Coat vs. Clothes?

[Enmos]

Can't it be tolerance dependant. One can become habitual to different environments after some time. Hybernating.

You can get habituated to an extent but not all the way.
In winter lots of vagabonds (i don't know the proper word) die because of the cold. They wear clothes and still die.

 

[Kumar]

You can get habituated to an extent but not all the way.
In winter lots of vagabonds (i don't know the proper word) die because of the cold. They wear clothes and still die.

Is it due to losing coat by us? Do other species with normal coat also die in such winter?

 

[Enmos]

Is it due to losing coat by us? Do other species with normal coat also die in such winter?

Yes it due to losing our coat but also because of moving to colder areas. We presumably largely lost our coat before moving to Europe from Africa. Making clothing essential for survival.

Animals adapted to European weather for example have coats and they do not die in winter, their coats are sufficient. Only the sick and the weak die.
Further north, animals have thicker and thicker coats to cope with the cold. Its all pretty obvious if you ask me..

 

[Kumar]

Enomus,
Thanks. Anyway, We have to check that whether we lost coat previous to moving from a hotter region to colder region or after that? We may not be having thicker coat, when living in hotter region so needed clothes at the cost of possible thicker coat in future by adaption? Right?

 

[Enmos]

Enomus,
Thanks. Anyway, We have to check that whether we lost coat previous to moving from a hotter region to colder region or after that? We may not be having thicker coat, when living in hotter region so needed clothes at the cost of possible thicker coat in future by adaption? Right?

We would have to check indeed. But given that ancient tribes (those closest related to the first true humans) in Africa have no coats, suggests Homo sapiens has always been 'coatless'. The coat must have been lost somewhere in their ancestry.

We may not be having thicker coat, when living in hotter region so needed clothes at the cost of possible thicker coat in future by adaption? Right?
I am not sure i understand this question properly, would you mind rephrasing it ?

 

[Kumar]

We would have to check indeed. But given that ancient tribes (those closest related to the first true humans) in Africa have no coats, suggests Homo sapiens has always been 'coatless'. The coat must have been lost somewhere in their ancestry.

There can be a relavence of hotter climate and losing the coat, whereas colder just opposite unless clothes are used. Probably, losing coat may be a genetic mutation or quite old during evolutin.

We may not be having thicker coat, when living in hotter region so needed clothes at the cost of possible thicker coat in future by adaption? Right?[/I]
I am not sure i understand this question properly, would you mind rephrasing it ?

Sorry, I meant that we, probably lost our thicker coat due to living in hotter climate previously and when shifted to colder climatic area, we could get it but since we opted clothes wearings, we might had lost our coat due to such clothing.

Anyway, what can be the factors which can cause losing or getting of coat?

 

[Enmos]

There can be a relavence of hotter climate and losing the coat, whereas colder just opposite unless clothes are used. Probably, losing coat may be a genetic mutation or quite old during evolutin.



Sorry, I meant that we, probably lost our thicker coat due to living in hotter climate previously and when shifted to colder climatic area, we could get it but since we opted clothes wearings, we might had lost our coat due to such clothing.

Anyway, what can be the factors which can cause losing or getting of coat?

Ok yeah, that could have happened as well.
Although evolution probably didn't grow back coats at that fast a rate, causing people to invent clothing.

Factors for losing coat-density would be high temperatures or high activity. Either one would overheat a person with a dense coat.
Maybe we lost most of our coat when we started hunting, to keep cool we lost body hair. That way we could hunt for longer periods at the time.
Factors for gaining coat-density would be cold. Hypothermia doesn't really work in anyone's advantage

 

[Kumar]

Yes. As you said about high activity, do humans perform higher activities than other species. More relavent thoughts can be about thick or thin, black or white skin.

Such aspects can be relavant to lazy and active people.

 

[Enmos]

Yes. As you said about high activity, do humans perform higher activities than other species. More relavent thoughts can be about thick or thin, black or white skin.

Such aspects can be relavant to lazy and active people.

You aren't secretly a racist are you ? :bugeye:
Skin tone is determined by the amount and type of the pigment melanin in the skin. In general, people with ancestors from sunny regions have darker skin than people with ancestors from regions with less sunlight.
Dark skin protects against those skin cancers that are caused by mutations in skin cells induced by ultraviolet light.
Light-skinned persons have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer under equal sun conditions. Furthermore, dark skin prevents UV-A radiation from destroying the essential B vitamin folate. Folate is needed for the synthesis of DNA in dividing cells and too low levels of folate in pregnant women are associated with birth defects. While dark skin protects vitamin B, it can lead to a vitamin D deficiency. The advantage of light skin is that it does not block sunlight as effectively, leading to increased production of vitamin D3, necessary for calcium absorption and bone growth.

 

[Kumar]

No I am not racist or biased. I just want to understand.

In such view, whether having thicker coat prevent people from getting skin cancer?

Dark/light skin, it is clear. What about thick or thin skin? Is it necessary that dark skin is thick whereas light skin is thin? Water animals may be differenciating in thin or thick skin, neither in coat nor in colour in this consideration.

 

[Enmos]

No I am not racist or biased. I just want to understand.

Ok, just checking

In such view, whether having thicker coat prevent people from getting skin cancer?

It would but since we already established then bare skin was a huge evolutionary advantage, darker skin developed.

Dark/light skin, it is clear. What about thick or thin skin? Is it necessary that dark skin is thick whereas light skin is thin?

The skin of black people has more variation in color from one part of the body to another than does the skin of other racial groups, particularly the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. Part of this is the result of the variations in the thickness of the skin or different parts of the body. The thicker the skin, the more layers of cell with melanin in them, and the darker the color. In addition, these parts of the body do not have melanin-producing cells.

Water animals may be differenciating in thin or thick skin, neither in coat nor in colour in this consideration.

UV-light is probably filtered out considerably by the water, making large quantities melanin superfluous. Also, marine mammals have 'thick skin' because of the blubber they store just beneath it. Other aquatic animals such as fish have scales in stead of skin.

 

[Kumar]

Thanks. Who get more diseases, black and thich skined or light and thin skined?

Is it so that, if we would had thick coat, diseases could be less?

 

[Enmos]

Thanks. Who get more diseases, black and thich skined or light and thin skined?

Is it so that, if we would had thick coat, diseases could be less?

I have no idea to be honest. Coats can get filthy. I'd say coats are less hygienic then bare skin, thats why furred animals usually take very good care of their fur. But bare skin increases the risk of cuts and scratches which can enable germs to get in easier. And also increases the risk of colds.
Clothes are really surrogate coats anyway.

 

[Kumar]

Ok thanks. You told me a lot. Lastly, natural is natural, has its own good and bad points.