Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Jose Fly]

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

Because they don't work. Duh.

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

Here are the differences.

The geneticists' hypothesis center on selective pressures, mechanisms that we directly observe, pretty much every day. Creationists' speculations center on gods manipulating genomes, something no one has ever seen happen.

The geneticists have specific methods to test for the effects of different types of selection on genetic sequences (described in the paper). Creationists have no such methods to test for gods acting on genomes.

Trying to equate the two is ignorant at best.

 

[metis]

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 ……….

The dark skin does as we see in Africa and other such climes as we did most of our early evolving in the horn region of eastern Africa. Cold weather was solved by wearing skins as shawls as not awls show up until much later in time.

BTW, we see some bands still doing this today, such as he Bushman of the Kalahari, which was the group I used as an example in my Intro to Anthro course.

 

[leroy]

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

Yes and magically and for no reason, you never have a burden proof…………. Well that exalisn why is it that you never support your claims

 

[leroy]

Because they don't work. Duh.

How do you know that hey dont work? how do you know that they dont work because they where disable?

Here are the differences.

The geneticists' hypothesis center on selective pressures, mechanisms that we directly observe, pretty much every day. Creationists' speculations center on gods manipulating genomes, something no one has ever seen happen.

The geneticists have specific methods to test for the effects of different types of selection on genetic sequences (described in the paper). Creationists have no such methods to test for gods acting on genomes.

Trying to equate the two is ignorant at best.

The geneticists have specific methods to test for the effects of different types of selection

Which tests show that this particular trait “hairless ness was selected and for what reason?

If you don’t quote your tests, then you are no different form YEC

 

[leroy]

The dark skin does as we see in Africa and other such climes as we did most of our early evolving in the horn region of eastern Africa. Cold weather was solved by wearing skins as shawls as not awls show up until much later in time.

BTW, we see some bands still doing this today, such as he Bushman of the Kalahari, which was the group I used as an example in my Intro to Anthro course.

Ok and did you note the chicken and egg problem?........ what evolved first, “dark skin” or hairlessness?

1 If dark skin evolved first, then why did it evolved? Dark skin would have been useless in a hairy ape

2 if hairlessness evolved first, then hairlessness would have been negative because the naked ape would have not have dark skin


Besides these are not “life saving benefits” and therefore would have not been selectively positive

 

[Jose Fly]

How do you know that hey dont work? how do you know that they dont work because they where disable?

Sheesh dude, you really don't know how geneticists identify non-functional genes? No idea at all?

If that's the case, then to be quite honest....you lack the fundamental knowledge necessary to discuss, let alone debate, the subject. I suggest you take the time to learn some basic genetics.

Which tests show that this particular trait “hairless ness was selected and for what reason?

If you don’t quote your tests, then you are no different form YEC

It's all in the paper, but given your lack of knowledge of genetics, you likely won't understand much of it. If you're truly interested then make the effort to educate yourself.

 

[metis]

Ok and did you note the chicken and egg problem?........ what evolved first, “dark skin” or hairlessness?

That's impossible to determine scientifically, nor does any scientific logic narrow it down as far as I've read.

Besides these are not “life saving benefits” and therefore would have not been selectively positive

Actually dark skin is, as skin cancer in an equatorial environment is potentially deadly. Studies show that light-skinned people, such as with myself, have a significantly greater chance of developing skin cancer, especially under intense light conditions.

The more perplexing problem is why did light skin evolve in the northern climes but pretty much only in northern Europe? One hypothesis is because of the heavily treed environment and vitamin D production, but that's hardly a slam-dunk.

 

[metis]

BTW, a very perplexing problem is why did blue eyes evolve and become common in much of northwestern Europe? It serves no physical advantage that has been determined, but one hypothesis is that it was a byproduct of what I used to call "cultural selection", namely a desired characteristic for esthetic reasons. When I've gone into parts of southern Europe and southwestern Asia, quite few people stare into my eyes because they're blue [or bloodshot].

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and magically and for no reason, you never have a burden proof…………. Well that exalisn why is it that you never support your claims

When I make claims that have a burden of proof I will supply it. But you demand it for claims made far too long ago.

Your timing is off usually. Your mistakes are explained to you by many people. You ignore the corrections. It is too late to start to dispute them a page or two later. The time to object is when they are made. As I just did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's impossible to determine scientifically, nor does any scientific logic narrow it down as far as I've read.

Actually dark skin is, as skin cancer in an equatorial environment is potentially deadly. Studies show that light-skinned people, such as with myself, have a significantly greater chance of developing skin cancer, especially under intense light conditions.

The more perplexing problem is why did light skin evolve in the northern climes but pretty much only in northern Europe? One hypothesis is because of the heavily treed environment and vitamin D production, but that's hardly a slam-dunk.

Climate have a lot to do with it. I do believe that in general Europe is "warmer than it should be". The should be is only personal prejudice from where I grew up. I grew up in Minnesota it is mid-continent and rather cold in the winter. It's weather it similar to Norway or even more so like Finland and they are about 15 degrees of latitude further north. I now live in the Pacific Northwest. It is at the same latitude, but it is much warmer during the winter. Almost as warm as England. Europe has the benefit of the Gulf Stream flowing towards it. That brings warmth from the Caribbean up to it during the winter months making it both warmer, and probably like our weather here, cloudier. The cold days here are the rare clear ones And in Minnesota it was rather clear for much of the winter. So vitamin D would not have been as much of an issue there as it would be here with its endless cloudy weather. White skin was needed to get every last bit of Vitamin D production that it could there. Meanwhile the steppes of eastern Asia, though cold, are also dry. and clear. More sunshine, less need for light pigment.

