Why are we naked?

[The Peon]

I completely dismissed the aquatic ape theory until I read about how a diet rich in fish provided us with DHA and the fats we needed to support rapid brain growth. I certainly think our common ancestors went through a period where they were quite the fishermen, but as to whether or not this entailed actually going in the water to fish versus developing tools like spears to let them fish from shore is another question entirely.

 

Actual fishing sites have been found in above sea level "fossilized" coral reef in Africa. Tools, and lots of other evidence of intelligent hominid activity are found in these sites, providing evidence that at some point (homo erectus IIRC) hominids were extensive fisherman.

 

I think with the knowledge we have now of how Omega3 fatty acids improve brain function in a relatively short period of regular use shows that these types of animals played an extensive part in our brain development over the course of many generations eating these food sources.

 

If our ancestors were truely semi-aquatic or were just good fisherman is up to debate, but the diet is certainly not.

[zaphod]

sexual selection.

 

would you have sex with a hairy girl? yeah, neither would i.

[The Peon]

sexual selection.

 

would you have sex with a hairy girl? yeah' date=' neither would i.[/quote']

 

You must understand that if only hairy girls were around you would most likely find them attractive. We define what is sexually appealing in a large part due to imprints in our brain at a very young age. If you were raised around hairy women and knew nothing else, im sure you would be attracted to such. Either way, if a trend did exist towards sexual selection, it would have taken many hundreds (thousands?) of generations to breed out the hair to what it is today. And we all know that beauty trends do not last that long (besides, some men like hairy women, look at the french sorry couldnt resist). I personally would reject the nakedness of the homo race based on sexual selection, or at least beleive it would have played a very small part in homo sapiens losing the hair they had.

[redfox]

Nonono, we didn't ever 'lose' our hair (tho some mens heads prove that wrong) we were created from the beginning without long body hair cos we're not animals!

[Moonquake]

Actual fishing sites have been found in above sea level "fossilized" coral reef in Africa. Tools' date=' and lots of other evidence of intelligent hominid activity are found in these sites, providing evidence that at some point (homo erectus IIRC) hominids were extensive fisherman.

[/quote']

Yeah, look at this revelation too; http://www.eyemouth.com/ a modern fishing settlement has been found by the sea where there's evidence of tools and intelligent hominid activity. This proves that at the present, all hominids fish as their main source of food and live by the sea.

I think with the knowledge we have now of how Omega3 fatty acids improve brain function in a relatively short period of regular use shows that these types of animals played an extensive part in our brain development over the course of many generations eating these food sources.

Yeah' date=' the artificially synthesized drug modafinil is show to improve brain function. This shows that these types of drug played an extensive part in our brain development.

You must be right that our brain development so extensively relied on the consumption of fish because on average people who don't eat them have IQs of less than 10!

If our ancestors were truely semi-aquatic or were just good fisherman is up to debate, but the diet is certainly not.

Yes, we've clearly shown here that at one time our ancestors all ate fish either being fishermen or semi-aquatic and that this applied to all settlements.

[Y-S]

cause it's the beauty of nature, baby!

[The Peon]

Yeah' date=' look at this revelation too; http://www.eyemouth.com/ a modern fishing settlement has been found by the sea where there's evidence of tools and intelligent hominid activity. This proves that at the present, all hominids fish as their main source of food and live by the sea.

 

Yeah, the artificially synthesized drug modafinil is show to improve brain function. This shows that these types of drug played an extensive part in our brain development.

You must be right that our brain development so extensively relied on the consumption of fish because on average people who don't eat them have IQs of less than 10!

 

Yes, we've clearly shown here that at one time our ancestors all ate fish either being fishermen or semi-aquatic and that this applied to all settlements. [/quote']

 

Dont make me gauge out your eyes from all that rolling.

 

Secondly, out of Africa theory clearly shows that man has lived by the sea extensively for a long period of time.

 

Thirdly, I didnt state man ate all fish, I said Omega3s were an important part of early mans diet which led to an increase in brain growth.

[Prime-Evil]

Interesting thread. A lot of good suggestions that hadn't occured to me before. Here are some additional points:

 

1. We have hair. It is just very short, on most of use.

2. Is our apparent nakedness an evolution or an adaptation. That is, do we have the capacity within our genome to become hairy by adaptive selection without mutation and evolutionary selection?

