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.
As these are the Science Forums, you'll need to provide scientific evidence to support these assertions.
Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
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.
A long, thin shape would have proportionately more surface area than a short, thick one of the same mass.
Consider a sheet of plywood 48 by 96 inches and 1/2 inch thick. That's 9360 square inches of surface area, according to my calculations. Now cut it into 12 inch squares - 32 squares to make a stack 16 inches high. That's 1056 square inches surface area. The short fat stack will stay much warmer than the thin sheet.
That's kind of the point I was trying to make. Unless females are the exact same proportion as larger males, wouldn't their smaller bodies already keep them warmer?
I can't see why women would need more 'hair holes' than men.
There is an 'Edit' button at the bottom of every post you make, right next to the 'Reply' button. You can use that button to fix any typos or grammatical mistakes you notice after submitting your post; you do not need to make a new post to indicate a correction.
This is a forum, not an chat room. Let's try to keep it that way for everyone's sake.
The hair is just a reaction of the skin to dry things up.
And then you say:
... its not helping in human beings because its just a over sensitive reaction. ... Again its irrelevant in reality ...
You seem to be arguing that body hair is meant to keep folk dry, but that it doesn't actually do that. How do we verify that hair is meant to keep folk dry when, as you yourself admit, we have no evidence of it actually doing that?
This happened soon after the flood
The Flood didn't happen; it's irrelevant.
Genes don't have memories.
In fact women always have greater amounts of hair relative to their head size.
A claim that, like all your other claims, you apparently have no desire to support with evidence.
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.
This sentence makes no sense. By definition, a 'great ability' is never 'too...' anything: never too perfect, never too costly, never 'too sensitive', etc. So just what is it that you are trying to say?
so I conclude it was triggered to deal with areas of episodic sweating but it was from a over sensitivity to minor wetness.
It would be beneficial if you could actually support this position with any evidence whatsoever. And before you begin, I'd like to remind you that phrases such as 'it's rock solid analysis' or 'the logic can't be beat' do not count as evidence.
So its now inoperative as a useful thing.
How does this not render your theory completely unfalsifiable?
lIke skin colour it just gets stuck in the gear.
Yet, skin color differentiation is still very much a useful genetic adaptation.
Yet it remains as memory of our genetics from the early trigger.
All well and good, but first you need to explain a few things:
What is this genetic memory you keep talking about?
What is an 'early trigger'?
What 'early trigger' would trigger now-useless hair?
What evidence is there for this 'early trigger'?
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.
Perhaps you could actually link to and quote the relevant Wikipedia content so we could all enjoy the benefit of seeing the information on which you've based your opinion.