Why We Are Here: Continuous Facial and Cranial Hair Growth

[Commander Quan]

Don't forget that up until 10,000 years ago when agriculture was invented people lived in small familial clusters. 20-30 people was probably the norm, so there were not a lot of suitable mates to choose from. While I am sure there was some mixing between tribes, it was still slim pickings.

[Taylor of Bank Street]

Another small contribution:

The introduction of sexual selection as a relevant factor was introduced at the outset of the discussion (post #4) by one Commander Quan. I ran with the ball a bit more and included a journal article which discusses this topic as it relates to 'long growing' human hair.

We've collectively spun off into a number of sub-topics including stature and male vs female mate selection. On this latter point, I don't think there is necessarily one answer. There's an inter-play, in my view, between environmental factors, culture and genetics. All this to say, in some areas at some points in time, females may have had more power of mate choice, while in other places and times it was the male's. What seems more important is what was the general rule for most of man's history? From what I've read, the cards were more in favour of the males as choosers of mates, but not necessarily by force. I'll have to find that article I had originally went looking for.

[Commander Quan]

When we look at traits that we have no control over; eye color, body structure, continuously growing hair and fingernails, you have to go back and look at our genes. Genes are the blueprint from which we are all built, but genes are not static, they are basically On/Off switches that react to internal factors, mostly hormones. Hormones can be controlled by external factors, mostly diet, activity level, although there are others. Through time we've evolved into modern humans and these On/Off Switches are set pretty much evenly for everyone because 60,000 generations of humans have pretty much all experienced the same thing, this does not include the most resent 300 or so generations which would have been when the agricultural revolution started.

To see that hormones are responsible we only have to look at the people with abnormal hormone issues and see what happens to them People who because of a thyroid issues never stop growing, or the female competition gymnast who doesn't go into puberty until late into her teens, or someone with Alopecia who never grows hair. Genes are the road map that hormones have to take, every once in a while they veer off onto a side road, but for most of humanity they stick to the same path.

[Taylor of Bank Street]

CQ,
If you're saying that genes can literally be switched off and on by the effect of hormones, I'm not with you on that point. If you're saying that there's a difference between who we are genetically (genotype) and the subset of those genes which were expressed (phenotype) I'm with you. I would also agree that changes in hormone levels whether by internal or external mechanisms can produce some pretty startling results but that these results are constrained within whatever genetic blueprint a person has. Did that make sense?

[Commander Quan]

On or Off was maybe not the best wording, they're more like the traffic cop that tells our body to go left right to straight ahead in how it reacts to those hormones.

[Taylor of Bank Street]

Gotcha, I agree.

On a side note I may need to check out the/(your?) Paleo group. I'm not a purist but my default seems to be semi-Paleo anyways. Skinless chicken, raw veggies and sorry...a Guinness coming up shortly.

[thatsilverguy]

Buying a round of Guinness? I'm with you! And that will put hair on your chest, if not your face.

[Neognosis]

I recommend the book "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson.

Check it out, ya'all.

[Taylor of Bank Street]

I recommend the book "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson.

+1

It's the only book of his I've read, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. He has a skill for translating the complex into something which is both understandable and entertaining.

[beginish]

CQ,
If you're saying that genes can literally be switched off and on by the effect of hormones, I'm not with you on that point. If you're saying that there's a difference between who we are genetically (genotype) and the subset of those genes which were expressed (phenotype) I'm with you. I would also agree that changes in hormone levels whether by internal or external mechanisms can produce some pretty startling results but that these results are constrained within whatever genetic blueprint a person has. Did that make sense?

On or Off was maybe not the best wording, they're more like the traffic cop that tells our body to go left right to straight ahead in how it reacts to those hormones.

