Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Subduction Zone]

pow·er
/ˈpou(ə)r/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Politics
Law
Military
Religion
Physics
Sport
Electrical
Mathematics
noun

1. 1.
   the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.
   "the power of speech"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Similar:
   ability
   
   capacity
   capability
   
   potential
   
   potentiality
   
   faculty
   
   property
   
   competence
   
   competency
   
   
   Opposite:
   inability
   
   incapacity
   
   
   
2. 2.
   the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.
   "she had me under her power"

verb

1. 1.
   supply (a device) with mechanical or electrical energy.
   "the car is powered by a fuel-injected 3.0-liter engine"
2. 2.
   move or travel with great speed or force.
   "they powered past the dock toward the mouth of the creek"

So a bullet moving with greater speed and force than another has more power.

So you still do not understand the concept of power. Or context. We have a lot of work to do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have often called this "cultural selection" in my anthro course because it is a part of natural selection.

I see that as selection that covers a much broader role, but it certainly includes sexual selection.

 

[leroy]

Pretty sure I made my point.
t

Perhaps you did, all I am saying is that I personally don’t get it, I dont see your point

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps you did, all I am saying is that I personally don’t get it, I dont see your point

I flat out told you my point:

We don't label ourselves by the names of the people who discovered the scientific theories we accept. That's silly. And really, my point. Creationists throw it out there, thinking it's some kind of derogatory term to mock people who accept the scientific theory they themselves can't bring themselves to accept due to their religious beliefs.

 

[leroy]

I flat out told you my point:

We don't label ourselves by the names of the people who discovered the scientific theories we accept. That's silly. And really, my point. Creationists throw it out there, thinking it's some kind of derogatory term to mock people who accept the scientific theory they themselves can't bring themselves to accept due to their religious beliefs.

Well my intent was not to use the term in derogatory way I told you what I meant
And I am not aware of any synonyms, so I don´t know which other word to use

We don't label ourselves by the names of the people who discovered the scientific theories we accept

Well in this case we do.

People use this term both in academic context and in informal conversations

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well in this case we do.

No. YOU do. Not "we".

 

[Audie]

No. YOU do. Not "we".

if your friend understands Boyle’s laws to the extent that he’d know a pressure cooker could explode, then he is a Boyleist.
We all recognize this and speak so.

Perhaps you could add a few more ists and their isms

 

[YoursTrue]

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


I'm generally what's known as an "apatheist", in that I'm not all that interested in gods and arguing about whether or not they exist. I see the question as largely irrelevant.

Specific to your question, to me it's no different than asking "Do you think a god could have caused that leaf to fall?" My answer would be along the lines of....yeah, I suppose it's possible but I don't see any point in the question. We can ask that about any event, and given the nature of gods (as defined by those who believe in them), there's no way to tell either way, which IMO renders the question irrelevant. The leaf fell, the mutation happened....whether or not gods were involved doesn't change that.

Relevant or not about God in your mind, Genesis 1 says in part about man's creation, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth." How God did it is not explained in any big detail. As far as what God looks like I doubt He looks like Adam and Eve and He does not explain that. However, the human mind is different than that of gorillas and fish. Therefore, it does not matter to me what DNA or pores have changed over the millenia. Because God can make anything however He wants it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Relevant or not about God in your mind, Genesis 1 says in part about man's creation, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth." How God did it is not explained in any big detail. As far as what God looks like I doubt He looks like Adam and Eve and He does not explain that. However, the human mind is different than that of gorillas and fish. Therefore, it does not matter to me what DNA or pores have changed over the millenia. Because God can make anything however He wants it.

Yep, anything goes when you can just claim "magic!" Then you don't have to actually think about anything at all. Or offer an actual explanation.