don't show that, he suggested, because early clothes were too loose fitting or made of the wrong material"

  Classic ad hoc hypothesis to protect the theory.

  John




  Dr. John Grehan
  Director of Science and Collections
  Buffalo Museum of Science
  1020 Humboldt Parkway
  Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
  Voice 716-896-5200 x372
  Fax 716-897-6723
  jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
  http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-Gate.htm
  http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm