Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
543 online now:
nwr, Pollux (2 members, 541 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,288 Year: 4,934/14,102 Month: 532/707 Week: 87/176 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is body hair a functionless vestige?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 47 of 143 (561235)
05-19-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
05-19-2010 2:10 PM


Hair loss
My guess on this is that the selection pressure was to remove hair to promote cooling. One old idea was that this may have been needed for persistence hunting, where people simply ran their prey to exhaustion.

If this is the case, the selection pressure to reduce hair would work up to the point where it didn't matter much any more; the selection pressure would end when the cooling was just good enough.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2010 2:10 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2010 10:10 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 143 (611600)
04-08-2011 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 9:10 PM


You really believe that nonsense?
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?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 9:10 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Robert Byers, posted 04-09-2011 12:24 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 143 (612554)
04-17-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ringo
04-16-2011 11:02 PM


Another fundy boo-boo
ringo writes:

Jon writes:

I can't see why women would need more 'hair holes' than men.


I agree that the hair-holes argument doesn't make any sense. It's pretty funny though.

This is the problem we have.

Fundies are convinced that they have the answers to various questions so they don't need evidence, logical conclusions from that evidence, or the scientific method.

Simple bone-head mistakes are the first clue. Folks who know their subject tend not to make too many of those mistakes. Other folks, who have little to no scientific training, and who may be getting their "science" from fundie websites, do not fare so well.

That brings up the question: Why should scientists pay any attention to folks who know little to nothing about a scientific subject?

Does zeal bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.

Does religious apologetics bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.

Does religious revelation bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.

Does religious belief bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.

If you have not studied a particular field of science to at least an advanced level, you have no business opining on that subject. Sad to say, religious apologists are the main offenders in this regard. Perhaps they should just "put a cork in it."

(See also tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 04-16-2011 11:02 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by OliverChant, posted 04-17-2011 2:27 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 135 of 143 (613741)
04-27-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Robert Byers
04-27-2011 12:22 AM


The flud!???
This would of happened soon after the flood.

There was no such global flood. To use the myth of a global flood to explain anything is a farce.

I've also seen folks explain radiocarbon dates older than about 6,000-10,000 years as being somehow in need of correction for "pre-flood" conditions, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence that says such a flood never happened.

Might as well calibrate the seasons by the Easter bunny and Santa Claus. (There's more evidence for them than the mythical flood.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Robert Byers, posted 04-27-2011 12:22 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021