Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:46 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, xongsmith (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,034 Year: 12,070/19,786 Month: 1,851/2,641 Week: 360/708 Day: 54/81 Hour: 3/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Is body hair a functionless vestige?
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 80 of 143 (611470)
04-08-2011 3:40 AM


This yEC creationist has a more likely answer to why humans have hair.
of coarse it all starts from biblical boundaries of men after the flood needing to deal with a new kind of world.
Our bodies are entirely covered with hair save our palms etc.
yet this hair is not to keep us warm. We are not in need like animals.
rather the hair is simply a reaction to keep us dry.
yet its not actually needed. So our having hair is a wrong over sensitive reaction of the inate powerful abilities of bodies to adapt to the local areas we migrated to.
The good evidence hair is just a reaction for dryness is where it comes upon puberty.
Its then that under the arms etc where the most sweating takes places that hair grows in a useless attempt to keep the area dry.
The excess hair is from excess sweating that the body remebers genetically.
Again its worthless but indicates hair is just a reaction to keep one dry.
In the animal kingdom hair is also to keep one dry and often creatures only have more hair in order to have special protection. like beacers or musk ox. The hair itself doesn't keep them warm but instead yiny air sections created by the hair are what keep them warm.
With some creatures great amounts of hair do just keep them warm.
Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 04-08-2011 3:50 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2011 7:44 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 92 by Ken Fabos, posted 04-09-2011 6:47 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 83 of 143 (611593)
04-08-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by NoNukes
04-08-2011 7:44 AM


NoNukes writes:

Robert Byers writes:

So our having hair is a wrong over sensitive reaction of the inate powerful abilities of bodies to adapt to the local areas we migrated to.

Why do whales have hair? Surely it is not to keep them warm or dry.

Its then that under the arms etc where the most sweating takes places that hair grows in a useless attempt to keep the area dry.

Given your explanation, it is difficult to imagine why humans have hair at all. According to you human hair does not work to keep us warm or dry, is apparently completely useless and presumably always has been.

Why do men grow hair on their faces some time after puberty? In fact, hair seems to grow faster on the head and face than under the arms. Why is that?

As i said the body is over sensitive or powerful and so over reacts to triggers.
hair is useless under the arms etc but is useful on the head.
In fact i would say its logical that women have greater hair on the head relative to their body size because they need to keep the head dryer because of lesser body heat. Wet hair threatens them more then big guys. Now perhaps again its useless but it might be usefull.
anyways its just a more likely interpretation to see hair as a attempt of the body to keep it dry. In nature getting wet is quite dangerous as anyone who deals with cold cAnadian lakes will tell you.
Therefore our bodies simply grow trivial hair because of a past of being a little more wet. Special areas on our body just make this equation more obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2011 7:44 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-08-2011 10:47 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 04-08-2011 11:00 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2011 8:10 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2011 10:01 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 86 of 143 (611601)
04-09-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ZenMonkey
04-08-2011 10:47 PM


The body doesn't react to water soaked hair. it just reacts to a need to keep the body dry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-08-2011 10:47 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 87 of 143 (611602)
04-09-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Coyote
04-08-2011 11:00 PM


Re: You really believe that nonsense?
Coyote writes:

As i said the body is over sensitive or powerful and so over reacts to triggers.
hair is useless under the arms etc but is useful on the head.
In fact i would say its logical that women have greater hair on the head relative to their body size because they need to keep the head dryer because of lesser body heat. Wet hair threatens them more then big guys. Now perhaps again its useless but it might be usefull.
anyways its just a more likely interpretation to see hair as a attempt of the body to keep it dry. In nature getting wet is quite dangerous as anyone who deals with cold cAnadian lakes will tell you.
Therefore our bodies simply grow trivial hair because of a past of being a little more wet. Special areas on our body just make this equation more obvious.

Sorry, this is absolute nonsense.

You can't just go making thing up that sound good to you, but which are supported by no evidence--or actually contradicted by the evidence--and expect to get away with it.

Can you support any statement that you have made with peer-reviewed data?

If not, why don't you just stop spouting off that nonsense. You only make your side of the debate look foolish when you come up with these kinds of statements.

Haven't you read St. Augustine's comments that pertain to this kind of nonsense?

This is rock solid analysis upon data .
If you disagree then say why and say why you have an alternative.
I don't asks for peer review jazz.
Intelligent ideas have the force of persuasion qwithin them based on facts and reason.
Don't need anyone else to give legitimacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 04-08-2011 11:00 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 04-09-2011 3:31 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 89 by bluescat48, posted 04-09-2011 6:51 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 93 of 143 (611889)
04-12-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoNukes
04-09-2011 8:10 AM


Whales hair would simply be a remnant from a earlier land life.
Its logical from my stance to see the smaller sex, so less heat producing, as needing more protection from getting wet on the head. A major area of heat loss potential.
Men likewise would have more hair on the face as we were always out more in the land and the climate. So it follows our face hair follows our lifestyle.
It all works fine with the simple conclusion that hair is for dryness and not warmth at least in the first stages.
Underarm hair is just a reflection of the body noticing the wteness from the sweat. Again useless but over sensivitive.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2011 8:10 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 3:00 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 105 by Jon, posted 04-15-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 94 of 143 (611890)
04-12-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Theodoric
04-09-2011 10:01 AM


Re: Research might help
Theodoric writes:

YOu probably should research your assertions a little before presenting them.

In fact i would say its logical that women have greater hair on the head relative to their body size because they need to keep the head dryer because of lesser body heat. Wet hair threatens them more then big guys. Now perhaps again its useless but it might be usefull.

Any evidence women have more hair? How does more wet hait hair keep a body warmer?

OH and maybe you should learn how to search on google.
Scientists debunk the myth that you lose most heat through your head

Debunk all they want its very true heat loss from the head is important. Thus warm hats are important. anyways its still a sensitivity to it.

Women do have more hair and more powerful hair then men. Especially relative to the smaller size of their head.
The hair is to keep the head from the impact of the wetness which is a major problem for warmth in nature.
Wet hair is a temporary matter. its just the body reacting to the threat of cold water. Not reacting to wet hair which it doesn't notice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2011 10:01 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 04-12-2011 2:05 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 95 of 143 (611892)
04-12-2011 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Ken Fabos
04-09-2011 6:47 PM


Ken Fabos writes:

Robert, a bit of speculation is fine but I'm not impressed so far. If patterns of hair growth respond to wetness of climates we'd see such patterns in geographic distributions. We don't. That hair has some capability to wick water away from the skin has some basis but an innate ability for hair patterns to 'respond' hasn't been shown; I believe that our characteristics evolved but the specifics of how we came to have the hair functions and patterns we do has not been (may never be) clearly explained. To what extent it's chance and how much it's adaptation interests me - I happen to think our body hair function very well as part of our tactile sensory system and extreme sensitivity of fine hairs around eyes and ears suggest some degree of adaptation. I don't mind indulging in a bit of speculation about it, but I don't think this response to wetness idea, as presented, is anything that throws any light on it.

i don't agree with sensory matters as the reason for hair.
The first conclusion in investigation should be What is the hair doing!
hair certainly keeps creatures warm. Body tempature is very important in nature.
If temp matters then observation shows that getting wet is a major threat.
In fact getting wet in a warm climate is a threat. so its reasonable to conclude that hair at least is also just for to keep one dry. nOt warm but dry.
therefore this would explain the unneeded areas of hair on our bodies. tHe hair is always in areas of sweat or episodic sweat.
This would include ears, eyes, etc. Any opening is a threat to a cooler temp and so a threat that if it gets wet it will all the more make it too cool.
Again its probably a unneeded over sensitivity of the body. Its useless.
Yet it follows a creationist theme of the body being made to adapt to needs including a innate failure to do it right. The bodies are made from a great design and not the result of happanchance or evolutionary speculation.
Simple answers can explain much in nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Ken Fabos, posted 04-09-2011 6:47 PM Ken Fabos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 1:00 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 99 by AZPaul3, posted 04-12-2011 2:59 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Ken Fabos, posted 04-12-2011 6:11 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 101 of 143 (612364)
04-15-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by NoNukes
04-12-2011 3:00 AM


NoNukes writes:

Whales hair would simply be a remnant from a earlier land life.

