Evolution of hair loss

Wed Aug 20 09:05:34 CDT 2003

Your criticisms of the information as presented are sound.  But would you 
have any problem with these ideas if presented as HYPOTHESES to be 
tested?  That's what seems missing to me: a clear indication that these are 
merely hypotheses.

At 09:32 AM 8/20/03 -0400, John Grehan wrote:
>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-Gat 
>e.htm
>http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm

Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and biogeography
of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous