Don't get it (Re: Ape to Man - where did the hair go?)

Man never lost the hair of the apes because man never had that much hair in the first place. Hair follicles does not equal hair! My hair follicles don't keep me warm. Don't insult our intelligence. This guy has a right to be confused listening to the crap you jokers come up with.It is DEvolution to lose one's hair which is required for warmth in nearly every country except the lands where the Garden of Eden was located, where people can be warm night and day without a single hair (follicle) or scrap of clothing.So, here's the total truth. Man was created to exist in the Garden of Eden, where clothing and hair were not required for warmth. Man was evicted from the Garden of Eden after the fall. Now man suffers in the cold and needs to wear clothes. Why is that so hard to digest? Science, after all these years and with all that combined intelligence still cannot explain why man lost his hair. They skip around the subject and don't know WHAT to do about it.

Man never lost the hair of the apes because man never had that much hair in the first place. Hair follicles does not equal hair! My hair follicles don't keep me warm. Don't insult our intelligence. This guy has a right to be confused listening to the crap you jokers come up with.It is DEvolution to lose one's hair which is required for warmth in nearly every country except the lands where the Garden of Eden was located, where people can be warm night and day without a single hair (follicle) or scrap of clothing.So, here's the total truth. Man was created to exist in the Garden of Eden, where clothing and hair were not required for warmth. Man was evicted from the Garden of Eden after the fall. Now man suffers in the cold and needs to wear clothes. Why is that so hard to digest? Science, after all these years and with all that combined intelligence still cannot explain why man lost his hair. They skip around the subject and don't know WHAT to do about it.

Every theory is full of holes. Science wants to know the truth, so it says, so it should take its nose (pardon the pun) out of the air and look at all options. The problem with science is that what it can't "look at", it can't believe. Too bad...it's a great pity. But, while it is considering the existence of aliens and ghosts, it should also consider the possibility of God and creationism.If you want to talk about a theory that's full of holes, you need look no further than the never-to-be-answered-by-science topic on why man needed to lose his hair, whether the reason was to wade in the water searching for food during the great drought or to allow man to nestle snuggly by the fire without getting it's skin all nasty and sweaty..oh diddums..Withold your condescending tone with me or any other open-minded creationist. You could say we are the true scientist because we don't discount this option. It just pisses us off that we can't prove it to you nerdy boys.

Oh dear, you're so confident about the semi-aquatic ape theory, you even signed your name to it. I could go on and on. Let's have a chat sometime.Look, I'm no dumbhead that gives up and says "ah, it's useless, I'm just going to believe in God and creationism". You strengthen my point. People can't decide what is true and, yes, predjudices and beliefs abounded. Science steps in and says "let's evaluate it". Ok, so science discovered that micro-organisms caused disease. But science fails to recognise possible underlying sources, reasons, motives. It just says "this, which I call x, caused that, which I name y". Science is merely in the process of discovering how great and mysterious this world, and we human beings, really are. Science is just a little crawling baby in the belly of something it can only say "mama" to. Science will eventually merely DISCOVER God, not disprove Him. If you don't want this to happen, you are not worthy of the calling. What I object to is pseudo-scientists poo-pooing the creationist notion when all they have to stand on themselves is ... "poo-poo". Great scientists should adopt the role of truth seeker. I believe Einstein was a creationist. Some among you have adopt an arrogant demeanour that is not becoming and far from warranted.As an open-minded person, I take the many miraculous events that have occured in recent history - Medjugorje, the stigmata of the mystics (I refer you to http://www.thereseneumann.de/thereseenglish/index.htm), to name a couple - a step further and consider the fact that mankind itself is a miracle of God.

