Is body hair a functionless vestige?

No, it doesn't. If anything, it keeps more water on the body than not having hair. For examples of hair that DOES keep water off the body you should check out dog breeds that have a dense undercoat, such as Labradors or Newfies. That hair actually does keep water off the body unlike ours. You seem to see a lot of things for which there is no evidence. Hair density in women is the same as in men for most cases. Alopecia is more common in human men, but it does occur in women as well. Also, more insulation is actually a hinderance in many climates that humans are otherwise well adapted to, such as the savannas of Africa. Like I said before, sweating is a much more useful thermoregulatory adaptation in humans than hair is, by a long ways.

What you understand is meaningless if you have no evidence to back it up. There are a lot of things that a lot of people understand to be correct that are woefully wrong. Instead of just asserting how about trying to present some evidence. Evolution by another name?ABE
Hair holes? hair holes? Are you freaking serious? You make all these supposed scientific claims and you don't know the name for "hair holes"?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You are just making that stuff up. And your explanation is completely backwards.A smaller body with a smaller surface area would mean1) Less energy need be generated internally required to attain a given temperature.
2) Less heat loss due to radiation or convection.That means that big people, male or female, need greater protection against heat loss in a cold, wet climate than do smaller people. Apparently those innate triggers produced inheritable changes. Someday it might be worthwhile to discuss the mechanism by that you understand will allow such things to happen.

Because of the square-cube law, bigger people have a higher mass-to-surface-area ratio, which should translate to higher heat-producing capacity and lower heat-loss capacity, shouldn't it?(I don't see it having much to do with hair though.)

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

A larger body would definitely lose more BTU/hr than a smaller one, but I hadn't considered an increase in heat generating capacity proportional to the mass. So for big, compact animals, a smaller fraction of the generated heat would be lost. A larger body would be better at maintaining temperature in the cold, but less able to get rid of heat in a too hot environment. I think you and Byers are right about that. More hair might help in cold climates, but women don't actually seem to have more hair on their heads. Not sure why Byers is trying to explain something that does not seem to occur.

That doesn't seem to fit with the evidence though: human groups from hotter climates tend to be larger and lankier while groups from colder climates tend to be shorter and stockier.Or is this a false impression I'm getting?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

A long, thin shape would have proportionately more surface area than a short, thick one of the same mass.Consider a sheet of plywood 48 by 96 inches and 1/2 inch thick. That's 9360 square inches of surface area, according to my calculations. Now cut it into 12 inch squares - 32 squares to make a stack 16 inches high. That's 1056 square inches surface area. The short fat stack will stay much warmer than the thin sheet.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. Unless females are the exact same proportion as larger males, wouldn't their smaller bodies already keep them warmer?I can't see why women would need more 'hair holes' than men. Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I agree that the hair-holes argument doesn't make any sense. It's pretty funny though.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This is the problem we have.Fundies are convinced that they have the answers to various questions so they don't need evidence, logical conclusions from that evidence, or the scientific method.Simple bone-head mistakes are the first clue. Folks who know their subject tend not to make too many of those mistakes. Other folks, who have little to no scientific training, and who may be getting their "science" from fundie websites, do not fare so well.That brings up the question: Why should scientists pay any attention to folks who know little to nothing about a scientific subject?Does zeal bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.Does religious apologetics bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.Does religious revelation bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.Does religious belief bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.If you have not studied a particular field of science to at least an advanced level, you have no business opining on that subject. Sad to say, religious apologists are the main offenders in this regard. Perhaps they should just "put a cork in it."(See also tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

First of all if your girlfriend had no hair you wouldnt find her attractiveSecondly your pubic hair regulates temperatures for your genitals.Thirdly the reason why we as humans find people with hair attractive is because it shows a sign of health so there you go...

Haha I'm South African and we "white "people are generally larger than the "bbalck people yet we originate from colder climates????

"black"sorry

There is an 'Edit' button at the bottom of every post you make, right next to the 'Reply' button. You can use that button to fix any typos or grammatical mistakes you notice after submitting your post; you do not need to make a new post to indicate a correction.

​

This is a forum, not an chat room. Let's try to keep it that way for everyone's sake.

​

Thanks

---

Love your enemies!

sorry