Re: Guide for anti-AATers
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 07 Nov 95 23:34:56 GMT
In article <47l7h2$hcg@news.ycc.yale.edu>
bdiebold@minerva.cis.yale.edu "Benjamin H Diebold" writes:
> How do you explain the other animals that swim and dive, but that still
> have hair? There are many mammals that spend varying amounts of time in
> the water, but yet have hair. Why wouldn't the same selective advantage
> in less body hair apply to them?
We're getting away from the topic ("Do Phil's calculations kill the
AAT?") but so what.
Hair is only lost when the species can afford to lose it. In cold
climates it will almost certainly need the hair anyway, and will
just have to develop good grease glands, extra layers or whatever.
It would probably also need good fur for general protection
against thorns, in fighting, etc.
If the proto-hominids were based on the Red Sea and had chimp-
like hair, they would have lost it fast. It's long and stringy.
There's little wind there, the sea would maintain a warm
temperature at night, thorns wouldn't be a problem, and the
fighting would be done with clubs.
Paul.
|