Re: Why is Homo sapiens hairless?
Bullwinkle (bvwinkle@xmission.com)
31 Oct 1996 03:36:33 GMT
In article <01bbc5b9$29d272a0$LocalHost@dan-pc>,
rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk says...
>
>> The !Kung San of the Kalahari are even more hairless than you, yet have
>> never been partial to wearing clothes. Your logic apparently applies only
>
>> in a Lamarkian world.
>>
>> Rajindra Maraj
>> b068755c@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
>
>How insulting! Modern humans have colonised almost every habitat on the
>earth, but all have remained (largely) hairless. What makes you think that
>the !Kung San are representative of early moderns? Because this is what you
>imply.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roh
Easy Roh. I believe the point being made here is that you have the situation
a bit backwards. Evolutionary change is completely random and has little
bearing on things such as clothing. It would be more logical to assume humans
lost their hair through random genetic mutation, and as a result of that hair
loss THEN began to wear clothing to keep warm.
The Larmarkian model (which has been largely rejected) assumes an organism
makes genetic adjustments from the enivornment. For example an animal senses
the climate is getting cooler and this leads to genetic change. What is
missing here is the hammer that drives the evolutionary nail. In other words
what would it be about cooler/warmer/more clothes/ less clothes that would
drive genetic change? There isn't one.
Clear?
Bryan
|