Is body hair a functionless vestige?

Message 136 of 143 (613744) 04-27-2011 12:31 AM

Reply to: Message 133 by Jon 04-24-2011 10:33 PM

You concentrate on the triggers and genetics.

Well again I say the facts are apparent and so the first interpretation should be the most simple.
Hair is a covering against coldness.

In our case its against wetness which in nature leads to coldness.

Yet its so patchy it follows it couldn't actually be doing much of a job or ever did.

so the conclusion must be that the body reacts to triggers that say this or that area is enduring important episodic or continious wetness.

Upon puberty this is areas of episodic sweating.

It makes sense. Its a simple concept.

I include its a over sensitivity long ago because its worthless. Then it stayed in gear .

its reasonable to conclude its from triggers within the body without knowing these atomic mechanisms. We don't know much about bodies as shown by the inability to heat a great deal.

Observation plus analysis equals likely conclusion.

Not unlikely conclusions based on evolutionary ideas.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

Message 137 of 143 (613746) 04-27-2011 12:34 AM

Reply to: Message 136 by Robert Byers 04-27-2011 12:31 AM

Then go away. If you can't be bothered to provide your evidence, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Jeesh.

Message 138 of 143 (644307) 12-17-2011 2:42 AM

Edited by Ken Fabos, : fix link

Edited by Ken Fabos, : No reason given.

Message 139 of 143 (644335) 12-17-2011 8:16 AM

Reply to: Message 138 by Ken Fabos 12-17-2011 2:42 AM

Well, perhaps it's because actual evolutionary biologists understand the Theory of Evolution where you don't. Perhaps it's because they know that a "vestige" need not be "functionless". Just like people have been pointing out since the very start of this thread.

Mutate and Survive

Message 140 of 143 (644393) 12-17-2011 1:59 PM

Reply to: Message 139 by Granny Magda 12-17-2011 8:16 AM

Meanwhile Nina Jablonski in Sci-Am listed known functions of human hair but left out what is, for fine vellus hair, it's most distinct and clear function - sensory.

You will find that this article explores the idea that the mechano-sensory function of hairs probably predates it's function as thermal insulation and even predates the forms that we think of as mammals. ie it's not vestigial but may be the original function; it still has that function and it may still be continuing to be it's primary function.

I think it's a universal function and mammal hairs that have lost their sensory capability would be a rare exception. But if no-one asks the question how do we know the answer?

A bit combative aren't you? Not that it upsets me - these forum often are. I found this one an interesting debate that stimulated my thinking. And I don't claim great expertise, just an occasional ability to point out the obvious when all around me no-one appears to be noticing it.

The sensory function of body hairs ought to be obvious to everyone and I'm still very dismayed that leading scholars in this field appear not to have even acknowledged - until well after this thread began - that it has any relevance to the evolution of our misleadingly named 'hairlessness'.

Message 142 of 143 (646195) 01-03-2012 4:00 PM

Reply to: Message 141 by Robert Byers 12-30-2011 1:19 AM

For something like eyelashes it's directly linked to the blinking reflex and protecting eyesight is important for most mammals. That the fine vellus hairs on my own face near to my eyes are so touch sensitive that it's all I can do to not rub or scratch when they are disturbed suggests a long and continuing evolutionary history that involves the mechano-sensory function. The paper by Dean and Siva-Jothy shows what I have suggested - a mechanism by which natural selection would favour finer, sparser body hair.

Meanwhile your 'after the biblical flood' scenario isn't an explanation that works for anything except, via a roundabout and convoluted route, to support a scientifically unsupportable position.

Message 143 of 143 (646272) 01-03-2012 9:25 PM

Reply to: Message 142 by Ken Fabos 01-03-2012 4:00 PM

In any case its about presumptions and investigation.
The bible starts with boundaries that one can presume for ones hypothesis(s).

We started without hair in eden and then still didn't need hair until the flood.
Our bodies had the ability and did react to grow hair for a wetter world we found.
I say these triggers are shown by the areas on our bodies that have unneeded hair.
Our under arms hair unneeded hair because the body back in the day was over sensitive and interpretated episodic sweating as a threat and so grew hair to dry the area up.
Yet it was not needed and fails to do the trick.
However its a great clue as to the whole need and reply of our bodies regarding hair.
its simply a attempt to dry/warm creatures up.
No need for way out evolutionary ideas that can't be proved one way or another.
our own remnants of unneeded are the best clue and fit biblical boundaries.