Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

[excreationist]

....But you are talking about a simulation of the real world.

I think it is loosely based on the "real" world. It probably has similar physics.

What's the point not making an accurate simulation, and only make one good enough to fool humans?

For entertainment and personal growth... plus you could have billions of them.... (because they're not very resource intensive)

That's the plot of Matrix.

In the Matrix there mainly seems to be a single simulation (at a time). I'm talking about billions. And if you died in the game you don't need to die in real life.

While a cool twist, it's a stupid plot device. It's in nobody's interest to do this. Nobody would make such a simulator. While fun to speculate on, it's been done already. It's the film Matrix. So we can stop discussing it and go and re-watch the movie instead

The Matrix only simulated around the turn of the millenium. The simulation I'm talking about could be at any point in history - or invented histories like The Elder Scrolls, or Star Wars... or Rick and Morty (with a faithful cartoon style)
Also if you're talking about a perfect simulation - well people could just watch old documentaries...

 

[DrZoidberg]

For entertainment and personal growth... plus you could have billions of them.... (because they're not very resource intensive)

Sure, but what's the point? Unless we're aware of this, then there's no meaning to it.

That's the plot of Matrix.

In the Matrix there mainly seems to be a single simulation (at a time). I'm talking about billions. And if you died in the game you don't need to die in real life.

I'd hate to be nit-picky, but if your simulation is accurate, then there's no difference between dying the real world or dying in the simulation. It will feel the same.

 

[excreationist]

For entertainment and personal growth... plus you could have billions of them.... (because they're not very resource intensive)

Sure, but what's the point? Unless we're aware of this, then there's no meaning to it.

When Morty plays the Roy game and in Alan Watts' dream example, the player chooses to play the game but then temporarily loses access to their original memories. Like I said the point for the players could be for entertainment and personal growth (though they could be like the player watching over The Sims) There could be NPCs that are just along for the ride. I'm not like some people that believe in some ideas to try and maximize meaning...

In the Matrix there mainly seems to be a single simulation (at a time). I'm talking about billions. And if you died in the game you don't need to die in real life.

I'd hate to be nit-picky, but if your simulation is accurate, then there's no difference between dying the real world or dying in the simulation. It will feel the same.

In a simulation dying could result in you waking up to your true identity (see Morty plays the Roy game and in Alan Watts' dream example) - but dying in base reality would involve no afterlife. And as far as I can remember there's no afterlife in the Matrix movies.

BTW in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA5PlJiqOnk
there is a simulation where a person plays the role of God. He loses memory of his original identity and the purpose is to test his character to see if he'd abuse his power given infinite power.

 

[excreationist]

Just to reply to this again....

.....Remember that for most of human evolution humans had curly hair. Yes, the afro. It's main function seems to be to protect the head from the sun when we started walking upright. But since humans lived in wide open plains they should have been hair all over any surface exposed to the sun all day. So it's not a rock solid theory.

Straight hair is a pretty recent human evolution. And that seems to be purely sexually selected for. Since it's in no way more practical. Remember that combs is something that only came later in human evolution.

This is an example of an afro that has been growing for 8 years:

Mother never cut her son’s hair and this is what the 8-year-old boy looks like now - Times Of Media

This 8-year-old boy gained an army of fans due to his mind-blowing hair. This unique and adorable 8-year-old boy already gained a whole army of fans due to his distinguished and admirable hairstyle. He was born in Britain and, being only two years, he already possessed gorgeous and desirable...

www.timesofmedia.com

If afro's are so useful why is it that tribal Africans seem to get along fine with very short hair? Even in the hot sun? In fact I'd say they function a lot better without an afro that had been growing for a few decades.... and have head hair similar to an ape-man.

I mean where is the selection pressure to make early man grow huge afro's even though they'd usually just shave them off? Some people say it involved sexual selection but if that is the case why do they usually keep their hair very short?

Then there is the problem of cutting the hair. I think that would usually involve sharp rocks. It could take a while for humans to figure out how to cut hair...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just to reply to this again....

.....Remember that for most of human evolution humans had curly hair. Yes, the afro. It's main function seems to be to protect the head from the sun when we started walking upright. But since humans lived in wide open plains they should have been hair all over any surface exposed to the sun all day. So it's not a rock solid theory.

Straight hair is a pretty recent human evolution. And that seems to be purely sexually selected for. Since it's in no way more practical. Remember that combs is something that only came later in human evolution.

