|
QuickSearch
|
| |||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
WookieeB | |||||||
CosmicChimp | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is body hair a functionless vestige? | ||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 2418 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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. 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Then go away. If you can't be bothered to provide your evidence, you're just wasting everyone's time. Jeesh. Love your enemies!
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Ken Fabos Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
Edited by Ken Fabos, : fix link Edited by Ken Fabos, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2380 From: UK Joined: |
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
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Ken Fabos Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
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'.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 2418 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
The first answer should be the simple one. hair is a result of the body trying to keep warm/ by warming or drying. In our case after the fall or the flood our bodies reacted , or over reacted, to the areas of our bodies that had special episodic sweating and so grew hair to dry the areas up. It doesn't work and is today a memory of a original trigger and over sensitivity. Not remnants of a hairy ape origin.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Ken Fabos Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 2418 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Yet hair on the bodies for all creatures is clearly from a need to keep warm/dry. One could in factr say first hair was for the great agenda of warmth and then evolved these other uses. No reason to see the sensitivity issue as first and foremost. In any case its about presumptions and investigation. We started without hair in eden and then still didn't need hair until the flood.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019