At the outset, let me unequivocally state that I am no fan of creationism or other religious crap myth creation accounts.

But neither am I entirely satisfied with evolution as solely operating through random variation and natural selection, and here's why.

Something that's always troubled me about evolution is, how come we humans don't see in the infrared (IR) frequency range? I mean, all it requires is a slight molecular modification of rhodopsin, and it would confer a big survival advantage on humans possessing the new IR-sensitive rhodopsin since they would be able to see other living things in the dark and at night. So why haven't we evolved to see in the IR spectrum, in addition to the normal visible spectrum?

maybe rhodopsin can't easily be made IR sensitive? I don't know.

The greater survival advantage would be to nocturnal hunters and prey. Still, I know of no animal having IR vision. IR, having longer wavelengths (especially at body temperatures) than visible light, has lower resolution, leading to blurrier images, than with visible light. IR imaging is made possible with electron amplifiers. Perhaps a biological equivalent is not feasible when limited to purely chemical means.

A good answear could also be, that we never needed that much vision to keep up with our environmental needs. We were too busy developing bigger brains to smart out the night hunters. Now we manufacture night-seeing eyes for our use which far surpass anything nature could ever think of develping here on earth.

maybe we could genetically engineer IR-sensitive humans. I'm guessing there's something about rhodopsin not being IR-sensitive; as Rick noted, there seem to be no animals with IR vision. There's the night-vision of cats, but that requires some light source and is not IR. There's echolocation of dolphins and bats, but that not anything like vision.

Here's another question about evolution: why haven't animals (humans, in particular) evolved photosynthesis? Humans generate melanin in the skin to block sunlight to prevent damage from UV light. It would be very easy, I would think, to genetically engineer skin cells that generated chlorophyl to make sugar from CO2 and sunlight. The green people could go for days without eating in the summertime.

It may be that the evoloutionary scale is already tipped heavily in favour of the human race. Why stop at the IR, as there are many other levels of reality that occur beyond the current capabillities of the human sensorial aperati?

Having these abilities may give humans too much power, power that we as a human race are presently not prepared for and to deal with.

If you had IR vision, how could you block out the IR signals in order to go to sleep?

Having IR cision would be of benefit in seeing warm blooded threats.
But what walking into trees or falling over cliffs in the dark? Neither normal or IR vision works in worst case scenarios!

It's all about niches that were/are/might be available to evolve in. Fungi also do not have chlorophyll, having saprophytic, parasitic or symbiotic lifestyles. The diversity of types of organisms is fed on by evolution to meet the requirements of newly emerging niches, habitats, food sources, etc. Too much overlap is bad as it reduces independent diversity, although an organism that overlaps might appear periodically but would then be fed on to provide a fitter type for a given purpose. And, importantly, the most efficient lifestyle is sought and, and excess baggage is (sometime gradually, sometimes rapidly) offloaded.

Another point, possibly related to the above, is that haemoglobin and chlorophyll are quite similar, the former utilising iron, the latter magnesium. Photosynthesis (using chlorophyll) generates oxygen as a by-product; respiration using haemoglobin or some related carrier utilises oxygen that eventually acts as an electron acceptor in cell metabolism. Of course, nature is much more complicated than this. There are anaerobes, that don't photosynthesize or utilise oxygen. And plant cells also respire, using oxygen in the process (but they have a net loss, otherwise we die). And more...... all working together, as does a well designed Simcity! If only!

This is a simplistic answer, but I think the reason we don't have infrared vision is because up to this point, our survival (as a species) hasn't required it. Suppose that at some point along the way, we'd been the prey of a group of creatures with extraordinary night vision. Maybe then, any mutation toward IR vision would have become relevant, as only those individuals so endowed would have survived and procreated. Evolution favors survival only. Extra bells and whistles are lost unless they become necessary for survival.

So, besides wisdom teeth, what other parts of the present human body are doomed to fall down by the wayside? I understand there's a foot bone that appears only in some of us, which used to be more prominent back in Neardanthal times...

Ladies and under 18's do not read the following. Just in case you do, I apologize in advance.



If you had a foot, you'd probably need a bone in it!

besides wisdom teeth, our appendix and our small toes, and I imagine body hair since this is more often an annoyance than anything else.