 

Some more theories on the advantages:

1. For some time we have been been carrion eaters, when hungry enough.

By having less hair we are less likely to contract a disease.

2. From time to time we have been semi-aquatic, and having less fur makes it easier to be semi-aquatic under certain circumstances and non-aquatic under other circumstances.

3. For some time we have been very nomadic, able to range over incredible distances within our lifetimes and even farther within a few generations. First we evolved to be highly adaptable by being able to be more or less harry depending on the local climate. Of course this sort of adaptation takes time, but we could have evolved in such a way as to adapt within fewer generations. But by becoming naked we were able to adapt to different climates simply by using fire and wearing varying amounts of clothing. When we started using clothes, we more permamently adapted to be more versatile by having less hair regardless of geography and climate.

3. Perhaps the greatest advantage of being versatile for both hot and cold and semi-aquatic environments would be our ability to cross otherwise impenetrable geographical barriers, such as deserts, glaciers, and swamps.

4. Also, to be more versatile particularly in new surroundings and while covering vast distances, we can store a lot of fat under our skin. This has an insulating effect, which combined with our active brains and endurance means that we need to have less fur to compensate.

5. Combinations of all of the above.

 

Some other questions might be:

1. How long have we worn clothing from time to time?

2. How long have we been semi-aquatic from time to time?

3. How far did individuals and tribes range 100,000 years ago, and beyond?

4. How long have we lived in both hot and cold climates within generations?

5. How long have we had the capability of being so incredibly fat?

[jdurg]

An explanation for the hair on our bodies is actually pretty easy and has probably already been mentioned at some point in this thread. Hair in the armpits allows the sweat to condense and concentrate itself in one area. The glands in the armpits produce a lot of pheromones and the armpit hair helps those pheromones become airbone.

 

Pubic hair exists to help out with pheromone distribution, as well as to be a beacon for the opposite gender. It kind of says "Hey, put your thing-a-ma-bob in here!".

[alice]

so that we'll look hot.

[sabbath]

so that we'll look hot.

 

the hairy apes might not think so:D

[bjaminwood]

You assume that we had hair to lose. I have a theory for you. We have always had the same amount of hair. Think about it you are talking about something about which there is no proof. There is no way to prove that we once had hair all over our bodies that over millions of years (somthing else that can't be proved) we lost.

[alice]

the hairy apes might not think so:D

 

lol...but itsn't it better that we're naked? imagine...if you had as long a hair as theirs...

[sabbath]

lol...but itsn't it better that we're naked? imagine...if you had as long a hair as theirs...

 

The premise is why we lost hair and you're contention is that so we'll look hot. I don't think our genes or evolution thought along those lines.

 

Whether or not we had hair or not, reproduction would still take place. The rabbits have more hair(fur) than we do and they're doing quite well. So your point that "so we'll look hot" just doesn't quite cut it.

[alice]

The premise is why we lost hair and you're contention is that so we'll look hot. I don't think our genes or evolution thought along those lines.

 

Whether or not we had hair or not' date=' reproduction would still take place. The rabbits have more hair(fur) than we do and they're doing quite well. So your point that "so we'll look hot" just doesn't quite cut it.[/quote']

 

Right you are!

[bascule]

so that we'll look hot.

 

Sexual selection has already been offered as an (or perhaps part of a multifaced) explanation

 

You assume that we had hair to lose. I have a theory for you. We have always had the same amount of hair. Think about it you are talking about something about which there is no proof. There is no way to prove that we once had hair all over our bodies that over millions of years (somthing else that can't be proved) we lost.

 

Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate

[alice]

Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate

 

I didn't read it all through out...I'm in a hurry. But I get your point. I may be a Christian, but neither evolution nor creation apply to my point of view...at least not yet. I'm still getting to know both sides. I'll read on...and soon I'll stand either with you or against you.

[bjaminwood]

If we are supposed to have evolved from apes (a theory which I certainly do not agree with) then how do you explain that fact that the only mutations that have happened only loose vital information and DO NOT gain the information needed to go from one species to another.

[AzurePhoenix]

If we are supposed to have evolved from apes (a theory which I certainly do not agree with) then how do you explain that fact that the only mutations that have happened only loose vital information and DO NOT gain the information needed to go from one species to another.

I'd say the change in brain size and structure is a gain, ability to regulate breathing, a shift in posture, gaining the tissues that allow speech, subcutaneous fat, sweat and tears, etc etc etc. We didn't even lose hair, it just got shorter.

 

Just what exactly did we lose?

 

--- edit ---

 

I'm sorry, I assumed you must have been talking about humans specifically, but I just realized that you must have meant mutations observed in labs in general rather than the processes that happened to have definately shaped us.

[Fellbeast]

First off there are too many holes in the Evolution THEORY, seconedly mutations are either bad or are neutral, thirdly the earth is not able to be old enough to support evolution nor is the sun

[Fellbeast]

Firstly evolution is a THEORY, seconedly mutations are either bad or neutral, thiredly there is no fossil recoreds to support evolution( sea shells have been found in all rock layers, thius would not be so if evolution where true), fourthly the earth sun and such are not able to be old enough to support evolution, fifthly carbon dating is not accurate

[AzurePhoenix]

Firstly evolution is a THEORY, seconedly mutations are either bad or neutral, thiredly t, fourthly the earth sun and such are not able to be old enough to support evolution, fifthly carbon dating is not accurate

This is so insanely stupid I'm surprised I could muster up the will to respond.

 

1) a theory is NOT a hunch, guess, assumption or sketchy idea, is a well-supported and consistantly testable, confirmable model, built up from observed and tested phenomena in. Theories are made up of many definitive facts in addition to the slightly less definitive guesses, guesses that I might add are only inlcuded in the theory when there is plenty of evidence to support them.

 

2) mutations can be beneficial, they're just rarer than the other two. to say otherwise is simply a straight-out lie.

 

3)

there is no fossil recoreds to support evolution( sea shells have been found in all rock layers, thius would not be so if evolution where true)

Please explain this to me, as it doesn't make any sense whatesoever.

 

4) the earth and sun ahve a good extra billions years tacked on in addition to the span needed for evolution.

 

5) carbon is largely accurate, and rest assured inconsistencies are taken into account by scientists. Carbon dating isn't even the only method for dating, and is almost always only used when taken in concert with other dating methods to get a more accurate idea. Besides potassium argon dating more effective for more distant time periods.

 

6) any refusal to accept a logical and supported explanation simply because it doesn't conform to whatever washed-out doctrine it is that you might believe only shows how completely ignorant and frail-minded you are. It's exactly like claiming Canada doesn't exist because you once read it scrawled on the back of a cardboard box by a schizophrenic hobo.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Firstly evolution is a THEORY,

In science, theories typically have enough evidence to say "this is pretty much true, but we're not absolutely sure.

seconedly mutations are either bad or neutral,

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

thiredly there is no fossil recoreds to support evolution( sea shells have been found in all rock layers, thius would not be so if evolution where true),

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

fourthly the earth sun and such are not able to be old enough to support evolution,

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CE (look through all of the links there)

fifthly carbon dating is not accurate

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html and http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

 

Please note that the site I am linking to you provides references to studies to back it up. Feel free to look through those as well.

[Fellbeast]

Precisly Theory are not proven compleatly the supposedly have enough evidnce for "evolution" i would recomend reading the book Darwins Black box!!! if u have not read it it explains that something as "simple" as blood clotting is not explainable with evolution. Darwin took what is called an incorrect Extrapolation which is ment to only take small guesses.

 

 

 

Do you have any idea how much energy goes into keeping the sun hot? that allone should give u an idea of why the earth and sun cannt be millions of years old!!

 

 

 

 

Carbon dating is accurate up to a certain time. do you even know how carbon dating works?

 

 

 

Shells have been found in all rock layers (if evolution where true then there shouldnt be). there has never been any real physical evidence for evolution

 

 

 

 

Scientist have not been able to succesfully create the protiens needed for DNA admitadly this does not prove that evolution is not true. there are 200 proteins in the DNA they are all different

 

 

 

 

 

i belive also Evolution says that there was a big bang. how would this be so in the vacuum of space??? out side of galexies there is NOTHING so how would there even be able to be a big bang??

[Fellbeast]

Yes and i suppose you read carefully the first paragraph talking about carbon dating