Ken Fabos writes:
This hypothetical ability to quickly adapt to wetness - very quickly if the entire history of homo sapiens is a few thousand years - would cause strong and clear variations according to geography and climate within human sub populations. We don't see that. Such an 'oversensitive' adaptive ability that simply stops or gets 'stuck in the gear' isn't a real explanation for why we don't.
Sorry but this transient adaptive ability of hair to respond (before getting stuck in gear) to wetness is pure conjecture without basis in evidence.
Women more hairy than men? I think that perception is more about modern social rituals involving scissors and razors than innate physiological differences between men and women; take away those rituals and men are more hairy than women, if not in all the same places - similar density of head hair plus extra on face and rest of body.
As for insulation being the primary function of hair I'd have to disagree; the sensory function is a more fundamental function of hair and (as I pointed out before) looks to predate hair/fur as insulation - right back to the precursors of mammals. Colour, thickness, distribution and growth patterns are all highly variable but the ability to pass tactile sensory signals to receptors in the follicles and surrounding skin looks to be a universal characteristic of hairs that has never been lost.
I think YEC's should stick with 'because God made it that way' and not bother with attempts to sound sciency.
The evidence is the evidence. its the same for everyone. tHen its who does a better job at interpretating the evidence.
I say the simple answer is the first and most likely answer.
Hair is for protecting against the threat of coldness.
We have unneeded hair because a false conclusion was drawn by the body that episodic sweating would chill the area and make it cold. so a trigger was hit but it didn't go far. Then it stayed in its original gear as I said.
I'm aware of the hairyness of the sexes. Yes men have more hair because they were originally more in the fields. yet women have more on the head relative to their smaller heads and bodies because of a greater need to keep the head dry. The rest of the body was fine.
This would of happened soon after the flood.
yes there is great variation in people.
for example Africans have less hair because of a need to sweat away the heat and humidity. Serious need. on the head also the hair tightly curly is a result of the problem.
Northern Europeans have more hair as they lived in a wetter world.
Yet red headed people have less hair then this because of a need to have little covering in the way of the sunlight. The origin for the extreme lack of pigmentation and remnant concentration in the hair and red spots.
Asians have little body hair because of not living in a wet climate.
Hair growth is very relevant to area and is clearly triggered by needs. It being sensitive may go to far but the clear evidence leads to a clear conclusion, or first, that hair is for keeping areas dry on humans.
This is the trigger.
I don't see it being related to sensory function in any important way.
in fact you seem to base it on presumptions of evolutionary ideas in a furry heritage rather then close observational evidence.
Points for trying but more points for accuracy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.