This is an example of an afro that has been growing for 8 years:

Mother never cut her son’s hair and this is what the 8-year-old boy looks like now - Times Of Media

This 8-year-old boy gained an army of fans due to his mind-blowing hair. This unique and adorable 8-year-old boy already gained a whole army of fans due to his distinguished and admirable hairstyle. He was born in Britain and, being only two years, he already possessed gorgeous and desirable...

www.timesofmedia.com

If afro's are so useful why is it that tribal Africans seem to get along fine with very short hair? Even in the hot sun? In fact I'd say they function a lot better without an afro that had been growing for a few decades.... and have head hair similar to an ape-man.

I mean where is the selection pressure to make early man grow huge afro's even though they'd usually just shave them off? Some people say it involved sexual selection but if that is the case why do they usually keep their hair very short?

Then there is the problem of cutting the hair. I think that would usually involve sharp rocks. It could take a while for humans to figure out how to cut hair...

It's not like Africans are some sort of pristine human and only whites continued to evolve. The last 70 000 years varying hair growth has been selected for differently in different places. Yes, even in Africa. At some point early humans started braiding their hair and doing creative fun things with it, or cut it. Making it practical for hair to keep growing at a quicker pace without endagering the lives of those with that hair growth. As any African can tell you, if you have a big afro, you need a comb. If you don't have a comb you'll get one big massive and gross dreadlock. So modern African hair has clearly evolved in concert with modern tool use for grooming.

But the afro did evolve out of the hair chimpanzees have on their heads, and it did start to happen when chimpanzees left the trees (or rather, the trees left them) and they became an open plains species, rather than a tree dwelling species.

 

[excreationist]

It's not like Africans are some sort of pristine human and only whites continued to evolve. The last 70 000 years varying hair growth has been selected for differently in different places. Yes, even in Africa. At some point early humans started braiding their hair and doing creative fun things with it, or cut it. Making it practical for hair to keep growing at a quicker pace without endagering the lives of those with that hair growth. As any African can tell you, if you have a big afro, you need a comb. If you don't have a comb you'll get one big massive and gross dreadlock. So modern African hair has clearly evolved in concert with modern tool use for grooming.

But the afro did evolve out of the hair chimpanzees have on their heads, and it did start to happen when chimpanzees left the trees (or rather, the trees left them) and they became an open plains species, rather than a tree dwelling species.

I wonder what the significant advantages of an afro are then? Why did it become widespread (or universal?) amongst Africans? I've heard people say that it protects against the hot sun but the Bushmen seem to be fine with hardly any hair...

Afros requiring combs seems to me that afros are just a problem making things worse. Braiding seems like also a solution to the problem of afros rather than really being an overall benefit.... braiding can be done with thin hair - why did thick afros emerge? (perhaps thick afros came before thin hair?) And the thing about braiding is that I imagine it would be hard to undo.

 

[bilby]

The answer to ‘why did trait X evolve?’ is always ‘because it isn’t particularly harmful to the reproductive probability of those individuals that exhibit it’.

The answer to the follow-up question ‘why not?’ is almost invariably ‘nobody knows, and likely nobody ever will. It all happened too long ago’.

Speculation of the kind seen in this thread is pointless. Perhaps it was just a random thing that happened not to matter much. Perhaps early hominids found it sexually irresistible to look at. Perhaps it had some direct environmental benefits. Perhaps a combination of any or all of the above, and almost certainly several other factors we can’t even begin to guess at.

Popular understanding of evolution is like popular understanding of quantum physics - almost entirely wrong and stupid ideas, that people who have only a passing acquaintance with the theory, think sound compellingly truthy.

 

[bilby]

If we could accurately model all the known forces of nature on Earth, we would be able to predict weather months ahead.

No, we wouldn’t. Weather is a chaotic system, so even the tiniest measurement error renders the output of such models wildly inaccurate on timescales greater than about four days.

The act of measuring (or attempting to measure) the starting conditions to sufficient accuracy would itself screw up such a forecast. Large, highly complex, interdependent systems are not as predictable as Newton would have had us believe. And that would be true even in the absence of quantum and relativistic effects of which he was obviously unaware.

 

[excreationist]

The answer to ‘why did trait X evolve?’ is always ‘because it isn’t particularly harmful to the reproductive probability of those individuals that exhibit it’.

So maybe it is like male baldness?

The answer to the follow-up question ‘why not?’ is almost invariably ‘nobody knows, and likely nobody ever will. It all happened too long ago’.

Speculation of the kind seen in this thread is pointless. Perhaps it was just a random thing that happened not to matter much. Perhaps early hominids found it sexually irresistible to look at.

Though the early hominid pictures I see usually have head hair like apes rather than a huge afro like that 8 year old boy...

