Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Jose Fly]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

 

[Heyo]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

Hairless? Most of us are covered in hair from head to toe. It's just that our fur isn't as dense as that of other mammals.

 

[Brian2]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

I believe God formed man from the ground through evolution and with probably some tweaking by God at the end. So the mutations that left man as a naked ape would be expected if God did that with man to make him distinct or something.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Via a WaPo article I read this morning, I came across this paper: Complementary evolution of coding and noncoding sequence underlies mammalian hairlessness | eLife (elifesciences.org).

The gist of the paper is an exploration of the genetic basis for, and evolutionary history of, hair loss in some mammals. Now, like most scientific papers that are about prehistoric events, the paper uses words such as "likely", "possibly", "putative", etc. But I don't want this thread to turn into yet another (unsuccessful) attempt to explain to creationists that that's how science works, so let's try and avoid all that. Plus, those parts of the paper aren't relevant to the point of this thread.

As the paper describes, humans do indeed have all the genes and regulatory sequences necessary for full body hair, but due to a series of mutations, they've been disabled, which is why humans don't have full body hair (with some very rare exceptions) like most other mammals.

So the question to creationists is....why? Do you believe Adam and Eve were fully-haired and we just lost all that due to mutations that occurred after "the fall"? Do you believe God deliberately created A&E with this genetic material but also disabled it for some reason (thus A&E were not fully-haired)? Do you think this is an example of "design"? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

As the paper describes, evolutionary theory provides an explanation. We all know creationists reject that explanation, but you can't deny that at least the explanation exists. So what's your alternative explanation?

Were people in ancient times sometimes more hairy than we are today? Esua is mentioned as being very hairy, while his brother had a smooth face. Jacob put goat hair on his arms to make them feel like Esau's arms.
I haven't seen too many people that have hair on their arms as thick as a goat does.
Obviously this is part of God's design. We could perhaps adapt to our environment by growing extra body hair at one time.
Samson's hair was a sign of his strength. I see the variety within human kind as part of God's incredible design.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Were people in ancient times sometimes more hairy than we are today? Esua is mentioned as being very hairy, while his brother had a smooth face. Jacob put goat hair on his arms to make them feel like Esau's arms.
I haven't seen too many people that have hair on their arms as thick as a goat does.
Obviously this is part of God's design. We could perhaps adapt to our environment by growing extra body hair at one time.
Samson's hair was a sign of his strength. I see the variety within human kind as part of God's incredible design.

Makes more sense:

 

[GardenLady]

Considering how much women in western culture spend on hair removal under culture pressure (razors, waxing), it seem misguided to describe humans as not having full body hair.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hairless? Most of us are covered in hair from head to toe. It's just that our fur isn't as dense as that of other mammals.

For the nuances about that, I recommend reading the paper.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe God formed man from the ground through evolution and with probably some tweaking by God at the end. So the mutations that left man as a naked ape would be expected if God did that with man to make him distinct or something.

Does that mean you believe God causes mutations?

 

[Jose Fly]

Were people in ancient times sometimes more hairy than we are today? Esua is mentioned as being very hairy, while his brother had a smooth face. Jacob put goat hair on his arms to make them feel like Esau's arms.
I haven't seen too many people that have hair on their arms as thick as a goat does.
Obviously this is part of God's design. We could perhaps adapt to our environment by growing extra body hair at one time.
Samson's hair was a sign of his strength. I see the variety within human kind as part of God's incredible design.

So you believe God specifically put these genes and regulatory sequences in A&E genomes, but also disabled them? If so, do you also believe if we ever needed those sequences to be functional, God would do that (rather than just letting it happen on its own)?

 

[Jose Fly]

Considering how much women in western culture spend on hair removal under culture pressure (razors, waxing), it seem misguided to describe humans as not having full body hair.

Again, for the specifics about that I suggest reading the paper.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you believe God specifically put these genes and regulatory sequences in A&E genomes, but also disabled them? If so, do you also believe if we ever needed those sequences to be functional, God would do that (rather than just letting it happen on its own)?

Well you know the red fox has bare foot pads, except in some really cool regions they will grow fur on the pads.
So they have those genes available, but apparently they are activated by certain conditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by letting it happen on its own, because I believe God is involved in holding together the entire process. I'm not saying there's any magic to certain adaptions being activated, but that God designed DNA to operate that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you know the red fox has bare foot pads, except in some really cool regions they will grow fur on the pads.
So they have those genes available, but apparently they are activated by certain conditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by letting it happen on its own, because I believe God is involved in holding together the entire process. I'm not saying there's any magic to certain adaptions being activated, but that God designed DNA to operate that way.

One can have any beliefs that one wants. Whether they are rational or not are shown by the evidence one uses to support those beliefs.

