• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
Huh? I'm asking you. If that's not how you see it, then say so.
Click to expand...

I think I explained what I meant by current science myths. You seem to be wanting to turn it into some sort of ad hominem.
It is just that it is hard to know which direction science has gone with origins, it seems to have gone in a direction of refuting the idea that the universe began and saying that the universe has always been in one form or another. It's a bit of a hodge podge.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
If you assume abiogenesis is the way then you think we are almost there since I heard somewhere that 8 out of 10 of the big problems in abiogenesis have been solved.
But how life got here is currently unknown. That's just the fact of the matter.
Click to expand...
No, that is not an assumption. It is a rational conclusion.

To say it is "unknown' is wrong since it is incredibly misleading.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Brian2 said:
I think I explained what I meant by current science myths. You seem to be wanting to turn it into some sort of ad hominem.
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry you see it that way.

It is just that it is hard to know which direction science has gone with origins, it seems to have gone in a direction of refuting the idea that the universe began and saying that the universe has always been in one form or another. It's a bit of a hodge podge.
Click to expand...
Ok. I was just interested in what you saw in science that is "myth".

If you don't mind, if you want to discuss cosmology and/or abiogenesis, can you please take it to a different thread? I'd like to keep this one focused on the info and questions in the OP.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
Can that idea be scientifically proven?

Or its it just maybe's, could be's, could have's, etc"

Hint.. Abiogenisis isn't proven. Its maybe's, could be's and could have's. That's reality!

Every time you argue it was abiogenisis you are no different than when they say it was a god. Neither of you know.

Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Now I should be face palming you. You just demonstrated incredible ignorance. Science does not prove things. Science is finding evidence for ideas. And when I talk about abiogenesis I will say that it is the only idea that is supported by evidence. i never say it is a proven fact. Meanwhile if you want to you can believe that it was the Loch Ness Monster or the Easter Bunny but no one will take you seriously.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
Now I should be face palming you. You just demonstrated incredible ignorance. Science does not prove things. Science is finding evidence for ideas. And when I talk about abiogenesis I will say that it is the only idea that is supported by evidence. i never say it is a proven fact. Meanwhile if you want to you can believe that it was the Loch Ness Monster or the Easter Bunny but no one will take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible) or admit defeat. Your choice.
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Liar destroyer human scientists theists.

Humans own hair. We keep hair naturally yet daily lose hair.

Scientists theories a no hair human wants to cause it by intentions of his research.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible) or admit defeat. Your choice.
Click to expand...
LOL! What makes you think that you are qualified to judge the evidence? You have already shown that you are not qualified.

Here is a simple question for you: Do you know why the Miller Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis? If you can't get that one right you will not be able to get any of them right.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
LOL! What makes you think that you are qualified to judge the evidence? You have already shown that you are not qualified.

Here is a simple question for you: Do you know why the Miller Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis? If you can't get that one right you will not be able to get any of them right.
Click to expand...

This is it....

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible) or admit defeat. Your choice.
 
leroy

leroy

Well-Known Member
Jose Fly said:
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.
Click to expand...

What the paper did was "show" that the genetic sequences in humans do not code for "lots of hair" like in other apes.........it didn't show that the sequence is useless, just that it doest have that specific purpose.


You are assuming that the gene was disabled, but you can not prove it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
leroy

leroy

Well-Known Member
metis said:
That's impossible to determine scientifically, nor does any scientific logic narrow it down as far as I've read.
Click to expand...

But your hypothesis leads to a chicken and egg paradox therefore unless you solve the paradox your hypothesis os likelly to be wrong

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.
Click to expand...
So what, cancer would develope long after reproduction, so it wouldn't be selectively negative.

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.[/QUOTE]
Again vitamine D deficiency is not a death threating problem......people with vitamine D deficiency would have been equally likelly to reproduce .......
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
leroy said:
What the paper did was "show" that the genetic sequences in humans do not code for "lots of hair" like in other apes.........it didn't show that the sequence is useless, just that it doest have that specific purpose.


You are assuming that the gene was disabled, but you can not prove it.
Click to expand...
Quote the part of the paper where they merely assume that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
leroy said:
But your hypothesis leads to a chicken and egg paradox therefore unless you solve the paradox your hypothesis os likelly to be wrong
Click to expand...
That's why it's a hypothesis.

leroy said:
So what, cancer would develope long after reproduction, so it wouldn't be selectively negative.
Click to expand...
Cancer can occur prior to reproduction as well, although the odds are less.

leroy said:
Again vitamine D deficiency is not a death threating problem......people with vitamine D deficiency would have been equally likelly to reproduce .......
Click to expand...
See the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top