Perhaps it had some direct environmental benefits. Perhaps a combination of any or all of the above, and almost certainly several other factors we can’t even begin to guess at.

So you're saying it could have advantages.... which is what I'm wondering about....

Popular understanding of evolution is like popular understanding of quantum physics - almost entirely wrong and stupid ideas, that people who have only a passing acquaintance with the theory, think sound compellingly truthy.

Well I'm trying to get some level of understanding....

 

[bilby]

The answer to ‘why did trait X evolve?’ is always ‘because it isn’t particularly harmful to the reproductive probability of those individuals that exhibit it’.

So maybe it is like male baldness?

The answer to the follow-up question ‘why not?’ is almost invariably ‘nobody knows, and likely nobody ever will. It all happened too long ago’.

Speculation of the kind seen in this thread is pointless. Perhaps it was just a random thing that happened not to matter much. Perhaps early hominids found it sexually irresistible to look at.

Though the early hominid pictures I see usually have head hair like apes rather than a huge afro like that 8 year old boy...

Perhaps it had some direct environmental benefits. Perhaps a combination of any or all of the above, and almost certainly several other factors we can’t even begin to guess at.

So you're saying it could have advantages.... which is what I'm wondering about....

Popular understanding of evolution is like popular understanding of quantum physics - almost entirely wrong and stupid ideas, that people who have only a passing acquaintance with the theory, think sound compellingly truthy.

Well I'm trying to get some level of understanding....

In the hugely unlikely event that there’s a single major “reason”, or even a small number of “reasons” that together constituted an adequate explanation of the trait, it would be hugely unlikely that you (or anyone) would be able to guess what it is (or they are); And should you somehow be so incredibly fortunate as to hit upon the right answer(s), you would have no way of knowing that you had, or which one(s) of your many guesses were those right ones.

So what’s the point?

 

[excreationist]

In the hugely unlikely event that there’s a single major “reason”, or even a small number of “reasons” that together constituted an adequate explanation of the trait, it would be hugely unlikely that you (or anyone) would be able to guess what it is (or they are); And should you somehow be so incredibly fortunate as to hit upon the right answer(s), you would have no way of knowing that you had, or which one(s) of your many guesses were those right ones.

So what’s the point?

In some documentaries and articles I get the impression that there are likely explanations for things to do with evolution. I thought it would make a lot more sense for head hair to only grow to a few inches like in some pictures of homonids rather than there be very thick afros capable of growing to a foot long or several feet long.... Then there is the concept of beards which can also grow a few feet long.... which homonid illustrations usually don't have....
On the other hand I don't think theism has a good answer either - I guess Adam and Eve would also eventually have very long hair and a long beard for Adam unless they found some implement to cut them....

 

[excreationist]

Some thoughts - the potential to have long hair and a long beard could exist so it is easy to distinguish between a homeless man and a well groomed man.... the well groomed man would be a better provider.... or something like that....

 

[DrZoidberg]

If we could accurately model all the known forces of nature on Earth, we would be able to predict weather months ahead.

No, we wouldn’t. Weather is a chaotic system, so even the tiniest measurement error renders the output of such models wildly inaccurate on timescales greater than about four days.

The act of measuring (or attempting to measure) the starting conditions to sufficient accuracy would itself screw up such a forecast. Large, highly complex, interdependent systems are not as predictable as Newton would have had us believe. And that would be true even in the absence of quantum and relativistic effects of which he was obviously unaware.

If we make an error, then we're not modelling it accurately, are we?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not like Africans are some sort of pristine human and only whites continued to evolve. The last 70 000 years varying hair growth has been selected for differently in different places. Yes, even in Africa. At some point early humans started braiding their hair and doing creative fun things with it, or cut it. Making it practical for hair to keep growing at a quicker pace without endagering the lives of those with that hair growth. As any African can tell you, if you have a big afro, you need a comb. If you don't have a comb you'll get one big massive and gross dreadlock. So modern African hair has clearly evolved in concert with modern tool use for grooming.

But the afro did evolve out of the hair chimpanzees have on their heads, and it did start to happen when chimpanzees left the trees (or rather, the trees left them) and they became an open plains species, rather than a tree dwelling species.

I wonder what the significant advantages of an afro are then? Why did it become widespread (or universal?) amongst Africans? I've heard people say that it protects against the hot sun but the Bushmen seem to be fine with hardly any hair...

Afros requiring combs seems to me that afros are just a problem making things worse. Braiding seems like also a solution to the problem of afros rather than really being an overall benefit.... braiding can be done with thin hair - why did thick afros emerge? (perhaps thick afros came before thin hair?) And the thing about braiding is that I imagine it would be hard to undo.