I thought someone would nit-pick on the follicles not eqalling hair. Come on. The point is clear. It is the hair that keeps me warm, not the follicles.Many aquatic animals didn't need to lose their hair to enter the water - otters, platypus, most mammals in fact. The question is why humans supposedly followed the path of the dolphins and not the otters. It's not as if humans can swim fast enough so that losing hair actually becomes an advantage. We must be the slowest swimmers on the planet. A croc could catch an olympic swimmer without much effort. Also, dolphin/seal skin is different from human skin in important ways that indicate we didn't have an aquatic background. Unlike the skin of aquatic mammals, human skin quickly becomes waterlogged (i.e. wrinkled fingers and tootsies), an obviously undesirable trait for a purportedly aquatic animal.

Humans also do not live in the water. At most, we waded to get food. Humans don't have bursts of aquatic speed. At most we waded and maybe did a little doggie paddle.It is debated that hair actually protects from the sun and even desert camels are furry as are most African Savannah mammals. How come none of them lost their hair, especially considering hair keeps the ticks and fleas happy. They all found other more preferred methods of cooling - panting, etc. Another argument is that hair loss facilitates sweat cooling. However there are animals like the Patas monkey that manage to sweat very effectively without hair loss. Why lose the hair? Unless you're a very big beast like an elephant or a whale where sheer size makes your surface area too heat-attractive or a water-rocket like a dolphin.

Reduced to sarcasm and selective Google searches

If you have something useful to say that adds to this discussion, we're waiting to hear it. So far, it's been a bunch of nothing.

Come on, don't tell me I've silenced thinkers and am just getting the hecklers now.

Oh piss off, you pathetic little man. Discuss something or shove off.

It's hard to see my point because your brain isn't quite up to this task Cashfrog.

I apologise. I'm trying to have a discussion, honest I am. I just wish the lurkers would lurk off if they have nothing to add but some snide sideways comment. How do you quote someone else's comment in order to reply to it.

I apologise to Lam and Cashfrog for insulting them and for any other ways I have not been "popular".Quote
They wear their prey down instead of ambushing them or running them down.
UnquoteHow did they wear down their prey if they did not run them down? Humans couldn't chase or wear down much more than a chicken in their back yard. It's tough to compare humans to ANY animal, let alone a wolf. Every animal has some appearance of being well-adapted to its environment. Humans show very little. If humans went bald as a heat regulating mechanism, their skin should show a more adapted quality. Such a drastic adaptation as loss of hair should be accompanied by some compensating adaptation to the now-exposed skin. When you see Masai Mara people on Discover Channel trekking across the open lion-infested Savannah accompanying their herds of cattle, does it look to you like they are well-adapted? They look like the proverbial fish out of water. They cannot run, cannot climb, cannot handle the heat or cold without clothing. If they cool off in the water, they get their tootsies wrinkled, they need water very often to prevent dehydration. If this was an evolution, it was a strange one. We just don't fit in.

I know this is a little off topic, but I wanted to rebut a previous comment and stop people to be swayed by off-the-cuff and possible selective taking of quotes, out of context or otherwise, from search engines.Einstein & Hawking:Einstein, after standing his ground for a long time, finally grudgingly conceded "the necessity for a beginning" and "the presence of a superior reasoning power".Hawking said "These laws of physics may have been originally decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not intervene in it."As I understand it, Enstein later tempered his statement a little by saying that he was not wishing to add anything anthropomorphic to the "creator", merely that there must have been an external force of some kind. So, it could be accurate to say that Einstein was not a pure "Creationist" in the sense of there having been a CREATING ENTITY, i.e. a Deity, although both great men never discounted that a God could have been the initiator, though this God appears to be absent at present, perhaps leaving everything to "evolve".

That is precisely the type of comment that gets these discussions going nowhere. It comes from not knowing what else to say and it is flawed.1) Only elite runners even TRY to run 100K per day. It is not statistically worth considering from an evolutionary or adaptational standpoint.
2) 100K per day is most likely broken down into a series of smaller distances throughout the day.
3) You said it "Maybe you can't or I can't". Now, this is representative of the majority and worth considering.