At least that is what makes sense to me.

And our common ancestor with chimps probably had skin color similar to chimps. Chimps have rather light skin. They do not need melanin for the skin where they have fur since the fur does the same job that melanin does. Why waste energy on an unneeded product. As we lost hair to survive on the savannah we probably also got darker to protect from the Sun. So hairy and white, then less hair and les hair and darker and darker, and then eventually once we left lighter again where needed.

As to hairyness, once we left clothing of some sort was likely invented rather quickly. Fur was not needed so it was not selected for. But we always will need Vitamin D.

That is my take on it. I have no direct evidence, but it is logically consistent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that's completely backwards thinking.

No it is not. Do I get to call you a murderer without evidence?

When one claims "assumption" one has already made a conclusion. And is using that conclusion in one's accusation. In the sciences unjustified assumptions (which by context was the meaning of the accusation) are not allowed. To accuse someone of making those is a very serious charge. It is up to the person making that charge to support it. He made a charge that required evidence. When challenged he simply ran away again, actually what he did was even worse. when challenged he used a Tu quoque fallacy due to his past failures.

If I accuse you of making an assumption I better be able to prove it. And the same goes from you if you make such an accusation.

Far too often creationists seem to think that the false "assumption" claim is a rebuttal. It is not . It is merely rude behavior where one uses an unsupported and often false accusation.

Here is the proper thing to do if you do not believe someone: Ask for the evidence or logic behind a claim.. If they have none then you can claim "assumption".

 

[Brian2]

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.

Well there is no detailed way given that God did it. Science keeps changing it's collective mind and when it says X religious people say, OK that could fit. Then it changes it's mind and says not X, Y. So we look at it and says, yes that could fit also. The goal posts keep moving with science and each generation has a different science myth that it believes. The religious myth does not change however, just the science myth. And the amazing thing is that it does not matter what science finds, the religious myth can still fit.

 

[Brian2]

BTW, a very perplexing problem is why did blue eyes evolve and become common in much of northwestern Europe? It serves no physical advantage that has been determined, but one hypothesis is that it was a byproduct of what I used to call "cultural selection", namely a desired characteristic for esthetic reasons. When I've gone into parts of southern Europe and southwestern Asia, quite few people stare into my eyes because they're blue [or bloodshot].

Some genes are interlinked with others, so changes in one area are associated with changes in other areas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well there is no detailed way given that God did it. Science keeps changing it's collective mind and when it says X religious people say, OK that could fit. Then it changes it's mind and says not X, Y. So we look at it and says, yes that could fit also. The goal posts keep moving with science and each generation has a different science myth that it believes. The religious myth does not change however, just the science myth. And the amazing thing is that it does not matter what science finds, the religious myth can still fit.

No. That is a mischaracterization of the sciences. If you follow the sciences you will see that when it comes to almost any topic they start with a low amount of information and then as evidence, experimentation, and technology improve they get more and more precise in their statements. You would be hard pressed to find one scientific theory from the start of the twentieth century on that has been refuted. Change? Yes, that happens all of the time. For example, though Newtons' gravity was corrected for relativistic instances it was not refuted. It was refined.

The only modern scientific theory that I can think of that was refuted was the phlogiston theory. That went through some iterations but eventually got its final form in about 1700. It was refuted in the 1770's.

Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia

Perhaps my challenge should include the 19th century too. See if you can find a modern well accepted scientific theory that has been refuted. Non-scientists often misuse the word theory. In the sciences nothing is above a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some genes are interlinked with others, so changes in one area are associated with changes in other areas.

That may be. But it does not help you unless you can show such a linkage with the blue eyed gene. As you gave it it is only a "So what?" argument.

 

[Brian2]

No. That is a mischaracterization of the sciences. If you follow the sciences you will see that when it comes to almost any topic they start with a low amount of information and then as evidence, experimentation, and technology improve they get more and more precise in their statements. You would be hard pressed to find one scientific theory from the start of the twentieth century on that has been refuted. Change? Yes, that happens all of the time. For example, though Newtons' gravity was corrected for relativistic instances it was not refuted. It was refined.

The only modern scientific theory that I can think of that was refuted was the phlogiston theory. That went through some iterations but eventually got its final form in about 1700. It was refuted in the 1770's.

Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia

Perhaps my challenge should include the 19th century too. See if you can find a modern well accepted scientific theory that has been refuted. Non-scientists often misuse the word theory. In the sciences nothing is above a theory.

What you said does not alter the truth of what I said about what happens. But yes it might be a mischaracterization of the sciences, as I was answering the same mischaracterization by Jose Fly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you said does not alter the truth of what I said about what happens. But yes it might be a mischaracterization of the sciences, as I was answering the same mischaracterization by Jose Fly.

Your argument was refuted since you have no argument. It is really that simple.


You need to learn how to logically support your claims. Otherwise a simple handwave refutes you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Here is the proper thing to do if you do not believe someone: Ask for the evidence or logic behind a claim.. If they have none then you can claim "assumption".

That's exactly what he was doing. Funny stuff.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When I make claims that have a burden of proof I will supply it. But you demand it for claims made far too long ago.

Lame.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's exactly what he was doing. Funny stuff.

Where? I did not see any evidence. i only saw an unsupported accusation. Where is the evidence that he provided for an assumption??

Or are you saying that I am justified in accusing you of being a murderer?