I'm not making this up. A friend of mine was a star quaterback in high school but didn't have too many scholarships offered because he had this extra foot bone. This was several years ago. So, I don't remember the details.

My small toes ain't going nowhere. I figure I bridge them together somehow and make for added propulsion in the water. And right now I'm working hard at the gym on doubling my pecs in size in hopes of picking up some high speed momentary levitation off my bike, or the back of my truck.

Instead of exercises that focus on single muscles, try some more general exercises for groups of muscles. For levitation, do bar dips (on parallel bars) and pullups (on a high bar). A person in good general condition should be able to do 15 bar dips and 10 pullups (all the way up and all the way down slowly).

....I truely appreciate and thourogly enjoy all of those bells and whistels of reality!

Exactly how does one trip like you? Real-ly.

This reminds me of something I've wondered about, since like, forever. Thank God I've found a forum in which somebody surely has the answer...

Why did we evolve to lose nearly all the hair on our human bodies, only to choose to cover them up with clothes?

The very fact that we wear clothes, that we MUST wear clothes is something that most people never stop to ponder. To my knowledge, there are no other species that have this hangup characteristic.

Why do we wear them? Yes, it makes sense that we need extra covering for protection and extremes in weather, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that nearly every single one of us virtually always wears clothing--even when indoors or in temperate climates. In fact, I'd almost say that wearing clothes is one of the things that makes us human--right up there with language and...the other things.

It almost seems that the basic point of clothing (beyond utilitarian) is to cover up our bodies from view of others. Whenever we do take our clothes off, we simply cannot let anyone else see us--not even for a second. Why is that? Being seen totally naked is almost a fate worse than death. I remember having a discussion with coworkers concerning how much money it would take for any of us to walk through the office and then across a busy street--totally in the buff. The amount varied by person, of course. (Some of the men claimed they'd do it for $10. Maybe I would have done it for $10,000...but when it came right down to it, I don't know.) My point is, almost universally, total nudity is totally taboo. WHY??? How did that all start? And why must the genitals in particular remain covered? Our fanatic requirement to cover our private parts is absurd! Nobody knows what anyone else even looks like naked, not even closest friends or family members.

Of course, there are a few very important exceptions to the clothing-at-all-times rule. I wonder if sex and procreation somehow benefits, ironically, by the fact that we otherwise keep certain things under wraps.

Answers?

I would begin by thinking about 'rhizomes'....

about clothing, I don't know about all of you but I certainly wouldn't want a naked guy who just got off the can to sit anywhere near me, much less on my sofa or other furniture.

I think the clothing issue comes down to maintaining our privacy and offers some protection against the elements. For instance, I find it hard to walk around indoors without a shirt on for long periods because I'm sensitive to air currents on my skin.

I think that fellow Adam really screwed us all up when he started listening to Eve; causing us all to lose our innocense. If it wasn't for him we would be spending a lot less money on materialistic things and maybe investing it better feeding the hungry or some worthy cause like that.

There are several theories of human body hair loss that I know of. One is that we lost our hair to make it easier to control fleas. Another is that humans spent some time in our evolutionary history in a semi-aquatic state, and hair loss made it easier to move in the water. Another theory is that we evolved sweat cooling to allow extended periods of high exertion, and nakedness promotes evaporation. None of these theories is fully convincing, so the definitive answer is not yet available. For a treatment of this and other topics of human evolution see (the somewhat old now) book The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris.

For a fictional treatment of a subculture of casual nudity, read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein.

The state of personal sensitivity to nudity is cultural and occasional. The first time a person appears in a swim suit in the warm season may seem a little awkward, but by August (in the northern hemisphere) he or she may be walking into beach stores with just a swim suit on. I have been to nude beaches and with groups of friends to nude swims at mountain streams with little or no embarrassment. It just depends on which subculture(s) one is participating in.

I wonder why hair has only remained in certain (strategic?) areas? And what are the evolutionary advantages of hair remaining in those transhuman regions?

Deleuze' & Guattari's concept of the rhizome....from wikpedia

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari used the term "rhizome" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In A Thousand Plateaus, they opposed it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which worked with dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horizontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. Their use of the "orchid and the wasp" was taken from the biological concept of mutualism, in which two different species interact together to form a multiplicity (i.e. a unity that is multiple in itself). Horizontal gene transfer may even be observed, challenging the traditional evolutionist theory.