As an aside for gene geeks like me, yes, hormones can cause genes to be directly switched on or off. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[scottish steve]

Interesting discussion. It's refreshing to see many members routing about and being challenged by this quite fundamental question in an intelligent and good-natured fashion.
I have nothing scientific to add, but find myself wondering while reading this thread
"If I had the chance to permanently stop hair growth, remaining BBS and never needing a haircut ever for the rest of my life, would I go for it?"
Would be a heck of an excuse for a PIF

[Neognosis]

"If I had the chance to permanently stop hair growth, remaining BBS and never needing a haircut ever for the rest of my life, would I go for it?

Of course not.

Studies show that women are more sexually attracted to occasional stubble.

[rockviper]

Of course not.
Studies show that women are more sexually attracted to occasional stubble.

Then they should occasionally look at my ears (or up my nose) .... hee hee

[Seraphim]

Interesting, but an answer looking for a question. Body hair does indeed hold pheromones, and pheromones still influence mate-selection
http://cogprints.org/2164/3/NEL220501R01_.pdf
http://projects.ecfs.org/pchurch/AT%...references.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...f/15156922.pdf

The louse-model is painfully lacking in correlation, as is the presence/absence of hair idea. Denuding is a social variable, in no way shown to be universally normative, whereas male and female hair growth is generally consistent (greater or lesser among broad genetic groups, but universally < in males, > in females). The ready adaptation of lice does correlate well with clothing shared, and passed from decedant to family, and rarely washed, which is typical of both underdeveloped subsistence agrarian-based life, and dense urban populations and scavenging.

The logical fallacy, in the evolutionary model, is that one would expect to find humans less enthusiastic about odor retardants, washed clothing and hair reduction, particularly in increasingly urbanized environments where industrial odors are pervasive and overpowering. I.e., trying to make facts fit the theory.

I found that article to be pretty weak. Almost completely speculative, with a dash of scientific, yet possibly not even relevant studies thrown in there to bedazzle the casual observer.

Check out this bit of wild assumption:

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

Hmm, yes...and that would also help explain why all those lions on the hot African savannah also are hairless....

OK, maybe lions are the exception! Let's examine the bald zebra! What? They are also covered in fur?

The hairless hyena? Wildebeast? Oh snap!

OK, even if just about every other creature out there is a hairy beast, mankind evolved, left that bothersome fur behind, yet still managed to retain his crazy ass long hair and beard! YES! This theory is a slam dunk, bring on the grant money, baby!

Let's examine another gem from the article to further our peer review process:

One theory holds that the hominid line went through a semi-aquatic phase -- witness the slight webbing on our hands.

Yes! Genius! Why simply shed your fur to beat the heat, let's go for a swim, not only that- let's become semi-aquatic! Move over ducks, you show offs with your fully webbed feet, see here? Yeah right there if you look real close is some connective skin that allows me to spread my fingers wide apart, and if you look real close you might say it was webbing. OK, closer to cobwebbing...but who's counting?

Anyhow, what really allowed prehistoric semiaquatic man (hereafter named "fishface") to thrive in the various waterways of the world was that he evolutionarily shed himself of most of his body hair, yet retained a big ole clump of hair on his head and face that could grow to crazy lengths. Some researchers have theorized (well, me actually, but this speculation is so fun, anyone can try it), some have theorized that ole fishface would stalk his dinner by floating prone in the water, arms outstretched, and with that crazy mass of beard/hair all swirled around, he appeared to be simply a downed tree branch floating down the stream...until he POUNCED! The last thing that prehistoric fish thought: "hey, what the #*@! I'm being attacked by a friggen floating tree branch!"

The favorite prey was the coelacanth, which was so tasty that prehistoric man fished it to the point of extinction. At that point, with no more coelacanth to hunt, mankind decided to move back to dry land, because those mini web fingers were actually pretty useless at doing much more than the "dead branch float". In a stunning turn of events, after the discovery in 1974 that in fact the coelacanth was not actually extinct, some members of the human race have put forth a motion to once again return to the seas! Webbed fingers notwithstanding. They figure that after a few years of bobbing around at sea, and raising a family on the bounding main, evolution will kick back in, and semiaquatic man will be back in business! Some have even pointed to Michael Phelps as the first step in the re-evolution process, that guy is a freak of nature!

