Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? (page 5)

Ruby456

shadow

Fur is beneficial for survival. Evolution stripped humans of this advantage?

good question - as humans we like to tell just so stories, if we didn't how would we find any kind of meaning in our lives.

science provides explanations and not just so stories. If an article focuses on beneficial and advantageous selections then it is likely to be a just so story - good for the soul but not robust as an explanation. In this case we would need to look for words and sentences like probably, it could have happened like this etc. no mention is made of non adaptive processes that confer no advantages

for example

stochastic processes

mutations or slightly deleterious mutations

population drift

these often work in tandem with natural selection but are often ignored probably because they do not have adaptive storytelling power. I would at least ask peeps to lay off promoting such stories as FACTS writ large

edit: please note that I used soul metaphorically - any spelling mistakes are not intentionally made so as to. mislead. hope that covers everything that might upset peoples bullshit meters.

cofty

jocobm - You have misunderstood survival of the fittest.

The snake who reproduces is by definition the fittest.

Ruby - As usual you have thrown a meaningless word-salad at a science topic.

Ruby456

cofty - please learn something new

testing explanations for their robustness means more in science than saying this is FACT - else most of science will be word salad to you

cofty

Ruby - The paper is full of many facts.

The text of the paper describes the significance of the facts. The authors provide their results of a carefully constructed model.

They compare their conclusions with other possible explanations regarding the relationship between loss of fur and bipedal posture.

The paper was peer-reviewed by the National Academies of Science. They are not in the habit of publishing fact-free "just-so stories".

If you can see a flaw in the paper write to the NAS.

Ruby456

great artcile here shadow

please share your conclusions

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21439/epdf

the above seems accessible feely

tornapart

The answers may explain why humans lost their fur in hot places like Africa but doesn't explain why they didn't grow it back again once they reached the Arctic. Most mammals have either thick fur of lots of blubber. Humans have neither. Without clothes they'd die of hypothermia.

And Ruby has a point.. that article of Cofty's is full of.. 'our model' 'we suggest' 'maybe' 'we postulate' 'a good case can be made' 'our revised model' 'we believe' 'we assume' .... they are not actually saying that these are all facts, they are 'assuming', 'predicting', conducting an experiment.

Sounds a bit like WTs 'evidently'.

cofty

The answers may explain why humans lost their fur in hot places like Africa but doesn't explain why they didn't grow it back again once they reached the Arctic

Humans learned to make clothes by then so there was zero selective advantage in being hairy.

Most mammals have either thick fur of lots of blubber.

Animals don't make clothes

Without clothes they'd die of hypothermia

Yes. That's why we make clothes.

that article of Cofty's is full of.. 'our model' 'we suggest' 'maybe' 'we postulate' 'a good case can be made' 'our revised model' 'we believe' 'we assume' .... they are not actually saying that these are all facts, they are 'assuming', 'predicting', conducting an experiment.

It's not my article. The authors present lots of hard verifiable facts. Like all good scientists they are modest about the interpretation. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the watchtower.