Carl Jung's metaphor of the rhizome

Carl Jung used the term "rhizome", also calling it a "myzel", to emphasize the invisible and underground nature of life:

Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away—an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains. (Prologue from "Memories, Dreams, Reflections")

Hair under the arms and in the groin serves to lubricate those regions, where there is close moving contact between skin and skin, amongst other things. In an upright creature the head and shoulders takes the brunt of the sun, hence long hair over the shoulders and back and bearded face (in males; OK why not in females?). (Now fashion often requires the removal). Eyebrows divert rain away from the eyes, eyelashes similarly and additionally help to filter the air and bright light when we squint. Nose hair filters the air. I can't think of the reason for that single hair on my wife big toe but it always raises a laugh when she plucks it and then goes hopping around until the pain subsides. And why doesn't the exterior of the nose have hair? It is very susceptible to rodent ulcers and other skin cancers.

Okay Trip, I've been thinking about rhizomes all day. Now what?

Then I wonder why we don't have hair between our fingers and toes.


This makes sense, though I wonder why hair doesn't grow on top of our shoulder skin for protection against the sun. And yeah, how come women don't have hair on their faces?


Makes sense.


She's lucky there's only one. Good point about the exterior nose. It seems to sunburn the worst.


It almost seems that some of this hair growth is random, arbitrary and pointless. I guess it doesn't all have to "make sense," but it would be nice if it did.

Rick, that's great, and why am I not surprised that you occasionally frolic in the nude with friends. I myself participated at a topless beach one time--for about five minutes. There are probably a quite a number of people who spend a lot of time in the nude. But that doesn't answer my basic question. What's the point of modesty and why is it so fervently ingrained into most cultures? Why would anyone even come up with the idea that displaying certain body parts in public is an extreme no-no? Even if someone decided this would make sense (and apparently, someone did), or even if the whole thing evolved slowly, how did the concept catch fire--to the point that it's so ingrained into our humanity that "everyone" does it and nobody knows (or asks) why?

like I said above, would you want a naked guy to sit anywhere near you after he got off the can?

The thing about clothes is it's not just about privacy. When you're alone at home, see how long you can go flaunting your nakedness as you about your other tasks, and if you're like me, you'll feel physically uncomfortable without clothes on because they offer protection and comfort against the elements and environment.

And also, there's a saying that guy's think about sex every so often (I forget the figure), but can you imagine how much more annoying it would be if you're a guy to see naked (hopefully beautiful) women around you all the time. You think those sexual thoughts are annoying now when you're trying to get work done, just imagine how annoying they'd be if you had a bunch of naked scrumptious ladies around you.

And what about the butt-ugly people? Do you really want to see them naked or would that offend other people. Other people have a right not to be exposed to other people's ugliness, don't they? And if we pass a law requiring that butt-ugly people must be fully clothed at all times in public to avoid offending other people's taste, then who decides who's butt-ugly and who isn't?

It's the loose skin that needs the lubrication. Both males and females have very loose skin under their arms and in the groin. The fingers have taught skin between them. I also did some quick experiments with my fingers (don't dare comment yet!). Most finger movements tend to involve space between them and, of course, they are short distances. Another point, is that older people have saggier (?) skin and the problems are exacerbated.

Yep, and I was taken aback by Rick's revelation about skinny dipping, although I have to admit that my wife and I used to do this regularly in a nearby lake. When leptospirosis signs were put up we gave it up, but we'd probably been exposed anyway. (Leptospirosis, an infectious disease that affects humans and animals, is considered the most common zoonosis in the world. Leptospirosis often is referred to as swineherd's disease, swamp fever, or mud fever. The organism enters the body when mucous membranes or abraded skin comes in contact with contaminated environmental sources. The infection causes a systemic illness that often leads to renal and hepatic dysfunction. Source:http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic856.htm)

How's the progress on the CSF leak? What part of the cranium was it leaking into, and how did they find it, Hey Hey?