Interesting. Apparently, you do believe in evolution of a sort.

Byers writes:

Its logical from my stance to see the smaller sex, so less heat producing, as needing more protection from getting wet on the head.

You have not even established that women have more hair on their heads than men.

I've always understood they have more hair or hair holes relative to the size of their heads compared to men. Then also a stronger quality.

Yes i insist marine mammals were just post flood creatures that took to the water. nOt by evolution by mutation/selection but innate triggers to quickly adapt .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 3:00 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 04-15-2011 12:15 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2011 2:43 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 102 of 143 (612366)
04-15-2011 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Taq
04-12-2011 1:00 PM


Taq writes:

hair certainly keeps creatures warm. Body tempature is very important in nature.

You should take a trip to Africa sometime. You will find that keeping the body cool is much more important, especially to hunters. Humans evolved a very interesting way of hunting. We chase animals during the heat of the day until they collapse from heat exhaustion. We don't collapse because we sweat profusely. Cooling the body is a much more important adapation for humans than what little warmth our hair provides.

I agree our hair gives no warmth. however it does attempt to keep us dry. I see it as a quick reaction in a post flood world. I don't see hair as doing much unless for women it more keeps them from being too cooled in the climate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 1:00 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 04-15-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 11:50 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 103 of 143 (612368)
04-15-2011 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Ken Fabos
04-12-2011 6:11 PM


Ken Fabos writes:

"...What is the hair doing!"
It demonstrably does have a sensory function. It does other things too, including (in places) wick moisture away from the skin, protect from UV exposure and provide insulation but it definitely does tactile sensitivity as well and it does it extremely well. All hairs have this capability but around eyes and ears the sensitivity is notable (leaving aside eyelashes which I'd say are clearly an extreme adaptation for tactile sensitivity) - the nearly invisibly fine vellus hairs on skin around these vital organs alert us to the presence of very small insects by their sensitivity - my own experience is the resulting sensations are so strong it takes a conscious effort not to rub or scratch. I'd say that this is a useful function and, around eyes and ears, a far more useful function than the ability to wick away water.

Its not impossible that hair helps to keep away bugs but hair in creatures is very clearly about body tempature.
First things first.
As you said hair is involved in dealing with moisture on the skin.
Yes. its trying to dry it away.
i see our hair as just a sensitive reaction but it does no good. so it better explains hair that hits areas, after puberty, where episodic sweating is a issue.

Its fine to see openings like eyes and ears needing to protect against bugs but these openings also are threatened by moisture which threatens cooling issues.
I never thought before it was to deal with biological intrusion. Maybe but i still think its the easier answer to see hair as a overly senstive reaction to a trigger for drying the area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Ken Fabos, posted 04-12-2011 6:11 PM Ken Fabos has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 125 of 143 (612913)
04-20-2011 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Jon
04-15-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Like a Rock - 2
Jon writes:

Its logical from my stance to see the smaller sex, so less heat producing, as needing more protection from getting wet on the head. A major area of heat loss potential.

What is logical from your stance is complete nonsense from the stance of everyone else. It might help if you'd bother investigating the claims you attempt to rest your pseudo-theories on; if you did, you'd find that smaller people actually retain body heat better than bigger people. You also might find that outside of Whitey-ville, Canada, not all women have long hair and there are plenty of men who do.

Men likewise would have more hair on the face as we were always out more in the land and the climate. So it follows our face hair follows our lifestyle.

Again, more research would help prevent a lot of simple mistakes: men do not grow facial hair in all varieties of humans.

