Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Wildswanderer]

No, it appears to be the other way around. Imagine using the same failed arguments again and again against reality.

Imagine pretending that blind causation has order and purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Imagine pretending that blind causation has order and purpose.

Exactly! Why do creationists do that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Exactly! Why do creationists do that?

You just admitted you are wrong. If God doesn't exist, everything is blind chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just admitted you are wrong. If God doesn't exist, everything is blind chance.

No. The "blind chance" is your claim. Not mine. So since that is your claim how did I admit that I was wrong?

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. The "blind chance" is your claim. Not mine. So since that is your claim how did I admit that I was wrong?

By admitting that without God it's blind causation, duh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By admitting that without God it's blind causation, duh.

No, it is only saying that it is without God. You would need to prove that it is "blind causation".

 

[leroy]

See! You did claim that.

Why can't there be several or even many traits evolving at the same time? The theory of evolution does not imply that, it does not say that anywhere. Go ahead and look. I cannot quote what is not there, you would need to find evidence for your claim. I can save you some work. All that you have to do is to acknowledge that you are probably wrong and I can explain it to you. But without such an acknowledgement you will have to do your own homework.

Why can't there be several or even many traits evolving at the same time?

Because we are talking about random mutations, it is statistically unlikely to have 2 independent series of mutations evolving different traits for a specific benefit.

For example it is improbable that white ape with hair………would have a hairless and black skined offspring………….obviously I am oversimplifying how evolution is suppose to work, but my point is that one had to evolve before the other.

Richard dawkins explains this with detail in the blind watch maker and in claiming mount improbable

 

[leroy]

You are an ID creationism advocate, correct?


Actually it does. That's why they spent so much effort conducting numerous tests to identify the signatures of selective pressures. It tells us whether the sequences in question (and the traits they confer) evolved due to selection or random drift. You just don't know enough about the subject to pick up on that.


No, you're just exhibiting typical creationist behavior by attempting to debate a subject you know little to nothing about, but lacking the necessary humility to recognize that fact.


I didn't say anything about YEC. Pay better attention.

It is amazing how you are willing to push you lie once again…………

Yes the paper shows evidence that there was selective pressure favoring hairlessness no the paper doesn’t explain specifically what was the selective benefit

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because we are talking about random mutations, it is statistically unlikely to have 2 independent series of mutations evolving different traits for a specific benefit.

For example it is improbable that white ape with hair………would have a hairless and black skined offspring………….obviously I am oversimplifying how evolution is suppose to work, but my point is that one had to evolve before the other.

Richard dawkins explains this with detail in the blind watch maker and in claiming mount improbable

I am very sure that you misunderstood him. You would have to quote him to support your claim. Meanwhile just about everyone here that understands evolution can probably see why you are wrong. It is too bad that you do not want to know.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is amazing how you are willing to push you lie once again…………

Yes the paper shows evidence that there was selective pressure favoring hairlessness no the paper doesn’t explain specifically what was the selective benefit

So....

You ask if the scientists conducted any tests into why hairlessness evolved. I tell you "it's in the paper". You accuse me of lying. So I point out to you that there's an entire section in the paper that describes the tests they conducted into why hairlessness evolved (it was selected for, which means it carried a selective advantage). I even quote from the paper where they discuss some of the selective advantages hairlessness carries in some organisms (streamlining in marine mammals, heat dissipation in large terrestrial mammals).

Yet despite all that, you're still claiming it's a lie to say the scientists conducted tests into why hairlessness evolved and that they described the selective benefits of hairlessness?

Dude, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

 

[leroy]

I am very sure that you misunderstood him. You would have to quote him to support your claim. Meanwhile just about everyone here that understands evolution can probably see why you are wrong. It is too bad that you do not want to know.

But as usual you will not explain why am I wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

But as usual you will not explain why am I wrong

How can I do that? You did not quote from your source. Think about it.

 

[leroy]

So....

You ask if the scientists conducted any tests into why hairlessness evolved. I tell you "it's in the paper". You accuse me of lying. So I point out to you that there's an entire section in the paper that describes the tests they conducted into why hairlessness evolved (it was selected for, which means it carried a selective advantage). I even quote from the paper where they discuss some of the selective advantages hairlessness carries in some organisms (streamlining in marine mammals, heat dissipation in large terrestrial mammals).

Yet despite all that, you're still claiming it's a lie to say the scientists conducted tests into why hairlessness evolved and that they described the selective benefits of hairlessness?

Dude, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

You are just repeating what I said

1 Yes the paper provides evidence for positivecselection in some genes

2 no the paper doest explain the reason why harlessness resulted beneficial in our ancestors .... they mentioned heat dissipation in the introduction as a possibility , but no test showed that this is the particular reason why our ancestors lost their hair

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are just repeating what I said

1 Yes the paper provides evidence for positivecselection in some genes

2 no the paper doest explain the reason why harlessness resulted beneficial in our ancestors .... they mentioned heat dissipation in the introduction as a possibility , but no test showed that this is the particular reason why our ancestors lost their hair

You now appear to be complaining because the paper does not reinvent the wheel. Papers have to be narrowly based. The odds are that many of your questions could be answered in the papers cited by that paper.

As usual, your complaints are not valid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then they are fools.

???

I don't even know how to respond to such random drivel.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You just admitted you are wrong. If God doesn't exist, everything is blind chance.

In your ignorant opinion.

If all you can do is argue strawmen and false dichotomies, then why bother.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In your ignorant opinion.

If all you can do is argue strawmen and false dichotomies, then why bother.

If all you have are insults, why bother?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If all you have are insults, why bother?

Such projection. He has supported his posts in the past. I can't recall you doing so. You definitely never did so successfully.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just admitted you are wrong. If God doesn't exist, everything is blind chance.

No it isn't. We don't have evidence for or against God, but we do have evidence that natural causes are not blind chance.

If everything operated per blind chance, then every possible outcome would be equally likely and that isn't true.

If they were not equally likely and some were favored over others, then blind chance would not be the state of the causation.

Stones roll down hills following the laws outlined using science. Human infants go through development following recognized patterns that are not random chance.

Evolution is not proposed as operating on random chance.

The only people I ever see make these claims do not appear to understand the science they are attacking, what is said in the scope of that science or what entirely random would mean. Entirely random is a claim made very often by those arguing literal biblical creationism.

You are aware that claiming something isn't the end. Anyone can claim anything and often do. Very often those claims are just like this one. Empty. No one has to pay attention to empty claims with no support.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If everything operated per blind chance, then every possible outcome would be equally likely and that isn't true.

Nonsense. Just because one thing is more probable than another does not make a guided system.
The whole system would have had to develop blindly, by accident. That makes everything that happens chance.