Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Jose Fly]

An apatheist is essentially an atheist. He is someone that even if a God exists he does not care. A combination of Apathy and theist.

Sure, an apatheist effectively lives as if gods don't exist. But if you were to ask me whether I believe gods exist, I'd shrug my shoulders, say "I dunno, and I don't really care", and note how it's not a meaningful question for me.

Even though I was raised in a strong Christian environment and taken to church multiple times every week until I was 15, religion and religious thinking never resonated with me, nor did it ever make sense. Most of the time I sat there in a pew with my face scrunched up, thinking to myself "What the hell are they doing/thinking?"

Kinda.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, an apatheist effectively lives as if gods don't exist. But if you were to ask me whether I believe gods exist, I'd shrug my shoulders, say "I dunno, and I don't really care", and note how it's not a meaningful question for me.

Even though I was raised in a strong Christian environment and taken to church multiple times every week until I was 15, religion and religious thinking never resonated with me, nor did it ever make sense. Most of the time I sat there in a pew with my face scrunched up, thinking to myself "What the hell are they doing/thinking?"

Kinda.....

Sounds like you are an apatheist too. Written out it would be an apathetic atheist. It is simply a label adopted to tell others of your beliefs, or lack thereof.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sounds like you are an apatheist too. Written out it would be an apathetic atheist. It is simply a label adopted to tell others of your beliefs, or lack thereof.

I think "apatheist" is more accurate than "atheist" for me. I know it's hard for some folks who invest significant time and effort into gods (either pro or con) to understand, but I truly am apathetic about it all.

If someone were to force me to engage, I'd probably land more towards agnosticism than atheism. Since I've never seen anyone give a meaningful definition of what a "god" actually is, then IMO the question "do gods exist" is as meaningless as asking "do xlpetches exist".

But IRL when someone asks what I believe, I just say "I'm not at all religious" and most of the time, that's good enough and doesn't trigger further discussion about the gods, religions, holy books, etc., which for whatever reason, tend to annoy me.

 

[metis]

The general loss of body hair is probably an evolutionary reaction to living in the savannas through most of our early evolution when splitting from the rest of the ape line, as sweat glands with less hair would logically be the best adaptation.

 

[Brian2]

Is that an appeal to the "good things are from God, bad things aren't" framework?

God could have brought about the life forms we have through mutations and knowing what the end product would have to be, given the various environments in the world.

 

[Windwalker]

Adam and Eve were created hairy, but because of sin the hair started falling out. That's why they call it the "fall" of man. It was in reference to hair loss. I have no chest or back hair, which means I am more sinful than others. Greater sin, greater hair loss. This is Biblical science, doing science the Bible way.

 

[leroy]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

but due to a series of mutation

A creationist would argue that you are assuming that the gene has mutations…………how do you know that? perhaps those genes that allow for “few” hair are part of the original design.

Lets say that the sequence : ABCDE codes for lots of hair (like in monkeys) and the sequence ABCDF codes for few hair (like in humans) both genes could have been part of the original design …………..you are assuming that E mutated in to F but that is your assumption

Another alternative would be that Adam was a hairy guy , and that trough mutations he’s descendents lost that genetic material,…. YECs have no problem in accepting the fact that mutations can deteriorate a gene and cause a loss of information ………. The idea of a hairy Adam sounds strange and contradicts the drawings that I have seen……….. but it wouldn’t contradict anything in the bible.




What is the benefit of hairlessness? What evolutionary advantage could have emerged from losing hair?............. if anything that paper provides a struggle for darwinists . not YEC


I am not a YEC, i am just saying that this particular argument is not a good one

 

[leroy]

Adam and Eve were created hairy, but because of sin the hair started falling out. That's why they call it the "fall" of man. It was in reference to hair loss. I have no chest or back hair, which means I am more sinful than others. Greater sin, greater hair loss. This is Biblical science, doing science the Bible way.

So That is why white people tend to be more hairy than Black people?................ whites sin less than blacks which is why black race has fallen more than the white race?

(just joking obviously)

 

[leroy]

The general loss of body hair is probably an evolutionary reaction to living in the savannas through most of our early evolution when splitting from the rest of the ape line, as sweat glands with less hair would logically be the best adaptation.

What is the benefit of losing hair?

If losing hair is beneficial, why didn’t other mammals that live in the savanna lost their hair?

 

[Jose Fly]

God could have brought about the life forms we have through mutations and knowing what the end product would have to be, given the various environments in the world.

Well that's the thing with gods...no matter what we discover, the people who believe in them can always make the post hoc assertion "Maybe the gods just made it that way".

If we find X....maybe the gods just made it that way.

If we find Not X...maybe the gods just made it that way.

Kinda makes it meaningless IMO.

 

[Jose Fly]

A creationist would argue that you are assuming that the gene has mutations…………how do you know that? perhaps those genes that allow for “few” hair are part of the original design.

Lets say that the sequence : ABCDE codes for lots of hair (like in monkeys) and the sequence ABCDF codes for few hair (like in humans) both genes could have been part of the original design …………..you are assuming that E mutated in to F but that is your assumption

You've misunderstood the data. Most of the genes in humans that result in full body hair have been disabled by mutations ("pseudogenization" in the paper).