It could be our peacock feathers. Thick, shiny hair in humans is correlated with general health. When we get sick or old our hair starts thinning. So we will sexually select partners with thicker hair, ie which grows faster and more aggressively. If it helps us get laid, it doesn't matter how impractical it is, (see giraffes, elk horns or peacocks).

There's a hole in this argument. Because descendents of Vikings have blond, thin garbage hair. But we also seem to find blonds sexy. So perhaps that was also sexually selected for, but as a different marker?

Red hair is correlated with a greater tolerance for pain. So that could be selected for that reason

 

[pood]

Some thoughts - the potential to have long hair and a long beard could exist so it is easy to distinguish between a homeless man and a well groomed man.... the well groomed man would be a better provider.... or something like that....

You kinda lost me there. Two hundred thousand years ago there will well-groomed businessmen and homeless people eating out of garbage cans and therefore the former had an advantage in finding mates?

As to this hair thing, do you believe that all phenotypic traits are adaptations? How about if we got our hair by pure chance alone, with no selection or adaptation involved?

 

[bilby]

Some thoughts - the potential to have long hair and a long beard could exist so it is easy to distinguish between a homeless man and a well groomed man.... the well groomed man would be a better provider.... or something like that....

Sure. Because evolution is really clever, and predicted homelessness as an important survival factor, hundreds of thousands of years before the first artificial shelter was built.

This entire thread is like watching a bunch of school kids discussing the operation and maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider.

Having heard of evolution doesn’t make you qualified to discuss it. It’s not simple. And it’s assuredly not a collection of absurdly ignorant “just so” stories.

 

[bilby]

If we could accurately model all the known forces of nature on Earth, we would be able to predict weather months ahead.

No, we wouldn’t. Weather is a chaotic system, so even the tiniest measurement error renders the output of such models wildly inaccurate on timescales greater than about four days.

The act of measuring (or attempting to measure) the starting conditions to sufficient accuracy would itself screw up such a forecast. Large, highly complex, interdependent systems are not as predictable as Newton would have had us believe. And that would be true even in the absence of quantum and relativistic effects of which he was obviously unaware.

If we make an error, then we're not modelling it accurately, are we?

If you ever measure anything accurately, let Heisenberg know; He will be very happy to know that he was wrong all along.

Your prerequisite “If we could accurately model all the known forces of nature on Earth” is no less absurd than “if we had a perpetual motion machine” would be.

If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had any ham.

 

[excreationist]

Some thoughts - the potential to have long hair and a long beard could exist so it is easy to distinguish between a homeless man and a well groomed man.... the well groomed man would be a better provider.... or something like that....

Sure. Because evolution is really clever, and predicted homelessness as an important survival factor, hundreds of thousands of years before the first artificial shelter was built.

What about something like native Americans who pluck their facial hair and comb their hair vs a man with messy long hair and a long beard? I'm saying the well groomed man is more attractive. I think this theory for hair/beards is better than any other I've come across.

 

[excreationist]

Some thoughts - the potential to have long hair and a long beard could exist so it is easy to distinguish between a homeless man and a well groomed man.... the well groomed man would be a better provider.... or something like that....

You kinda lost me there. Two hundred thousand years ago there will well-groomed businessmen and homeless people eating out of garbage cans and therefore the former had an advantage in finding mates?

See my previous post with the photos.... it also applies to non-modern people.... also are young saying some people had afros 200,000 years ago?

As to this hair thing, do you believe that all phenotypic traits are adaptations? How about if we got our hair by pure chance alone, with no selection or adaptation involved?

In the case of afros I think they'd only get passed on if people found them acceptable even though they are very problematic.

 

[pood]

View attachment D15EAC38-8E41-49E1-836D-59A5E8CB1724.webp

Avove, from Smithsonian Magazine, “a facial reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis, a popular candidate as a common ancestor for modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans.”

Look how well-groomed he is! A real lady-killer, I’d wager, unlike some scraggly homeless dude on skid row.

I ask again: what makes you think our hair, or lack thereof; our beards, or lack thereof; are adaptations? Why can’t they just be accidents?

What people find attractive in hair, or hair styling, is subjective; and almost certainly entirely cultural. A young dude with long hair in 1960 in America would have drawn the side eye, and women his age would likely have deemed him a poof and steered clear of him. The same dude with the same hair in 1970 would have drawn armloads of coeds to his side. What happened between 1960 and 1970? It sure wasn’t evolution — it was the Beatles! And the counterculture in general; but that’s the key word, culture, not biology.