Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Subduction Zone]

Are you speaking of yourself?
And of course it's blind chance, if there's no intelligence behind it.

Nope, sorry, that is not what "blind chance" means. You are trying to redefine a concept. You can't use loaded language and then try to redefine it so that it fits your narrative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct. You should certainly thank the doctor for his skill. But God gave him the ability to have those skills.

Gee, I could swear that the skills were acquired by years of studying and training at universities and hospitals.

So how does it work then? You pray and god delivers?
A bit like how Neo learned Kung Fu in The Matrix?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know what that means.

We know.

Everything good comes from God.
Any ability that you might have is only borrowed.

What a depressing look on reality you have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fools are those who believe they are the result of blind chance.

And who are these fools?
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks evolution is the equivalent of "blind chance".

They should put fuzzy dice on their car mirrors so they have a god to worship. " Oh, thank you, blind chance for creating me and making me capable of tying my shoes and operating a computer."

Que?
Projecting much?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you speaking of yourself?
And of course it's blind chance, if there's no intelligence behind it.

A rock falling down a cliff has not intelligence behind it either.
But the path it takes going down is not "blind chance".

You put up a false dichotomy.
But you don't care, right?

 

[leroy]

Really? Name some.

What for? So that you can run away………..make a bunch if unsupported claims ?

 

[Audie]

And who are these fools?
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks evolution is the equivalent of "blind chance".



Que?
Projecting much?

It's always "blind chance". That's key.
Sighted chance can do anything.
I've heard about that.

 

[leroy]

Probably not. We were probably "white" before we were "black". What difference does it make? Except for scientific curiosity why even ask in the first place?

I am just responding to a previous claim, where it was said the opposite

Really? Then how do you get rid of excess heat?

You have to build a model and show that the ability to get rid of excess hit (hairlessness) would have been a significant benefit that would allow the organism to survive and reproduce more efficiently

If you don’t present your testable model, then you are just speculating ……….




Why? Do you seriously think that everything evolves one trait at a time? Can you support your claim?

][/QUOTE]
No I don’t believe that things can only evolve 1 trait at the time……………only those who claim that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection would have to hold that belief………………


No I don’t believe that things can only evolve 1 trait at the time (I am not a darwinist)……………only those who claim that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection would have to hold the claim that organims evovle 1 trait at the time

 

[Subduction Zone]

What for? So that you can run away………..make a bunch if unsupported claims ?

The king of unsupported claims is making that accusation of me. You ran away on the recent thread. Not me. How could you forget sooooooo quickly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just responding to a previous claim, where it was said the opposite

Wow! A dodge. Yes, the OP who started this refused to answer the why question too. The question was why you asked this in the first place?

You have to build a model and show that the ability to get rid of excess hit (hairlessness) would have been a significant benefit that would allow the organism to survive and reproduce more efficiently

If you don’t present your testable model, then you are just speculating ……….

Do you think that they did not do that? I am not the one that made the claim originally. I am only reporting what was found. Go look up the papers yourself if you wonder how they came to there conclusions. They sound reasonable to me. By the way, when people link things that do make such claims and I have problems with the science I look up the papers. I did that just yesterday in response to some Covid virus denial.

No I don’t believe that things can only evolve 1 trait at the time……………only those who claim that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection would have to hold that belief………


No I don’t believe that things can only evolve 1 trait at the time (I am not a darwinist)……………only those who claim that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection would have to hold the claim that organims evovle 1 trait at the time

Nope, scientists don't make that claim. And evolution does not make that claim. So you just contradicted yourself, On more than one level.

So you were just wrong with that silly question that you asked. Okay. A little bit of progress, maybe.

 

[Jose Fly]

You had that chance to apologize and claim that you made a mistake , that way you would have removed the “lie” accusation .

Yes the paper “infers” positive selection based on the pattern the speed of evolution that they observed, but they had no idea nor interest on what was the actual selective benefit

So my original question is not answered in the paper, as you claimed, therefore you lied

Again, just....wow.

The only things I can think of to say in response would probably get me banned. I guess this is the state of the EvC debate....if you want to still engage in what's left of it, be prepared to spend your time arguing with people who just aren't all that bright.

 

[leroy]

The king of unsupported claims is making that accusation of me. You ran away on the recent thread. Not me. How could you forget sooooooo quickly?

Then Why is it that you can’t quote a single unsupported claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then Why is it that you can’t quote a single unsupported claim?

LOL!! Projection. We have been there. You also cannot make false claims about others and then expect them to provide you with evidence. This is why you keep being put on corrections only. I am not doing your homework for you.

 

[leroy]

Wow! A dodge. Yes, the OP who started this refused to answer the why question too. The question was why you asked this in the first place?