Another alternative would be that Adam was a hairy guy , and that trough mutations he’s descendents lost that genetic material,…. YECs have no problem in accepting the fact that mutations can deteriorate a gene and cause a loss of information ………. The idea of a hairy Adam sounds strange and contradicts the drawings that I have seen……….. but it wouldn’t contradict anything in the bible.

I was wondering if any creationists would go this route. I suppose if you want to believe in a fully-haired A&E, that's your prerogative.

What is the benefit of hairlessness? What evolutionary advantage could have emerged from losing hair?............. if anything that paper provides a struggle for darwinists . not YEC

First, not all traits have to be advantageous.

Second, your question is addressed in the paper linked to in the OP. The authors basically make the same hypothesis as @metis (loss of body hair + sweat glands = adaptations to living in hot environment).

I am not a YEC, i am just saying that this particular argument is not a good one

What argument?

 

[We Never Know]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

Even the hairy ones can become hairless because of mutation or other reasons.

 

[metis]

What is the benefit of losing hair?

If losing hair is beneficial, why didn’t other mammals that live in the savanna lost their hair?

Because or hair follicles evolved from emitting mostly oil that would keep our hair lubricated to water to cool our bodies off, and this is believed to likely have evolved because of having to travel over long distances to catch game because we didn't and don't have much speed as a species. Our running speed is relative slow, but we can literally walk for hours in quite hot weather.

 

[metis]

Even the hairy ones can become hairless because of mutation or other reasons.

View attachment 71078

View attachment 71079

Daddy!

 

[leroy]

You've misunderstood the data. The genes in humans that result in full body hair have been disabled by mutations.

aja, and how do you know that? how do you know that the genes where disabled?

That is your interpretation based on the assumption that evolution is true,

I was wondering if any creationists would go this route. I suppose if you want to believe in a fully-haired A&E, that's your prerogative.

YECs have problems with “new information” not with losing preexisting information

First, not all traits have to be advantageous.

Ok, but we are talking about specific trait “hairlessness”……….. was this advantageous or not?

Second, your question is addressed in the paper linked to in the OP. The authors basically make the same hypothesis as @metis (loss of body hair + sweat glands = adaptations to living in hot environment).

Be specific and develop a testable model that shows that hairlessness had an evolutionary advantage…..why is it that only humans lost hair and no other mammals that lived in the same area?

What argument?

wherent you presentign this as an argument agaisnt creationists?

 

[Jose Fly]

aja, and how do you know that? how do you know that the genes where disabled?

That is your interpretation based on the assumption that evolution is true

What th....? That makes no sense at all.

YECs have problems with “new information” not with losing preexisting information

Don't care.

Ok, but we are talking about specific trait “hairlessness”……….. was this advantageous or not?

Possibly, but it doesn't have to be.

Be specific and develop a testable model that shows that hairlessness had an evolutionary advantage…..why is it that only humans lost hair and no other mammals that lived in the same area?

Evolution doesn't work that way. Just because one species living in an environment acquires a trait doesn't mean all the other species in that environment must therefore acquire it as well.

wherent you presentign this as an argument agaisnt creationists?

Not necessarily. I mostly wanted to see how creationists interpreted this data. Some have invoked the meaningless "Maybe the gods just made it that way" assertion, while you suggested that maybe A&E were as hairy as gorillas.

 

[leroy]

Because or hair follicles evolved from emitting mostly oil that would keep our hair lubricated to water to cool our bodies off, and this is believed to likely have evolved because of having to travel over long distances to catch game because we didn't and don't have much speed as a species. Our running speed is relative slow, but we can literally walk for hours in quite hot weather.

That doesn’t seem to be a “life saving” benefit and doesn’t seem to compensate the fact that without hair one has no protection from the sun nor from the cold ……….

 

[leroy]

What th....? That makes no sense at all.

Care to answer my question? How do you know that the genes where disabled?

Not necessarily. I mostly wanted to see how creationists interpreted this data. Some have invoked the meaningless "Maybe the gods just made it that way" assertion, while you suggested that maybe A&E were as hairy as gorillas.

And you are invoking the “maybe” it (hairlessness) evolved that way for X reason, assertion. …..so what makes you different form YEC……………….both are making untestable speculations

 

[Subduction Zone]

aja, and how do you know that? how do you know that the genes where disabled?

That is your interpretation based on the assumption that evolution is true,




YECs have problems with “new information” not with losing preexisting information




Ok, but we are talking about specific trait “hairlessness”……….. was this advantageous or not?




Be specific and develop a testable model that shows that hairlessness had an evolutionary advantage…..why is it that only humans lost hair and no other mammals that lived in the same area?




wherent you presentign this as an argument agaisnt creationists?

If you want to claim "assumption " the burden of proof is upon you to prove an assumption.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you want to claim "assumption " the burden of proof is upon you to prove an assumption.

Well that's completely backwards thinking.