Is body hair a functionless vestige?

My guess on this is that the selection pressure was to remove hair to promote cooling. One old idea was that this may have been needed for persistence hunting, where people simply ran their prey to exhaustion.If this is the case, the selection pressure to reduce hair would work up to the point where it didn't matter much any more; the selection pressure would end when the cooling was just good enough.

---

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

Sorry, this is absolute nonsense.You can't just go making thing up that sound good to you, but which are supported by no evidence--or actually contradicted by the evidence--and expect to get away with it.Can you support any statement that you have made with peer-reviewed data?If not, why don't you just stop spouting off that nonsense. You only make your side of the debate look foolish when you come up with these kinds of statements.Haven't you read St. Augustine's comments that pertain to this kind of nonsense?

---

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

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.

There was no such global flood. To use the myth of a global flood to explain anything is a farce.I've also seen folks explain radiocarbon dates older than about 6,000-10,000 years as being somehow in need of correction for "pre-flood" conditions, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence that says such a flood never happened.Might as well calibrate the seasons by the Easter bunny and Santa Claus. (There's more evidence for them than the mythical flood.)

---

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