In summery

1 I said that hairlessness would have been a problem, because the hair protects mammals from the sun

2 someone (don’t remember who) answered that the sun only affected white people (implying that our ancestors where black)

3 I showed a source that said the opposite, that our ancestors where white (implying that my original objection in point 1 has not been refuted)

Was your questions answered?

Nope, scientists don't make that claim. And evolution does not make that claim.

Again if you claim that organism evolved through random mutations, then you cant have many traits evolving at the same time ……….. if you don’t claim that organisms evolved mainly through random mutations, then you don’t have to hold the view that organisms evolved one trait at the time


Scientists are divide don this issue, some claim that random mutations are the mechanism some don’t ………..

So you just contradicted yourself, On more than one level.

Ok can you quote my actual words and explain why am I being contradictory?.........of course not because you are just a clown that is making random and unsupported accusations?



[/QUOTE]

 

[metis]

1 I said that hairlessness would have been a problem, because the hair protects mammals from the sun

Thus, dark skin, which other primates do have on parts that are not covered by hair.

2 someone (don’t remember who) answered that the sun only affected white people (implying that our ancestors where black)

And without much of a doubt, they were, so why would anyone assume otherwise?

3 I showed a source that said the opposite, that our ancestors where white (implying that my original objection in point 1 has not been refuted)

Because the scientific view of skin color with early humans is a "hypothesis" tha't likely correct but unprovable.

Scientists are divide don this issue, some claim that random mutations are the mechanism some don’t ………..

No, it is not in dispute with us because of the laws of probability strongly point in that direction.

 

[leroy]

Again, just....wow.

The only things I can think of to say in response would probably get me banned. I guess this is the state of the EvC debate....if you want to still engage in what's left of it, be prepared to spend your time arguing with people who just aren't all that bright.

This is not a EvC debate, I am just pointing out the fact that we don’t know why hairlessness evolved and that the paper doesn’t even try to answer to that question,.

Deep inside you agree with the statements but you would not admit it because that would imply admitting that you lied. ………….

I am not a YeC I don’t reject evolution (common ancestry) all I said is that the specific argument in the OP is not a good argument against YEC ………… there are hunderstas of good arguments against YEC, just this particular argument is not…..

 

[Subduction Zone]

In summery

1 I said that hairlessness would have been a problem, because the hair protects mammals from the sun

2 someone (don’t remember who) answered that the sun only affected white people (implying that our ancestors where black)

3 I showed a source that said the opposite, that our ancestors where white (implying that my original objection in point 1 has not been refuted)

Was your questions answered?

No, because that did not appear to be your motive when you first entered into the discussion. But I will let it drop for now.

Again if you claim that organism evolved through random mutations, then you cant have many traits evolving at the same time ……….. if you don’t claim that organisms evolved mainly through random mutations, then you don’t have to hold the view that organisms evolved one trait at the time

See! You did claim that.

Why can't there be several or even many traits evolving at the same time? The theory of evolution does not imply that, it does not say that anywhere. Go ahead and look. I cannot quote what is not there, you would need to find evidence for your claim. I can save you some work. All that you have to do is to acknowledge that you are probably wrong and I can explain it to you. But without such an acknowledgement you will have to do your own homework.

Scientists are divide don this issue, some claim that random mutations are the mechanism some don’t ………..

No, that is a strawman at best. They may disagree on the importance of random mutations. There are maybe a few outliers that have argued that mutations are guided by the environment. But they do not seem to be gaining any traction. And of course there are other mechanisms involved too.

Ok can you quote my actual words and explain why am I being contradictory?.........of course not because you are just a clown that is making random and unsupported accusations?

LOL! Wow, a demand while breaking the rules of the forum. I would suggest an apology on your part.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is not a EvC debate

You are an ID creationism advocate, correct?

I am just pointing out the fact that we don’t know why hairlessness evolved and that the paper doesn’t even try to answer to that question,.

Actually it does. That's why they spent so much effort conducting numerous tests to identify the signatures of selective pressures. It tells us whether the sequences in question (and the traits they confer) evolved due to selection or random drift. You just don't know enough about the subject to pick up on that.

Deep inside you agree with the statements but you would not admit it because that would imply admitting that you lied. ………….

No, you're just exhibiting typical creationist behavior by attempting to debate a subject you know little to nothing about, but lacking the necessary humility to recognize that fact.

I am not a YeC I don’t reject evolution (common ancestry) all I said is that the specific argument in the OP is not a good argument against YEC ………… there are hunderstas of good arguments against YEC, just this particular argument is not…..

I didn't say anything about YEC. Pay better attention.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And who are these fools?
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks evolution is the equivalent of "blind chance".

Then they are fools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then they are fools.

No, it appears to be the other way around. Imagine using the same failed arguments again and again against reality.