Evolution is a Joke part XII

It's a whole lot faster to just make clothes rather than wait generations for biology to get the job done. The body count is a lot lower, too.

 

Isn't that annoying?!

 

One hypothesis is because Homo Sapiens learned to adapt more to their environment than did the rest of species in the Homo genus.

 

By the laws of evolution it should have happened automatically, no waiting needed.
The wolves and the bears were adequately haired, why not humans?

 

They didn't "adapt".They were literally left out in the cold. Why didn't nature provide them with adequate hair like she did the other species?

 

Natural selection doesn't work that way.

- - - Updated - - -

Being left out in the cold is one incentive to adapt better to an environment, if one is able; the sole surviving species in the Homo genus, was able.

 

"Laws" of evolution? That's adorable. Anyway, wolves and bears lack the mental capacity to make/use clothes. As such, any mutations that cause them to grow less or no hair are also likely to be fatal. If a mutant can't survive, it can't reproduce, so the mutation can't persist in the population.

 

Well thing is, most discussion here is very broad based. If you want an honest discussion about mechanism I am more than willing to engage in it. I have recommended this before, but the best book I have ever seen on the mechanisms of evolution is "Song Of The Dodo" a very accesable book on any level. What makes the book special is it does not approach evolution as a done deal. It talks about the challenges Darwin and other faced, more importantly it talks about how Darwin and others got to where they were.

 

A high school biology teacher once speculated about Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel having access to the Internet.

 

By not having hair, but instead using clothes, we can adjust to temperature much faster than an animal that has to shed hair or grow hair to compensate for the climate. You have to remember that one of the hallmarks of hominids is this need to to explore new places. Being able to adjust quickly to temperature changes would be a huge advantage. Also, less hair reduces parasites. We only have three species of lice that live on us, the head louse, the body louse and the pubic louse (crabs). Of those three, only the head louse and the pubic louse live in the hair. The body louse actually lives in clothing (hey, where did the body louse live before Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden and had to wear clothes?). Finally, there is sexual selection. We simply like people who are less hairy. We still see it today, as there is a huge business it removing hair from the human body. This is probably because hair is thought of as dirty and full of parasites (if you doubt that, try eating a sandwich with a big hair in it). This also why women have less hair than men. In humans, men have had greater powers of choice and more intense interest in physical attributes than women so there is more sexual selection pressure on women.

So why the hair on the head? That's easy, it helps protect our head from the sun and its ultraviolet rays. Here's a bigger question. Why do we have underarm and pubic hair? Well, again, it is for sex. We have glands under our arms and around our groin that produce pheromones. The hair helps absorb the sweat and concentrate the pheromones. Of course we don't produce as much pheromones as we once did which explains why our obsession with hairless bodies is overwhelming our need for the pheromones as modern porn illustrates so well.

So tell me, how does creationism explain why we don't have hair except on strategic body part?

 

Time, the ice age before last all but took humans out, a couple of small grouping survived. As conditions improved they moved back and began to repopulate their old range. This genetic bottle neck is one of the reasons humans actually have such a small gene pool. That cutting off of a population generated some interesting results. Rather than the typical physical changes, Humans appear to have gone through a bit of brain rewiring

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself. You have absolutely no understanding of evolution and should leave the discussion until you do.

 

Lately? Lately?

Oh my!

 

No, that's not how evolution works. Evolution works by the changing of allele frequencies in a population. As phenotypes are, generally, expressions of genotypes, changing the genotype will generally change the phenotype (depends on where the change is, though; changes in 'junk DNA' or in the wobble position of a codon don't usually change expressed genes).

So, anyway, changes in genotype are not instantaneous, especially in a population. After the loss of a thick coat of hair, as in chimps and gorillas, due to genotype changes, there would have to be enough pressure on the phenotype to induce changes back into the genotype. It's not instant and it takes time to spread through a population.

Because humans utilize tools, fire, and clothing. The advances in brain power outpaced any sort of selective pressure on growing a thick pelt like a wolf, because our ancestors were killing animals with thick pelts to wear in the winter.

 

Nobody actually knows why humans lost their hair. Its ok to say so.

Ity obviously is not a big problem. It makes some things easier.

I kind of like not having to shave my legs.

 

We don't know why we lost our hair, but the reason why we don't grow lupine pelts in northern latitudes is because we use clothes and fire.

 

You are still avoiding the question.
Why does man have to be hairless to do these things?
Why didn't nature/evolution give him an adequate coat of hair to cope with the climate?

 

Not really, acquired or leaned behavior does not usually translate into an adaption. Aside from that, primate hair is designed as a reflector not an insulator. I dont believe we even carry a gene that could switch on and produce a sable like pelt for sub arctic conditions.

 

Tell that to the guys who have a lot of hair on their backs.

 

Natural selection doesn't work that way?
I thought that was the whole premise of evolution.
I really think you are making things up.
Maybe you regard this as humorous.

 

So if a creature has mental capacity to make clothes then nature will deprive him of adequate hair?
"Laws of evolution" - well, what do you call the process?

 

You are not making any logical sense in the matter of evolution.
Nature always provides creatures with a means of survival.
Survival is #1. Is, was and always will be.
Why did man develop such intelligence? The least intelligent creatures all survive very well. High intelligence is not needed for survival.

Do you always make up stories to explain things that you do not understand?

 

You are making things up.
That still does not account for not having an adequate coat of hair to cope with the weather.

 

Depends on the weather you're coping with and whether heavier hair is a selective advantage compared to less hair and sweat glands.

 

You are making things up too.
Chimps and gorillas live in the tropics. They don't need a lot of hair.
Brain power has nothing to do with loss of hair.
And none of you have a logical explanation for how man's intelligence came to be.
You say evolution doesn't work that way.
So you are in effect denying evolution.

You can't explain it so you change course and start telling fairy tales.
You're just a different brand of creationist.