Yes, mankind has evolved quite a bit since then, but it is still part of our genetic makeup. Even today, when you go on vacation, or take a dip in the pool out back, there is nothing quite so relaxing as kicking back on a raft and floating along, now is there? That is simply because some of those same genes that were present in prehistoric semi-aquatic man are hardwired into your DNA! Sure most folks in that position are simply stalking a piña colada and a suntan, but the hard facts presented here provide a clearer picture of why you experience such deep tranquility when floating along.


Yes, these guys have pretty much closed the debate on how things came to be.

[Seraphim]

And further theories have been postulated by Dr. Max Von Seraphim. His theory is that we didn't begin loosing hair as part of the evolutionary process but rather that we began BBS from head to toe upon crawling forth from the primordial soup, and only recently began acquiring hairiness. Let's let Dr. Seraphim elucidate:

Und Ya, zo der I vas reading der NY Times, und I read dis crazy article saying dat zum dumbkoff zinks he can date vhen mankind began da vearing of da clothes by seeing vhen der leetle pesky lice arrived.

Und dennit struck me like unto a bolt from out of der blue! If he can get published vith such vild contrivances, I'll really give him zumting to put in his pipe und to smoke it.

It iz all qvite zimple. You see, actully, mankind began as a hairless whimPering monkeyboy. But I have correlated der development of der rrrrrrrrazor as zee definitive moment at vitch der beard must have first appeared on mankind's face! If der had been beards before dat time, der vould have had to have been der rrrrrazor. Zo, dis iz vy: der females vould have in no way Charlie have mated vith von of dem hairy bastards mit such ein long beard. I mean, really. To kiss zome hairy guy vit a crazy long beard iz like trying to give ein mouth to mouth resuscitation to the back end of a sheep! No, dem ancient broads high some high standards.

Zo, dat iz my concluuuuuzive evidence for der fact that beards have only been around as long as rrrrrrrazors.

Und now it iz time fur mine schnapps und a leetle nap, I tink...

Thank you, Dr Seraphim. I see that your ideas are totally unsubstantiated, but you are a scientist, so the ideas must be true!

[thatsilverguy]

It's true. None of us were there so it's all speculative.

It seems that the more outrageous the theory or myth the more popular, or at least more-marketed, it is.

[Seraphim]

From the Feather Razor corp website http://www.feather.co.jp/jTipsFAQ.htm#6

6. Time zone and season beard grow the most?

I grow most of the day in the morning, from 6:00 am until about ten o'clock.Most growth is bad during the day, as opposed to have a little stretch in the evening also. Growth is gradually getting worse and become midnight. In terms of every season, beard growth is most commonly in the fall. Started to fall to a peak in September, at least February. From the spring growth will be greater also. This cause is still not well understood.

Graph of the day	Graph of the season

[scottish steve]

I agree with Seraphim.

What has Science ever done for us, eh?"
"Well, The Roads"
"Well of course The Roads! It goes without saying, dunnit? Obviously the bloody Roads. But apart from THAT, what has Science ever done for us?"
"Er, there's Medicine?"
"Alright, yes Brother I'll give you that. Medicine. But apart from The Roads and Medicine, what has Science ever done for us? Reg?
"...."
feel free to continue in a John Cleese voice.

[Seraphim]

I agree with Seraphim.

What has Science ever done for us, eh?"
"Well, The Roads"
"Well of course The Roads! It goes without saying, dunnit? Obviously the bloody Roads. But apart from THAT, what has Science ever done for us?"
"Er, there's Medicine?"
"Alright, yes Brother I'll give you that. Medicine. But apart from The Roads and Medicine, what has Science ever done for us? Reg?
"...."
feel free to continue in a John Cleese voice.

I have no problem with science. I build lasers for a living.

But fantastical stories masquerading as science?

[Legion]

I have no problem with science. I build lasers for a living.

But fantastical stories masquerading as science?

You build lasers??

Cool... See, I have this frickin shark, and...