NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home / News / Science / Behavior/Humans

Behavior/Humans


Why Are Humans Furless?

Maternal selection ...

By Stefan Anitei, Science Editor

14th of March 2007, 08:44 GMT

Adjust text size:


Desmond Morris, the famous zoologist and ethologist, called the human species "the naked ape" and said that nudity is the main trait that differentiates the
human species from all other primates.

There are many hypotheses trying to explain the lack of body hair in humans, including the aquatic theories.

Now Medical Hypotheses has announced the winner of the 2006 David Horrobin Prize for medical theory as being Judith Rich-Harris, author of the article "Parental selection: a third selection process in the evolution of human hairlessness and skin color".

The £1,000 annual award, launched in 2004, honors Dr. David Horrobin, the renowned researcher and founder of Medical Hypotheses, who died in 2003.

Harris launches a new hypothesis that describes Stone Age communities in which the mother of a newborn is faced with a shortage of food which limits her chances of feeding her baby. The newborn's look probably influenced the mother in keeping or abandoning it. A baby that looked healthy and attractive was more likely to be kept and raised.

She thinks that this kind of parental selection could have been a main evolutionary drive.

If Paleolithic (Ancient Stone Age) people found the hairless babies more attractive than hairy ones, this could have led to the current morphology of our species: a furless ape.

Harris believes that Neanderthals must have been furry, a crucial trait to survive the Ice Age, as their technology was less developed than that of Homo sapiens.

Our own species, Homo species, would have regarded them as "animals" and potential prey, thus this hypothesis also sustains that Neanderthals would have gone extinct as they were hunted and eaten by modern humans.

"This paper is an excellent example of the kind of bold thinking and theorizing which David Horrobin intended to encourage when he began Medical Hypotheses. I hope that Judith Rich Harris' idea provokes debate and further investigation of this topic", said Professor Jonathan Rees of Edinburgh University, Scotland, co-discoverer of the "red hair gene" and this year's prize judge.

TAGS:

human | hair | Neanderthal | fur
Read by 2,938 user(s) | Add comment | Link to this article TWEET THIS


Article rating:
Good (3.0/5) 6 vote(s)    

Subscribe to news | Print article | Send to friend

© Copyright 2001-2009 Softpedia
Contact:

 

 

SEARCH THE NEWS ARCHIVE :




Today's News
| Yesterday's News | News Archive


MORE RELATED ARTICLES:


Our Neurons Communicate Better Than Animal Neurons

Humans Became Humans Just 4 Millions Years Ago

DNA Analysis Shows a Higher Neuronal Connection Capacity in Humans Than in Chimpanzees

New Lights on Our Idea About the Neanderthal:

Genes Function Differently in Human and Chimp Brain

Cape Zone Was a Savanna During the Lifetime of the Early Humans

Why Are Our Eyes So Large and Conspicuous?

The Largest Clitoris in the World

User opinions:


Comment #1 by: xxParagonxx on 07 Jul 2007, 00:18 GMT reply to this comment

I believe humans are hairless due to environmental stresses (e.g. changes in climate). With the end of the ice ages and the emergence of the Holocene epoch, temperatures began to rise; therefore, having less hair coupled with the ability to sweat enabled humans to survive in warm climates. Additionally, tailoring technology reduced the need to have excess body hair. Now humans are one of the most versatile creatures on the planet since they are able to inhabit all climatic conditions by simply altering wardrobe and manipulating landscapes for shelter.

Morris's hypothesis is far-fetched because humans invest more time than any other species in birth. Moreover, to think that primitive mothers would readily discard their young for aesthetic reasons is improbable because life expectancy was much shorter at the time; thus, humans needed to reproduce as much as possible to perpetuate population growth. Not to mention, parental selection would decrease a mother's reproductive fitness.


Comment #2 by: Bob on 04 Nov 2009, 00:36 GMT reply to this comment

I have read about the aquatic-ape hypothesis and the heat-dissipation hypothesis among others, but they all fail to specify what selective pressure can account for the fur disappearing.Even the hairless infant hypothesis that posits mothers preferred less hairy babies fails to explain why they should do so.

I believe that hairlessness in humans accompanied a greater dependence on child rearing than upon inherited instincts. When raising a child to maturity required the participation of two parents, there was selective pressure to create a nuclear family through bonding. Body heat possibly is a means to promote bonding. In effect the family that stays together is the one that shares body heat through close physical contact at night (c.f. the documentary film "Nanook of the North"). If fur interferes with the transfer of body heat, there would be selective pressure to loose the fur.

Share your opinion:

Your Name:
Your Email Address:
(will not be used for commercial purposes)
Solve this to prove you're not a bot: =
Your review/opinion:

 




Windows tabGames tabDrivers tabMac tabLinux tabScripts tabMobile tabHandheld tabGadgets tabNews tab

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   ENTER NEWS SITE   |   ENGLISH BOARD   |   ROMANIAN FORUM