What evidence do you have for this belief?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well you know the red fox has bare foot pads, except in some really cool regions they will grow fur on the pads.
So they have those genes available, but apparently they are activated by certain conditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by letting it happen on its own, because I believe God is involved in holding together the entire process. I'm not saying there's any magic to certain adaptions being activated, but that God designed DNA to operate that way.

Does that mean you believe in a god that set up the process of adaptation, and then let that process work without this god's intervention? For example, do you believe in a god that deliberately causes all mutations, or do you believe mutations happen on their own, due to the processes that this god initially created?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Does that mean you believe in a god that set up the process of adaptation, and then let that process work without this god's intervention? For example, do you believe in a god that deliberately causes all mutations, or do you believe mutations happen on their own, due to the processes that this god initially created?

Most mutations being harmful, are the result of the broken world we live in since the garden, IMO.
Like I said, I believe God holds the system all together. How much he actually tweaks the system is another question, and I see no way to know. There are times when he supernaturally intervenes, and times when he heals through the medical field or someone changing to a more healthy lifestyle. If a medicine heals someone, it's not as if God is not involved in the process because he created the chemicals involved, but I wouldn't necessarily call that a miracle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most mutations being harmful, are the result of the broken world we live in since the garden, IMO.
Like I said, I believe God holds the system all together. How much he actually tweaks the system is another question, and I see no way to know. There are times when he supernaturally intervenes, and times when he heals through the medical field or someone changing to a more healthy lifestyle. If a medicine heals someone, it's not as if God is not involved in the process because he created the chemicals involved, but I wouldn't necessarily call that a miracle.

Citation needed.

Actually, you should know that is false by now. So let's see if you know anything about genetics at all:

Why are most mutations not harmful?

 

[Jose Fly]

Most mutations being harmful, are the result of the broken world we live in since the garden, IMO.
Like I said, I believe God holds the system all together. How much he actually tweaks the system is another question, and I see no way to know. There are times when he supernaturally intervenes, and times when he heals through the medical field or someone changing to a more healthy lifestyle. If a medicine heals someone, it's not as if God is not involved in the process because he created the chemicals involved, but I wouldn't necessarily call that a miracle.

So from what I can tell, you believe God created/designed "the system" to function and intervenes in the system, but you're not sure how often.

Specific to the topic of the thread (the existence of disabled genetic sequences for full body hair in humans), it could be that God put those sequences in A&E's genomes and then disabled them, just in case humans might need them some time in the future. Those sequences could become functional "naturally" (i.e., without God's direct action and instead via mutations that occur within the system that God created), or God could intervene to activate them directly.

Is that about right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So from what I can tell, you believe God created/designed "the system" to function and intervenes in the system, but you're not sure how often.

Specific to the topic of the thread (the existence of disabled genetic sequences for full body hair in humans), it could be that God put those sequences in A&E's genomes and then disabled them, just in case humans might need them some time in the future. Those sequences could become functional "naturally" (i.e., without God's direct action and instead via mutations that occur within the system that God created), or God could intervene to activate them directly.

Is that about right?

Something like that. Also I think we were probably a lot stronger originally, and have weakened ourselves for a whole variety of reasons, but I guess that's a different topic.

 

[Brian2]

Does that mean you believe God causes mutations?

During the creation period mutations might have been the easiest way for God to do the work He wanted to do.
But that does not mean that all mutations are caused by God.
Do you think that God cannot have caused mutations to achieve His goals?

 

[Jose Fly]

During the creation period mutations might have been the easiest way for God to do the work He wanted to do.
But that does not mean that all mutations are caused by God.

Is that an appeal to the "good things are from God, bad things aren't" framework?

Do you think that God cannot have caused mutations to achieve His goals?

I'm generally what's known as an "apatheist", in that I'm not all that interested in gods and arguing about whether or not they exist. I see the question as largely irrelevant.

Specific to your question, to me it's no different than asking "Do you think a god could have caused that leaf to fall?" My answer would be along the lines of....yeah, I suppose it's possible but I don't see any point in the question. We can ask that about any event, and given the nature of gods (as defined by those who believe in them), there's no way to tell either way, which IMO renders the question irrelevant. The leaf fell, the mutation happened....whether or not gods were involved doesn't change that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that an appeal to the "good things are from God, bad things aren't" framework?


I'm generally what's known as an "apatheist", in that I'm not all that interested in gods and arguing about whether or not they exist. I see the question as largely irrelevant.

Specific to your question, to me it's no different than asking "Do you think a god could have caused that leaf to fall?" My answer would be along the lines of....yeah, I suppose it's possible but I don't see any point in the question. We can ask that about any event, and given the nature of gods (as defined by those who believe in them), there's no way to tell either way, which IMO renders the question irrelevant. The leaf fell, the mutation happened....whether or not gods were involved doesn't change that.

An apatheist is essentially an atheist. He is someone that even if a God exists he does not care. A combination of Apathy and theist.