Leak was stopped..... eventually. I had a tumour (schwannoma) on my spinal cord at C4/5 region. It had been diagnosed as arthritis for about 3 years and when discovered was quite large, causing terrific neck and arm pain and constant headaches. Last year I went back to have some faulty metalwork removed. The surgeon couldn't remove a screw as it was too embedded in dura and nerve fibres. When I woke up CSF was pouring out. I had a lumber puncture and drain with horizontal bed rest for three days to release pressure but that didn't stop it, so they tried sewing up the wound. That really spoiled my neat scar! Still leaked so went back into theatre. Came out stitched up right and proper, and with another lumber drain. No leak though. But then caught an infection (meningitis; I had been in hospital with encephalitis earlier in the year!). Then had a fall and bashed up my nose. This kept me in for 3 weeks. Anyway, leak has stopped, but these last two operations have left me with a greater sensory and motor deficit in my left arm. The original operation went wrong and metalwork came to bits - I think that an infection I had after the op (yes, that's another) weakened the bone in the area. That blasted screw (mentioned above) embedded itself at the site of the excised tumour and caused deficits in my right leg! Amongst all this I had another operation to put further metalwork in to stop my head falling off! That was a really neat operation at the front of my neck - an almost invisible scar, up and eating 2 hours after the op, no infection (!) and home within 2 days. Now I have quite good pain management, headaches are infrequent and just small tremours. But I do miss that strength in my left arm and I do fall over now and again!

Quite a saga eh? But compared to the old guy in the bed next to me last year I've come out OK. He had a tumour behind his eye. His eye was removed along with a huge amount of skull. It became infected and they couldn't get a dressing on properly as it would stick to the wound. He also had a lot more work to come.

With this personal experience I realised how hit and miss some surgery is and how exposed to infection one is when in hospital. I nearly died on two occasions last year due to infections. It takes one aback when most people I meet say "You are looking very well." I suppose I am, relatively speaking!

There's a sexist aspect to "modesty" too. Take for example the bhurka that women are forced to wear in some Islamic nations.

Many neolithic cultures do not have the nudity taboo. For example, the yanomami people of the Amazon.

The fact that the dominant civilizations of the world originated in the cooler temperate regions, not the tropics, has a lot to do with it. What is customary becomes conventional becomes the law.

OK....repeat, and keep repeating until you do not feel the need to ask such questions!

Yes, it's one big custom that came about for a lot of reasons, many of them good reasons. Maybe we keep ourselves covered for customary, sanitary, utilitarian and even aesthetic purposes. That's one thing, but how did it get to become considered the ultimate taboo to the point of being morally wrong to EVER allow any kind of exposure? Who decided nakedness was wrong and why? I'm not even clear on how or why any of the world's religions got on board with this. Nobody reveals their bodies--ever. We go to extreme measures to keep covered at all costs, and it's a HUGE deal if anyone "breaks the rules." Remember the reaction to Janet Jackson's clothing malfunction at last year's Superbowl? People talked about it for months. I mean, we all learn to cover our mouths when we yawn--that's a custom that came about for a completely superstitious reason. Yet, we still do it, and it's considered impolite to yawn without covering up. HOWEVER, if some barbarian didn't cover up his yawning mouth one time, we wouldn't go into a conniption over it. I'm just saying--this is one of those things that we do that I find strange.

There are days when I'd welcome a burqa.

Neural--point taken about the man and the can, but it probably wouldn't be a big deal if nudity was considered normal. I do think the main reason you and I feel much more comfortable clothed is because that's what we're used to. I guess I could understand men wanting to keep their "thoughts" to themselves, and how can they if everyone is exposed? But maybe if nudity was all just an ordinary occurrence, those thoughts wouldn't be so out of control, eh?

Hey Hey, you've been through a lot! Hope things are coming together for you.

Maybe you could start a fashion trend. The way the world is going, you may not have to. Fundamental religions tend to promote the uptight prudishness you find puzzling. The free thinking people tend to be more liberal where clothing optionality is concerned.

It's frightening, isn't it? I really don't understand why a group would ELECT a person or party that restricts freedoms. This is what religion does to people.

You know, it was all in fun...but I'll stop.

A lot has to do with the high degree of malice and the criminal mind in this country. In Northern Europe it's costumary for kids to bathe nude in public pools up to age thirteen. By the same token, a rape makes national headlines due to its unusualness.

ok back to the whole hair thing... The whole explination offered for underarm hair and pubic hair being used as a sort of lubricating barrier is a possability; however, I have a new twist to add (at least I hope it is a new twist... I just roughly read through the other posts). People develop pubic hair when they are capable of reproduction. I think pubic hairs main intention is to trap in smells for mating purposes. If it was simply for lubrication I don't think it would be something you develop over a decade into life. I still don't know why men have to develop facial hair though...

