Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Don't get it (Re: Ape to Man - where did the hair go?)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 116 (103105)
04-27-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Loudmouth
04-27-2004 2:16 PM


Re: Whatever
does skin wrinkle up in sea water like it does in fresh water?
yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Loudmouth, posted 04-27-2004 2:16 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
pbaylis
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 116 (103107)
04-27-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
04-27-2004 2:41 PM


Reduced to sarcasm and selective Google searches

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 04-27-2004 2:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-27-2004 2:51 PM pbaylis has replied
 Message 51 by jar, posted 04-27-2004 2:58 PM pbaylis has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 116 (103108)
04-27-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 2:48 PM


selective Google searches
I'm sorry, but is this meant to blame me for your misrepresentation of a man's beliefs?
I guess a "whoops, my bad" would have been a little too much to hope for. But if the quotes are out of context, I'd certainly enjoy hearing under what possible context those statements could allow for a belief in creationism.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 2:48 PM pbaylis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 2:56 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 69 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 10:19 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 116 (103110)
04-27-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 2:31 PM


Hair loss
Several theories abound, mostly having to do with lice and such.
Another proposal has sexual selection as the cause and driving mechanism, based on a perception of greater health in the less hairy mates.
See The bare truth (economist.com Dec 18th 2003) for more.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 2:31 PM pbaylis has not replied

  
pbaylis
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 116 (103111)
04-27-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dan Carroll
04-27-2004 2:51 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-27-2004 2:51 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-27-2004 3:00 PM pbaylis has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 51 of 116 (103112)
04-27-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 2:48 PM


I could manage the sarcasm but the searches were beyond me.
Man is not hairless. Honest. I just looked. It's there on arms, legs, chest, head (although thinning) and, since I have not shaved today, face. I cannot see my back but a cursory tactile examination tends to show there is hair there as well.
I do not have to take this as a matter of faith. I examined the subject and honest, the hair is there.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 2:48 PM pbaylis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 3:02 PM jar has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 116 (103113)
04-27-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 2:56 PM


So... you will neither support nor withdraw your assertion.
And creationists wonder why they're not taken seriously. Have fun with this one, guys.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 2:56 PM pbaylis has not replied

  
pbaylis
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 116 (103114)
04-27-2004 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
04-27-2004 2:58 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 04-27-2004 2:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-27-2004 3:11 PM pbaylis has not replied
 Message 56 by zephyr, posted 04-27-2004 3:20 PM pbaylis has not replied
 Message 57 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2004 4:07 PM pbaylis has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 116 (103116)
04-27-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 3:02 PM


pbaylis
I would be glad to reply if I had a clue what you have been talking about.
try one question or statement and let's go from there.
But the thread is on "where did the hair go" and for the life of me, I can't find that it has gone.
edited to insert required spelling errors.
[This message has been edited by jar, 04-27-2004]

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 3:02 PM pbaylis has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 55 of 116 (103118)
04-27-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Gary
03-31-2004 6:04 PM


I don't think this is true. Walking stick insects have evolved and lost wings several times, though the process took millions of years.
Newsroom - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis
Page Not Found | Cleveland Museum of Natural History
I know I'm weeks late on this reply, and veering away from topic. (maybe it should be a new one?) But I have to point this out: both those articles flirt with a suggestion that imperils the legitimacy of biological evolution. Both articles suggest that a species can somehow direct its evolution when an environment changes, evolving to suit its needs. Why do rational people feel so compelled to infer purpose when mere function is sufficient to explain something?
A walking stick with wings in a flightless population is just like the occasional human born with a little tail, or a cetacean with legs. The gene is there as it has been all along. Its function has been drastically reduced by mutations that spread throughout the species, but the occasional reversion occurs and is not necessarily fatal. If the environment changes some day, the rare case will gradually become more common as more and more individuals are born with an advantage that used to be a disadvantage. Give it a few million generations, and you could have walking whales returning to land, humans balancing in trees with tails, and walking sticks with wings. Unlikely? Of course. Impossible? No more than the current assortment of species.
Aside from the misdirected implication of purpose or intent, Dollop's Law seems pointless and unsupportable to begin with. If you accept that a feature can evolve by chance in the first place, what on earth would possess you to claim it couldn't happen twice? A species only has memory to the extent that it retains deactivated genes. It has long been known that such genes exist, which implies the possibility of re-evolving traits if the environment reverts to a previous state.
I think this is why science has moved away from creating "Laws" anyway. It's a misnomer because they can be broken, and there is always the emotional distraction of a famous sponsor whose name is attached. (let's call that Zephyr's Law! )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Gary, posted 03-31-2004 6:04 PM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Gary, posted 04-27-2004 7:31 PM zephyr has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 56 of 116 (103119)
04-27-2004 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 3:02 PM