Jon

Well i guess the whitey-ville thing is a racial commentary.

In fact women always have greater amounts of hair relative to their head size. if a particular race doesn't then its because os a special adaptation.

likewise men adapt to certain areas.

Again its not about body heat.

The hair is just a reaction of the skin to dry things up.

A general rule in nature. its not helping in human beings because its just a over sensitive reaction. Like our eyes tearing up because of emotion.

Women have smaller bodies and so are more sensitive to the need to keep the head dry. Again its irrelevant in reality but the body, in its power overreacts.

This happened soon after the flood and a genetic memory , unless interfered with , continues the tradition.

Its the simnply and even obvious conclusion hair is related to dealing with the climate. Dry or warmth is clearly its motive.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Jon, posted 04-15-2011 1:51 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Jon, posted 04-20-2011 3:34 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2011 8:34 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 126 of 143 (612914)
04-20-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Taq
04-15-2011 11:50 AM


Hair density is different for different groups and I understood women had more hair relative to the size of their heads. If you proved otherwise it still wouldn't change my point here.

The hair is a reaction of the skin to being wet in human beings.

Its not about shedding water. The body simply recognizes there is wetness and this can lead to drastic coolness. Its not more thoughtful then that.

Ours bodies have more hair in areas that are related to sweating.

Yes its good to sweat but the body, carelessly in the past, over reacted to it and was triggered to grow hair to dry things up.

Hair is on heads for this purpose. Not a warm hat but a umbrella.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 11:50 AM Taq has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 127 of 143 (612915)
04-20-2011 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by NoNukes
04-15-2011 2:43 PM


NoNukes writes:

Robert Byers writes:

NoNukes writes:

You have not even established that women have more hair on their heads than men.

I've always understood they have more hair or hair holes relative to the size of their heads compared to men. Then also a stronger quality.

You are just making that stuff up. And your explanation is completely backwards.

A smaller body with a smaller surface area would mean

1) Less energy need be generated internally required to attain a given temperature.
2) Less heat loss due to radiation or convection.

That means that big people, male or female, need greater protection against heat loss in a cold, wet climate than do smaller people.

Yes i insist marine mammals were just post flood creatures that took to the water. nOt by evolution by mutation/selection but innate triggers to quickly adapt .

Apparently those innate triggers produced inheritable changes. Someday it might be worthwhile to discuss the mechanism by that you understand will allow such things to happen.

Nope. the point here is that the water is a new agent to the body. Whether from rain or sweating.

The body is not reacting to heat loss but to wetness which it reacts to dry up.

The body is smart but not that smart.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2011 2:43 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 128 of 143 (612916)
04-20-2011 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by OliverChant
04-17-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Sorry but hair has function
OliverChant writes:

First of all if your girlfriend had no hair you wouldnt find her attractive

Secondly your pubic hair regulates temperatures for your genitals.

Thirdly the reason why we as humans find people with hair attractive is because it shows a sign of health so there you go...

it doesn't regulate temperatures. I say it just reacts to the sweating, as a past reaction remembered genetically, and dumbly tries to dry the area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by OliverChant, posted 04-17-2011 2:27 PM OliverChant has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2564 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 131 of 143 (613136)
04-21-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Jon
04-20-2011 3:34 AM


Re: Like a Rock - 2
I'm saying the great ability of the body back in the day was to quickly adapt to need. Yet this means it also was too sensitive.

so I conclude it was triggered to deal with areas of episodic sweating but it was from a over sensitivity to minor wetness. So its now inoperative as a useful thing. Yet it remains as memory of our genetics from the early trigger. lIke skin colour it just gets stuck in the gear.

I looked on wiki and they also said it was to deal with sweat and dry the area to avoid bacteria. i don't agree with that but with their accurate observation its related to dealing with sweat.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Jon, posted 04-20-2011 3:34 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Ken Fabos, posted 04-24-2011 7:58 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 133 by Jon, posted 04-24-2011 10:33 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019