Many women (men too) shave their body hair. Who's up for sniffing shaved armpits and groins to see if they still smell? No deodorants allowed though. I predict that they do. That's why I'm not volunteering!

ps See if you prefer mating with a natural or shaved individual after a day or two of no deodorant. I reckon you'd have no preference.
pps After a short survey of some risque websites, I have noticed that most individuals are shaved. Does this tell us anything?

It tells us that evolution sucks But the lubrication idea is rediculous... I mean if I let my hairy ass go it turns into steal wool...

Human Hair is for warmth.

How the hell did you guys not get that? I mean thats the basics of the basics.



Pubic hair is a special case, it serves a dual purpose,

a. warmth, the genitals are one of the biggest places you loose heat as well as your armpits.
b. reproduction, they provide a cushion during intercourse, think of it like a pillow.



Because photosynthesis generates far less energy than food consumption, we would be unable to function as we do now if we relied on photosynthesis. Further more, there is a reason why trees stay where they are, also

a. You need to be in direct sunlight for as much as possible, being in the shade for a day could kill you.
b. The cell structure of leaves is not compatiable with our cells. Animal Cells are diffrent from plant cells, evolving for photosynthesis would require rediculous genetic changes.
c. Humans were not meant to be in the sunlight for such long periods of time, the release of melatonin (tanning) is a sign of unhealthy skin, developing photosynthesis would mean skin cancer for everyone.

But the major reason Rick is that Animal cells are completely diffrent from Plant cells.

Okay on to a little bit of sociology/psychology with the whole clothing thing.

Alright predominatly, if you wear more clothing or are in a warmer climate, you have less body hair... granted genetics come into play as well but it isnt set in stone. Clothing is to do with sexuality, if you cover something up, make it restricted or scarce... it becomes something of greater value. This theory was tested by examining diffrent psychological fetishes and their origin, part of it was derived from association and part of it was the restriction. You could cover up an elbow and be completly naked but the elbow would be capable of bringing sexual excitement because it is a restriction of freedom, even if you can see everything else, the elusive elbow if forbidden from your eyes.

Now granted, you may think that this is not so but, breasts are covered up and their purpose is for feeding babies - not sexual excitement. It is the restriction, the covering of it up and the way society tells us we should view such things that makes clothing something that is required. The fetishes are the main piece of evidence for this claim, there are men who go wild when they see female feet but feel nothing seeing breasts. The same strategy can be applied to any part of the body, it is purely psychological folks.

The other part of the clothing equation is sociology, early man would wear animal skins to show his strength, the saber tooth tiger were hunted to extinction because primitive man wanted their skins to prove their strength. Basically clothing started as a symbol of power, then as time went on we got a more complex clothing system, the basic driving principal behind it is symbolism. You see a lady with a fine fur coat - or a man in a Armani Suit, what do you think? Money, Power, Fame? Its all the same BS since it first started when primitive man wanted the skin from the strongest animal.

However, that said, clothing has now become required in some climates because we have evolved with clothing, our genetics now assume that we will wear clothing. So our body expects to be provided with external devices for warmth in colder climates, so it has evolved into a need. On that note, most people are capable of enduring a lot colder climate than they give themselves credit for, rigorous mental and physical training can be needed to achive it though. If we look at feral children, we find that they can endure the same climates dogs and wolves can, without any additional hair, this is the body learning to generate heat at a more efficent rate and the mind learning to endure the cold.

Did everyone go stupid when we started talking evolution? I think some people need to brush up on biology, this like grade 9 science guys.

lol I got the whole hair for warmth thing I though it was just assumed... However, if the purpose of hair on the underarms and genitals was for warmth, why would the feet not be hairy, and also the ears? It seems like these areas are equaly suseptible to heat loss. And I still don't see why I have to have such a hairy ass...

Just because they seem more susteptable doesnt mean they are, it has to do with the bodies way of distibuting heat. Feet obtain extremly thick skin in place of hair to endure the ground beneath them and the cold.