Don't get it (Re: Ape to Man - where did the hair go?)

As a parable that's not bad. Man clearly did arise "where clothing and hair were not required for warmth." And those who are still there do nicely without any clothing (for warmth).The rest of your thesis has a large number of holes.

quote:

---

Fortunately for all of you, you haven't seen my butt. If I could knit, I could make a sweater for a chihuahua from the shearings I could harvest back there.
And then, I had six wisdom teeth, like, say, a chimpanzee does......

---

Do you also have a prominent brow ridge and longer-than-average arms?

quote:

---

But seriously, 6 wisdom teeth? Are you some kind of mutant?

---

I developed only my two upper wisdom teeth, in contrast to Cory.There is an identified mutation in a gene which results in the lack of development of some or many molars.

Every theory is full of holes. Science wants to know the truth, so it says, so it should take its nose (pardon the pun) out of the air and look at all options. The problem with science is that what it can't "look at", it can't believe. Too bad...it's a great pity. But, while it is considering the existence of aliens and ghosts, it should also consider the possibility of God and creationism.If you want to talk about a theory that's full of holes, you need look no further than the never-to-be-answered-by-science topic on why man needed to lose his hair, whether the reason was to wade in the water searching for food during the great drought or to allow man to nestle snuggly by the fire without getting it's skin all nasty and sweaty..oh diddums..Withold your condescending tone with me or any other open-minded creationist. You could say we are the true scientist because we don't discount this option. It just pisses us off that we can't prove it to you nerdy boys.

quote:

---

The problem with science is that what it can't "look at", it can't believe.

---

Correction. The good thing about science is that it assumes that if something can't be detected, it isn't there. The reason you're even typing on a computer is that the scientific method is a valid construct. Empirical evidential inquiry is the only way humanity has devised to advance beyond the prejudices and wishful thinking we all harbor.You call this valid subject a "never-to-be-answered-by-science topic" without giving any reason we should consider it an intractable mystery. What if Newton had thought the same thing about the physics of planetary motion? What if Pasteur had decided that disease, fermentation and putrefaction were all holy mysteries that would never be understood in material terms? And yes, what if Darwin had assumed that we would never solve the riddle of patterns of descent among living organisms? The urge to understand more is the foundation of all scientific endeavor.So your theory about the Garden of Eden doesn't display open-mindedness or a thirst for knowledge. It merely tells us that you're satisfied with explaining things on a religious level, and that's fine. But it's quite a different thing from understanding something. Science certainly does discount 'supernatural' options, but not for the reason you think. The problem with a 'supernatural' theory is not that it can't be proven, it's that it can't conceivably be disproven. The only theories that work are the ones that rely on natural mechanisms, the causes we can observe and understand.regards,
Esteban "Semi-Aquatic Ape" Hambre

quote:

---

Man never lost the hair of the apes because man never had that much hair in the first place. Hair follicles does not equal hair! My hair follicles don't keep me warm. Don't insult our intelligence. This guy has a right to be confused listening to the crap you jokers come up with.

---

Man does lose his hair, but only in the case of patterned baldness. This same patterened baldness can be seen in other primates as well. BTW, hair follicles does equal hair. We have just as many hair strands as any other ape, it is only the thickness that differs. And yes, we don't use our body hair for warmth (although we do use scalp hair). Orignally, man's earliest habitats did not require insulation. When we did move into colder climes we adapted by using skins instead of needing hair. Of course, those fig leaves wouldn't have offered the best insulation either.

quote:

---

It is DEvolution to lose one's hair which is required for warmth in nearly every country except the lands where the Garden of Eden was located, where people can be warm night and day without a single hair (follicle) or scrap of clothing.

---

Devolution is a misnomer. Evolution is change, no matter what the change is. Dolphins and other cetaceans also lost their hair, which was advantageous given the drag effect of hair in an aquatic environment.

quote:

---

So, here's the total truth. Man was created to exist in the Garden of Eden, where clothing and hair were not required for warmth. Man was evicted from the Garden of Eden after the fall. Now man suffers in the cold and needs to wear clothes. Why is that so hard to digest?

---

Yes, it is hard to digest since all of the evidence in the natural world goes against what you are claiming. You need to show evidence that man is only 6,000 years old, of which none has been presented. You might as well tell us that we are stuck in the Matrix and that the Agents planted all of the fossils.

quote:

---

Science, after all these years and with all that combined intelligence still cannot explain why man lost his hair.

---

Which is why there are still paleoanthropologists, biologists, and geneticists working within the sciences on that very question.