I offer this as a mostly uninvolved observer who is not emotionally invested in either side. It would be more accurate to say you have ignored the thinkers and thus silenced them by your scornful avoidance of a real discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 3:02 PM pbaylis has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 57 of 116 (103123)
04-27-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 3:02 PM


pbaylis writes:
Come on, don't tell me I've silenced thinkers and am just getting the hecklers now.
When more than one valued members on this board tell you that you are full of sh**, it is time for you to take a step back and evaluate yourself rather than keep assuming that you are the almighty and everyone else is wrong.
If you want some extreme examples of when people like you are not taken seriously, look for posts made by desdamona.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 3:02 PM pbaylis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 9:06 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 116 (103128)
04-27-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 2:31 PM


Re: Whatever
quote:
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.
Totally agree.
quote:
It is debated that hair actually protects from the sun and even desert camels are furry as are most African Savannah mammals.
Increased melanin protects us from harmful UV rays in absence of fur. Camels actually use their fur to insulate themselves against the heat, and they are able to withstand increases in body temp unlike humans (at least this is what I remember from my mammalian physiology course 10 years ago). Camels then release the heat during the night. If I remember right, if you shave a camel they will die of heat exposure during the day due to the lack of insulation, much like ice in a cooler will last longer than ice out in the open.
Humans use a different technique, using evaporative cooling instead of releasing the heat at night. Other animals are less active and therefore are able to cope with the heat by resting in the shade or limiting their exposure to the sun (such as lions and other predators). Humans actively hunt during the time other predators are resting, and use a technique somewhat like wolves in North America. They wear their prey down instead of ambushing them or running them down. Increased evaporative cooling due to thinner hair makes sense in this scenario.
quote:
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.
Do patas monkeys chase down prey in the open savannah for hours at a time? If not, then it isn't a proper comparison. From here:
The patas monkeys are omnivorous, but can apparently subsist on either animal or vegetable food alone. They search on the ground for insects, grubs, buds, leaves, fruits, and roots, and probably young birds and eggs.
Patas monkeys are foragers, not open savanna hunters. They use their speed to escape from predators, not for hunting. Therefore, they don't create large amounts of internal heat due to extended running while hunting.
quote:
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.
Just as a sienote, elephants cool themselves off by flapping their blood filled ears. Their large ears act as radiators. But you are right, the ratio of volume to surface area poses a problem for large animals in hot climates, but the elephant has overcome this problem by using their large ears.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 2:31 PM pbaylis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 9:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 116 (103150)
04-27-2004 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by pbaylis
04-27-2004 11:16 AM


Hair follicles does not equal hair!
I'm sorry, did I say it did?
Nonetheless, every hair has exactly one hair follicle, so it's hard to see your point. Not every follicle has a hair, obviously, or the same thickness of hair.
Science, after all these years and with all that combined intelligence still cannot explain why man lost his hair.
What the fuck are you talking about? Science just explained it. Humans adapted to places where they didn't need hair. Then they moved to places where it was so cold they needed clothing.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes lest you learn something about the world isn't going to make you too popular around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 11:16 AM pbaylis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by pbaylis, posted 04-27-2004 9:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 116 (103173)
04-27-2004 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by zephyr
04-27-2004 3:17 PM


You are right. I don't believe that evolution has a purpose, its just the way things change with their environment. I disagree with the person quoted in one of those articles who said that it was amazing that walking sticks could evolve wings when they needed them - its not a matter of need, its a matter of natural selection and random mutations.
I think it is okay to have laws named after people. People will still figure out if they need to be changed. For example, everyone knows Lamarkian evolution is flawed, even though it is attached to Lamark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by zephyr, posted 04-27-2004 3:17 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024