Humanities desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 28

What evolutionary mechanism caused us to lose our fur?

What evolutionary mechanism caused us to lose our fur? The wearing of clothes would and does negate the need for full body fur, yet primitive peoples in Africa did not wear clothes over much of their bodies. Another suggestion raised when discussing this with friends was that ancient man would run-down its prey and fur got in the way of our sweating, but this argument was countered by citing wolves and painted dogs which too run down their prey for hours on end but still have fur. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a combination of trade-offs. There are some suggestions at Body_hair#Evolution_of_less_body_hair.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great link. Thank you. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several overall less-accepted theories which have received both strident support and strident opposition, most notably the Aquatic ape hypothesis... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the article, but somewhere I've seen the "pointy nose" question [on Science ref desk] as part of the hypothesis - that it made swimming easier by shielding the nose from water. Of course, both the pointy nose and relatively hairless bodies could have come before swimming, as opposed to them being an adaptation to swimming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought this was a question for the science noticeboard. And I personally think persistence hunting or getting rid of parasites are far better reasons than the aquatic ape hypothesis, which really is lacking much support overall. We wouldn't be able to get rid of heat anywhere near as well as dogs otherwise unless we developed big lolling tongues like them for panting. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentionning that humans lost fur through losing length and thickness of hairs, not number of hairs [1], and ^{[citation needed]} (I auto refnec myself, I remember being told or having read this, but cannot source it) (many young mammals are born lacking fur, it grows later) Gem fr (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while we think of fur as some sort of coat (worth getting rid of, in hot climate), it may have happened for entirely different reason. Evolution is somewhat more messy than "it brings some advantage, so it happens". Most of the time, it will more like "it brings some advantage in domain A, so it happens, but it also has side effect in domains B, C, D, some even more massive and noticeable, then the specie change ways in domain D to fit its new physiology, and we imagine things the other way round (ie, as if it adapted its physiology to its ways domain D)". Most mammals HAVE fur, even in very hot desert, even marine mammals, even moles. Doesn't seem fur is such an hindrance it will be selected against, so, the guess is, it was lost (or, rather, not grown, as young mammals often lack it at birth) as a side effect of something else. Gem fr (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's simply sexual selection since so many females strongly prefer smooth, silky skin. On the other hand Gorillas are among the closest species to humans, yet all grownup male Gorillas develop into Silverbacks in their adulthood. --Kharon (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...so many females strongly prefer smooth, silky skin." I call recentism. When I was young, admittedly a long time ago, I was at a disadvantage with the ladies because I didn't have a particularly hairy chest. Female tastes in such things change, way more frequently than would help in evolution. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Gem fr (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem_fr -- Marine mammals that spend all their time in the water (dolphins and whales and such) do not have fur, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But some, like Sea otter, polar bear, Monk seal, etc. do have fur and are classified as marine mammals Gem fr (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it perhaps be linked to wearing clothes. Wearing clothes may rub the fur off much like many dogs forced to wear doggy-jumpers? (Also hats and the increased chance of male pattern baldness?) In relation to the previous post, the Silverback trait I always tell my wife is why I am going grey. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most human evolution before a few hundred thousand years ago basically took place in Africa, and it's doubtful whether African hominids wore much clothes except sometimes for cold-weather protection (probably usually mainly loincloths and such). Also, it may not be what you actually meant, but the literal words of your comment invoke a Lamarckian inheritance mechanism... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, it is not really known (AFAIK) when/where we lost our "fur" (you need to be careful here as chimps and people have approximately the same number of follicles, but chimps have much coarser strands). Did interbreeding with Neanderthals play a part? They certainly lived in areas where clothing would be required if thick fur wasn't available. Were we naked when we left Africa? Nobody really knows, in large part because the soft tissue doesn't fossilize very well. So we're left with a lot of conjecture. Matt Deres (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite likely that loss of fur occurred before behaviorally-modern humans migrated from Africa within the last 75,000 years or so, since otherwise one would expect surviving populations of furry humans to exist. This argues against Neanderthal interbreeding as the main factor. Hominids could have used clothing long before 75,000 years ago with little surviving archaeological evidence (the same as for nets, bags used to carry gathered food, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You state except sometimes for cold-weather protection like it's no big deal, but the simple fact of being able to make clothes and change or wear them as needed is a big deal. All of a sudden a species doesn't need to produce and maintain hair all over the body, with its concomitant parasite load and insulating effect (desirable in cold environments, not so in hot ones). This is a massive shift in selection pressure; the loss of fur is easily explained by standard evolutionary theory. Parasites are bad for an organism! Pretty much every animal with fur has them, disregarding of course the efforts of modern humans to eradicate them in animals we care for. We even have a good idea of when humans lost their fur based on molecular biology studies of human lice. Before early humans lost fur, there was just one species of human louse (as for most animals with fur). After, they split into the head louse and crab louse, which infest the head and pubic hair, and the body louse, which infests clothing. Nothing personal, just elaborating on this. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galitzine Report

The Galitzine report was referred to in Alan Yentob’s BBC1 tv documentary ‘the Man Who Knew Too Much’ on Boris Pahor 106 year old survivor Natzweiler Prison camp.

Does anyone know about the report and why it was not believed? It was quoted from a number of times by Alan Yentob and appeared to have been type written by, I assume, Galitzine. I understood he had been one of the soldiers/officers who had liberated the camp.

I looked on Wikipedia and couldn’t find an entry. I wanted to request a page be made on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenstone911 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possible location for his writings is in the Rutland County Museum. Per this, he donated his papers to them after becoming an involved member of the community in later life. The only Wikipedia mention of him so far appears to be a line in the article House of Golitsyn, which mentions Prince Yuri Golitsyn and is sourced to a blogpost on the website of a small UK/Germany publishing company that focuses on the Holocaust, and that spells his name Yurka Galitzine. That blogpost says his diary is in the collection of the Imperial War Museum in London but is silent on the whereabouts of his reports. Greenstone911, if you find enough info in reliable sources, you can contribute an article yourself. See Help:Your first article to get started! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial War Museum: "a file of reports made by him as part of No.1 War Crimes Investigation Team (48pp) in particular relating to the Struthof-Natzweiler concentration camp, Alsace (1944 - 1946) with accompanying photographs (45 items)"[2] not available online.—eric 16:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some in Charlesworth, Lorie (2006). "2 SAS Regiment, War Crimes Investigations, and British Intelligence: Intelligence Officials and the Natzweiler Trial". Journal of Intelligence History. 6 (2): 13–60. Footnote gives this URL for a portion of the report. Cites Kemp, Anthony (1988). The Secret Hunters..—eric 17:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full report from the Eisenhower Library.—eric 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. There's more in Lewis, D. (2015). The Nazi hunters. (there's at least one full copy online but i'm not going to link to it). Also looking for "Four British girls burned alive – one German to die. Girl fought at oven door". Sunday Express. 2 June 1946. penned anonymously by Galitzine after the trial. Greenstone911 are we looking for "SHAEF took no action on the report" from Charlesworth, or the outcome of the trial? Not much detail in Natzweiler-Struthof for either.—eric 18:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some more about Galitzine and Natzweiler at A Life In Secrets: Vera Atkins and the Lost Agents of SOE by Sarah Helm (p. 180?). Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can borrow A life in Secrets from the Internet Archive.—eric 11:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]