Is body hair a functionless vestige?

The only one who has argued that body hair has no function is Robert Byers, who has used the clear 'lack of function' as evidence that hair was 'evolved' for post-Flood dryness.The argument makes not an ounce of sense, and is completely untestable and unscientific.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Sorry I didn't read I skimmed but still he's wrong

I didn't say "generally larger"; I said specifically longer and thinner. In the very post that you replied to, I demonstrated that longer, thinner shapes have more surface area to dissipate more heat than shorter, fatter shapes of the same mass. But the topic is about the heat-dissipation qualities of hair, not body shape or size.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

haha whatever you say man

Well i guess the whitey-ville thing is a racial commentary.In fact women always have greater amounts of hair relative to their head size. if a particular race doesn't then its because os a special adaptation.likewise men adapt to certain areas.Again its not about body heat.The hair is just a reaction of the skin to dry things up.A general rule in nature. its not helping in human beings because its just a over sensitive reaction. Like our eyes tearing up because of emotion.Women have smaller bodies and so are more sensitive to the need to keep the head dry. Again its irrelevant in reality but the body, in its power overreacts.This happened soon after the flood and a genetic memory , unless interfered with , continues the tradition.Its the simnply and even obvious conclusion hair is related to dealing with the climate. Dry or warmth is clearly its motive.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

Hair density is different for different groups and I understood women had more hair relative to the size of their heads. If you proved otherwise it still wouldn't change my point here.The hair is a reaction of the skin to being wet in human beings.Its not about shedding water. The body simply recognizes there is wetness and this can lead to drastic coolness. Its not more thoughtful then that.Ours bodies have more hair in areas that are related to sweating.Yes its good to sweat but the body, carelessly in the past, over reacted to it and was triggered to grow hair to dry things up.Hair is on heads for this purpose. Not a warm hat but a umbrella.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

Nope. the point here is that the water is a new agent to the body. Whether from rain or sweating.The body is not reacting to heat loss but to wetness which it reacts to dry up.The body is smart but not that smart.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

it doesn't regulate temperatures. I say it just reacts to the sweating, as a past reaction remembered genetically, and dumbly tries to dry the area.

First, you say this: And then you say: 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? The Flood didn't happen; it's irrelevant. Genes don't have memories. A claim that, like all your other claims, you apparently have no desire to support with evidence.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

You have yet to provide any evidence for this "fact". Also, could you explain more about these hair-holes of which you speak.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.so I conclude it was triggered to deal with areas of episodic sweating but it was from a over sensitivity to minor wetness. So its now inoperative as a useful thing. Yet it remains as memory of our genetics from the early trigger. lIke skin colour it just gets stuck in the gear.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.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

This hypothetical ability to quickly adapt to wetness - very quickly if the entire history of homo sapiens is a few thousand years - would cause strong and clear variations according to geography and climate within human sub populations. We don't see that. Such an 'oversensitive' adaptive ability that simply stops or gets 'stuck in the gear' isn't a real explanation for why we don't.Sorry but this transient adaptive ability of hair to respond (before getting stuck in gear) to wetness is pure conjecture without basis in evidence.Women more hairy than men? I think that perception is more about modern social rituals involving scissors and razors than innate physiological differences between men and women; take away those rituals and men are more hairy than women, if not in all the same places - similar density of head hair plus extra on face and rest of body.As for insulation being the primary function of hair I'd have to disagree; the sensory function is a more fundamental function of hair and (as I pointed out before) looks to predate hair/fur as insulation - right back to the precursors of mammals. Colour, thickness, distribution and growth patterns are all highly variable but the ability to pass tactile sensory signals to receptors in the follicles and surrounding skin looks to be a universal characteristic of hairs that has never been lost.I think YEC's should stick with 'because God made it that way' and not bother with attempts to sound sciency.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

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? 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. How does this not render your theory completely unfalsifiable? Yet, skin color differentiation is still very much a useful genetic adaptation. 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'?

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.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

The evidence is the evidence. its the same for everyone. tHen its who does a better job at interpretating the evidence.I say the simple answer is the first and most likely answer.Hair is for protecting against the threat of coldness.We have unneeded hair because a false conclusion was drawn by the body that episodic sweating would chill the area and make it cold. so a trigger was hit but it didn't go far. Then it stayed in its original gear as I said.I'm aware of the hairyness of the sexes. Yes men have more hair because they were originally more in the fields. yet women have more on the head relative to their smaller heads and bodies because of a greater need to keep the head dry. The rest of the body was fine.This would of happened soon after the flood.yes there is great variation in people.for example Africans have less hair because of a need to sweat away the heat and humidity. Serious need. on the head also the hair tightly curly is a result of the problem.Northern Europeans have more hair as they lived in a wetter world.Yet red headed people have less hair then this because of a need to have little covering in the way of the sunlight. The origin for the extreme lack of pigmentation and remnant concentration in the hair and red spots.Asians have little body hair because of not living in a wet climate.Hair growth is very relevant to area and is clearly triggered by needs. It being sensitive may go to far but the clear evidence leads to a clear conclusion, or first, that hair is for keeping areas dry on humans.This is the trigger.I don't see it being related to sensory function in any important way.in fact you seem to base it on presumptions of evolutionary ideas in a furry heritage rather then close observational evidence.Points for trying but more points for accuracy.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

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.