Does anybody happen to know?

Um, I happen to have hair all over my body. I thought most of us did. Look really close in the mirror and I bet you can see the tiny hairs on your nose, too.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

The Garden of Eden was quite warm and tropical. So it wasn't needed.

Yea, I have hair, but it seems like fur would be more protective.

I can't really think of any advantage. Maybe Adam and Eve had really nice fur like leopards. That would be paradise.

The Answer: It'd take too much shampoo

In all seriousness, the way I understand it, we actually are one of the hairest creatures on the planet (meaning: more folicals). We only don't appear so much so because most of our body hair is light and/or thin.

__________________
"... the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent examinations of them." - Dostoevsky

I read a good reason in an obscure book once. It claimed we lived for thousands of years by the side of warm inland seas and many of our characteristics developed at this time. We actually swam under water and caught fish in this manner. Thats why we have slightly webbed hands and feet and our noses are designed so water does not enter them when diving. If we had fur it would have caused a drag when swimming. We only needed hair on our heads to protect us from the sun and as man was the hunter he needed his face covered because he was exposed for longer periods than women. Women needed to express their feelings to the children and hair would have hinder this contact. Interesting but it might just be twaddle.

I want a tail, I think that'd be cool. I can picture myself holding a cup of coffee with it, pressing the elevator button when my hands are full, etc.

__________________
"... the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent examinations of them." - Dostoevsky

Why humans do not have as much hair as we once had is probably the same reason most of us still have canines, and a vermiform appendix. Those are what are called vestigial traits, that is, they are traits (or really structures) that have lost effectiveness/usefulness/what-have-you and are phased out through the evolutionary process. Why humans do not have as much hair as they once did is the same as asking why manatees have fingernails on their fins, or why whales have a pelvic bone (which essentially means that whales at one time had legs). Humans just do not need that much hair anymore. But that does not mean we do not need hair at all, since we still have hair on certain parts of our body which require protection in one way or another. But even in that regard, we are still losing one trait here and gaining another trait there.

Interesting factoid is that although we may be going “buck-nekid” in the grander scheme of things, the evolutionary process is forming a sixth finger as a matter of the practical evolutionary process. God knows if that is going to be a practical addition though, because sometimes the evolutionary process gives us things that we could really be equipped better with. For example, we have photoreceptors that go into the eye rather than out of the eye as in the case of mollusks, giving us some minor limitations and, overall, a hampered structure. Why there should be a evolutionary preference to a design which creates a blind spot and obstructs light is a very interesting question though.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs
"With prudence the philosopher approves or blames. If errors triumph, he departs and waits"- Pythagoras (F.13 GVP 174)

Humans have a huge blind spot compared to a duck, which can see almost all the way around. But I don't guess ducks have depth perception.

Maybe technology interferes with natural selection. Maybe our genes to make fur are turned off, and they never turned back on because we started wearing animal furs.

We influence natural selection through our social sanctions.

I would also love to have a tail. I can see a billion dollar industry there: tail care.

Humans and ducks are both vertebrates, so they both have the same type of ocular structure. Both have the same structure, that light is captured by photoreceptors, etc. etc. etc. But perhaps a difference that you point out is due to the shape of the lens on a duck and the position of the eye, as well the placement of extrinsic muscles on the orbit of the eye itself. Wow, this is bringing back a whole lot of nightmares from freshman biology. LOL! But as far as I remember, the problem with depth perception, whether it be a duck or a human, stem from issues with focusing of the image on the retina. But those may just be abnormalities though. I do know that fish have a different type of focusing system though (operate more like the manual focus of a camera).

That technology interferes with natural selection, you may be right. We may have very well done away with hair because humans (as ingenious as they are) we have invented various sorts of clothing to protect ourselves in lieu of hair. As far as genetics is concerned, it may be possible. The transcription factor can be turned off in repressor mode I suppose essentially turning of a gene. I wish I knew more about the subject because it is very fascinating.

That we influence natural selection through our social sanctions, I am somewhat hesitant to buy into that though. Primarily, social sanctions imply something drastically different than the context of the discussion… an abstract concept in a natural science. However, I suppose you could look at that through a certain bias and play with the concept though. Look at Darwin’s finches. Darwin found that a primary ancestral finch on the Galapagos Islands nestled into distinct habitats and evolved into various and specialized groups, like ground finches, warbler finches, etc. If you take social sanctions to be the normative characteristic of a certain group, say the group that evolved larger and pointed beaks to devour smaller and harder seed (in this case the ground finches), sure, it could work. They would have to adapt the same habits as their peers, and their progeny as well.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs
"With prudence the philosopher approves or blames. If errors triumph, he departs and waits"- Pythagoras (F.13 GVP 174)