Oh dear, you're so confident about the semi-aquatic ape theory, you even signed your name to it. I could go on and on. Let's have a chat sometime.Look, I'm no dumbhead that gives up and says "ah, it's useless, I'm just going to believe in God and creationism". You strengthen my point. People can't decide what is true and, yes, predjudices and beliefs abounded. Science steps in and says "let's evaluate it". Ok, so science discovered that micro-organisms caused disease. But science fails to recognise possible underlying sources, reasons, motives. It just says "this, which I call x, caused that, which I name y". Science is merely in the process of discovering how great and mysterious this world, and we human beings, really are. Science is just a little crawling baby in the belly of something it can only say "mama" to. Science will eventually merely DISCOVER God, not disprove Him. If you don't want this to happen, you are not worthy of the calling. What I object to is pseudo-scientists poo-pooing the creationist notion when all they have to stand on themselves is ... "poo-poo". Great scientists should adopt the role of truth seeker. I believe Einstein was a creationist. Some among you have adopt an arrogant demeanour that is not becoming and far from warranted.As an open-minded person, I take the many miraculous events that have occured in recent history - Medjugorje, the stigmata of the mystics (I refer you to http://www.thereseneumann.de/thereseenglish/index.htm), to name a couple - a step further and consider the fact that mankind itself is a miracle of God.

I thought someone would nit-pick on the follicles not eqalling hair. Come on. The point is clear. It is the hair that keeps me warm, not the follicles.Many aquatic animals didn't need to lose their hair to enter the water - otters, platypus, most mammals in fact. The question is why humans supposedly followed the path of the dolphins and not the otters. It's not as if humans can swim fast enough so that losing hair actually becomes an advantage. We must be the slowest swimmers on the planet. A croc could catch an olympic swimmer without much effort. Also, dolphin/seal skin is different from human skin in important ways that indicate we didn't have an aquatic background. Unlike the skin of aquatic mammals, human skin quickly becomes waterlogged (i.e. wrinkled fingers and tootsies), an obviously undesirable trait for a purportedly aquatic animal.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

quote:

---

Many aquatic animals didn't need to lose their hair to enter the water - otters, platypus, most mammals in fact. The question is why humans supposedly followed the path of the dolphins and not the otters.

---

Otters, platypus, and most mammals do not spend their entire lives in the water like whales, dolphins, and porpoises. They also don't depend on bursts of extreme speed in the open ocean to capture prey. Otters feed on sear urchins (slow), walruses feed on clams (slow). However, seals do capture faster prey and are more streamlined than the others. Also, the less hair, the less drag, the less energy expended when swimming. For totally aquatic mammals this is a decided advantage while partially aquatic mammals still need fur for insulation when they are out of the water.Getting back to humans, you are right that dolphins hairlessness and skin are different than humans, and for good reason. They live in different environments. However, as noted by Crashfrog earlier, lack of hair allows us to rid our bodies of heat through sweating. This allows humans to move long distances without overheating, and therefore hunt more prey or use different hunting techniques than feline/canine predators which pant to get rid of excess body heat.

quote:

---

Unlike the skin of aquatic mammals, human skin quickly becomes waterlogged (i.e. wrinkled fingers and tootsies), an obviously undesirable trait for a purportedly aquatic animal.

---

Being a landlubber my whole life I was wondering, does skin wrinkle up in sea water like it does in fresh water? I was under the impression that osmotic differences led to the wrinkling effect, but I could be wrong. And also, I never said that humans are an aquatic species, although I did mention that there are theories out there that make that claim. There is a separate thread on the "Aquatic Ape Theory". It isn't that well evidenced and ignored by the majority of biologists.

Bacteria have motives?! Hmmm!

quote:

---

Science is merely in the process of discovering how great and mysterious this world, and we human beings, really are. Science is just a little crawling baby in the belly of something it can only say "mama" to. Science will eventually merely DISCOVER God, not disprove Him.

---

This is getting a little off topic, but if you want to talk more in this area the "Is It Science?" forum is a great place to start. You seem to be hitting on what science is, investigating the natural world through natural mechanisms (such as bacteria causing disease instead of evil spirits). However, I don't see how science can ever address the existence of a diety using natural mechanisms in the natural world. Anyway, if we continue down this road in this thread we will probably get a stern warning so I'll leave it there.

Here's another quick fun one: Finding these quotes took about ten seconds on google.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Humans also do not live in the water. At most, we waded to get food. Humans don't have bursts of aquatic speed. At most we waded and maybe did a little doggie paddle.It is debated that hair actually protects from the sun and even desert camels are furry as are most African Savannah mammals. How come none of them lost their hair, especially considering hair keeps the ticks and fleas happy. They all found other more preferred methods of cooling - panting, etc. Another argument is that hair loss facilitates sweat cooling. However there are animals like the Patas monkey that manage to sweat very effectively without hair loss. Why lose the hair? Unless you're a very big beast like an elephant or a whale where sheer size makes your surface area too heat-attractive or a water-rocket like a dolphin.

Humans lost their hair as punishment for Original Sin.
God said "I'll show you. Henceforth you will go about hairless and I shall create Haute Couture to plague and impoverish you through all time".Makes sense to me.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion