Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways

The New York Times (Science Times) ^ | August 19, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

[Pharmboy]

Whether or not Australopiths had hair/fur or not is total conjecture, but it is likely they were covered more than we are.

[FeliciaCat]

Isnt there a medical condition where a person has hair EVERYWHERE, entire face, entire body and its thick, much like a animal coat...what is that called - anyone know?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Brazil wax.

[Pharmboy]

Yes--it's called hypertrichosis

Congenital hypertrichosis

Congenital hypertrichosis is present from birth and usually persists throughout life. There are several different names used by dermatologists to describe this disease. "Congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa", and "congenital hypertrichosis universalis" are the most common names and they mean exactly the same thing, all over body hair growth which is long and non-pigmented. However, there is a variation called "congenital hypertrichosis terminalis". This condition involves all over body hair growth, but the hair is fully pigmented terminal hair and the condition is almost always associated with gingival hyperplasia (teeth defects). This is not the same as congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa and there is a separate page describing this condition.

In addition to congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa where hair develops all over the body, there are other case reports of individuals with hypertrichosis lanuginosa limited only to the face with the torso, arms, and legs being mostly unaffected. Some research reports have tried to collect these case reports together and have called the condition "ambras syndrome"

Lanugo hair is the very first hair to be made by an embryo’s hair follicles when still inside the womb. This hair can grow quite long but it is usually very fine and unpigmented. This first wave of hair growth is normally shed by the embryo at around 8 months gestation and replaced by fine vellus hair and terminal scalp hair in preparation for birth. Normally a few of the long lanugo hairs might survive through birth but are shed shortly after. However, sometimes a child can be born with most or all of the lanugo hairs still growing. This gives the appearance of the child being covered in a light colored fur. This excessively long hair all over the body persists throughout life. Congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa is a very rare form of hypertrichosis affecting less than 1 in 1000 million children. It seems to have a genetic component with family histories of hypertrichosis being reported in relations of those affected. People described as "werewolves" or "wolfmen" for their excessive hair growth most likely have congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa or terminalis. There is no known treatment available other than depilation.

[FeliciaCat]

Wow! Thanks for the info.

[Sam Cree]

That aquatic ape stuff feels right to me.

Most humans are strongly, almost mystically, drawn to shorelines. I sure am, anyway. So was my mother. But it adds meaning to the aquatic theory.

[Truthsearcher]

I don't buy the lice/parasite explanation.

Because lice can easily still hide in the hair on our heads, so not having body hair but still retaining hair on our heads won't get rid of lice.

[blam]

"So the quality, not the quantity changed."

Apparently.

[fella]

Why is it that the apemen are always shown as clean shaven?

I always thought we got lost our hair because of all the diseases that are carried by all the fleas, ticks and chiggers, it's a lot easier to get rid of the bugs without hair all over us.

[Bon mots]

Hmmmmm...

[FreedomCalls]

Any evolutionary theory that posits why humans lost their fur must also specify why those same conditions did not cause the other primates to lose their fur. For instance humans moved onto the savanna and the sun and heat worked to select those with no hair; so then why did the baboons not lose theirs out there? If it's a parasite-free sexual selection process -- so then why have chimpanzees retained their hair since they are fastidious about grooming parasites out of each others fur? None of the theories in the article, save the aquatic one, account for why the other primates kept their fur.

[Sabertooth]

Hairless ape ping.

[mewzilla]

That's the dude!! Definitely a robustus, though.

[Maria S]

"We didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor."

And what would be the name of that 'common ancestor'?

[mewzilla]

You had to ask, I'm so out of date :) But here's a good link with good info. Enjoy!

[Centurion2000]

A better suggestion is that loss of body hair helped our distant ancestors keep cool when they first ventured beyond the forest's shade and across the hot African savannah.

Then explain hair on Cape Buffalo, kudu, wildabeasts, zebras and lions ...... sounds like faith science.

[Centurion2000]

You know, the one with more hair than Bigfoot.

Janet Reno ?

[Vinnie]

Humans lost their body hair, they say, to free themselves of external parasites that infest fur — blood-sucking lice, fleas and ticks and the diseases they spread.

And kept the pubic hair because we enjoy scratching our ba___? Give me a break.

This stuff is so, so ridiculous.

[Maria S]

So our 'common ancestor' is "hominid Kenyanthropus platyops" dating back to the middle Pliocene, 3.5 million years ago. Naaah, I don't buy it. I'm going with the other version. The one that starts out, "In the beginning..."

However, thanks for the interesting website!

[Physicist]

If we "evolved" from apes, why are there still apes?

Even creationists are embarrassed by such statements. Look at the ninth item in: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.