April 7th, 2013, 08:52 AM
any why arent there many bone fossil evidences of half man-half apes? (there are minute cases of them, less than 10, in decades found, and most of them are frauds/madeup)
does it not simply prove evolution did not take place?
or can it be used as evidence that creation took place?
Originally Posted by jocular
What?
Why on Earth should there be?
Evolution is a fact.does it not simply prove evolution did not take place?
There is NO EVIDENCE for "creation".or can it be used as evidence that creation took place?
Perhaps they evolved much faster back then and there weren't many that lived so we can't find traces of them as yet.
They are still living among us, posting nonsense on internet science sites.
First, there are certainly transitional fossils out there which demonstrate changes along the line of human evolution. There aren't many because there weren't as many human-like beings on the planet in the past as their are now. In addition, we could not possibly unearth every possible location for fossils. We've explored a limited area of our planet's surface.
Second, flaws you make up in evolutionary theory are NOT evidence for creation. Missing fossils in the record of equines is not evidence of unicorns. Evidence is substance supporting one theory, not a lack of substance supporting another.
Finally, where do you get this idea that most fossils are frauds? To immediately write off the hard work and important discoveries of paleontologists in the field is something far above your privilege. You clearly do not have the education or experience to do so, something which can likely be said for others who quickly write off fossil evidence as fraud.
Even more worryingly I think he's referring to the (incorrect) interpretation that we evolved from apes.
Every time I hear the, "If we came from apes, why are there still apes" thing, I die inside a little.
By frauds, I assume you're talking about "piltdown man."
Why would there be a "half man/half ape" creature? We shared a common ancestor.
What fossils are verified as human ancestors?
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We act like apes. Our fighting techniques, social behaviors, grouping, cheering and smiling all are in line with ape behavior.
But we couldn't possibly be dirty animals, right?
People Are Not Animals! (and evolution never happened) - YouTube
God's Cool Designs - YouTube
from wiki
Shouldnt there be lots of fossil evidence?There is little fossil evidence
since evolution takes millions of years/hundreds(or tens of)thousands of generations?
the "little" that were found makes no sense to me (since a whole lot everywhere should be found), except that there were frauds.
Originally Posted by jocular
In spite of ryan's post, there are a lot more fossils from the pre-human line than 10. There are, at least that many, labelled as Australopithecus alone. If we put all such finds together, there is probably 100 plus?
However, it is true that that is not a great many. The reason for that is simple. The pre-human ancestral line lived under conditions (forest and savannah) where fossilisation is rare. For bones to turn into a fossil, they need to be buried under sediment, usually marine. Since our ancestors did not live in the sea, this happened rarely. A few fossils formed under fresh water sediments, when bones were washed into lakes or rivers and buried, but relatively few.
The fossils that have been found, though, give a very nice set of intermediates, going back to Sahelanthropus, which is almost ancestral ape. Add in Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and a few other species not as well related to the human line, and we have a very good progression to show human evolution.
OUCH.... how creationists ignore this fact to invalidate evolution
Originally Posted by jocular
No.
Sense, apparently, isn't your forte.the "little" that were found makes no sense to me
Um, wrong.(since a whole lot everywhere should be found)
Fossilisation requires specific conditions.
isn't that why creationists try extremely hard not to mention "the specific conditions", to avoid receiving questions that they will be unable to answer?
Originally Posted by jocular
I'm not even sure they think much about it.
It tends to be "ancient animals = fossils" and that's about it.
One illustration to answer "where is all the fossil evidence for the transition from "ape" to human?" is "where are the fossilised flies?"
If you point out the number of flies that die every single year and ask "when did you last come across a fossilised fly?" it might trigger some rational thought.
What does evolution state about man-apes.
do man-apes share a common ancestor?
or apes are man's ancestor?
or man are ape's ancestor?
and why aren't there half-man-apes living amongst us?
Originally Posted by jocular
ryan
Men are apes. We belong to the same taxonomic group as the other great apes, which means we are apes also. So the man apes are us.
If you ask what are our ancestors, you must realise that our ancestors are thousands of species. We are descended from an ape - an intermediate between us and a chimp. We are also descended from primitive monkeys, a little further back in time. We are descended from a primitive lemur like animal even further back, and before that, from a rodent like animal, and before that from reptiles, and before that from amphibians, and before that from lobe fin fishes. We are simply the present day result of an evolutionary trend that began 3 to 4 billion years ago.
If you mean man AND apes sharing a common ancestor that has already been stated in this thread.
No and no.or apes are man's ancestor?
or man are ape's ancestor?
Because we're different species.and why aren't there half-man-apes living amongst us?
We developed from a common ancestor - we went one way and they went another.
Skeptic is right of course. We are apes.
aren't you two saying different things? or i see it wrongly?
Originally Posted by jocular
Skeptic also said, "Men are apes."
The word, "ape" has a broad definition... I can see how that wording would be confusing.
yeah.. i should use "chimpanzees" to be more specified.
Originally Posted by jocular
so, to clarify my miswritting,
What does evolution state about man-chimpanzees?
do man-chimpanzees share a common ancestor?
or chimpanzees are man's ancestor?
or man are chimpanzees's ancestor?
and why aren't there half-man-chimpanzees living amongst us?
(in the midst of evolution)
Originally Posted by jocular
None.
Think about a cousin- you are not the ancestor of your cousin nor are you a descendant of your cousin. Your cousin is neither of those with you.
Yet, you both are closely related.
The chimpanzee is closely related to us, has grown up alongside of us, but they are not us.
This is how it is for the Bonobo and the Gorilla, as well. We are all Great Apes (great meaning large).
If you trace our lineage back a couple million years, the diversity decreases and relation gets closer together, same as with your ancestral family tree.
Go back far enough and you will see a common ancestor for the chimpanzee and the human. Go a bit further back and you find a common ancestor for the apes (including humans) and the monkeys. Keep going back and you find more and more common ancestry- it's really quite basic...
And this is shown in the fossil record.
http://universe-review.ca/I10-36-familytree.jpg
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/w...4/hominids.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/images/tree-01.jpg
It's not a chimpanzee... But that is a common picture, not a scientific picture.
Personally, I've found that imagery to be a misnomer of human evolution and very misleading.
so that species of ape on the left is a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees?
oh... i get it now when you saidcousins
Originally Posted by jocular
then why aren't those in-between-transition creatures existing these days?
yes, some men are hairier than others, but we are mutually the same-humans.
bone structure tells all of us to be humans too, right?
Originally Posted by jocular
Define "half-human" as it relates to the members of the subfamily Homininae.
What specific 10 specimens are you talking about
What specific frauds are you talking about.
Humans and apes have a common ancestor. We are descended from apes. We are apes.
All three sentences above are true. However, we are a member of a different family of apes compared to other modern apes such as chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang utan.
Good question. The answer is unknown what caused the extinctions of the others. At one time, several different species of human coexisted.
This included Neanderthals.
We are the last survivor but we are still young yet, as a species. 2 million years in the making and our modern variant is maybe 70,000 years old...
Who knows yet if we will last as long as they did before us, before their extinctions.
We might think our chances are good... but we cannot tell the future...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...902037988.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...d-neanderthals
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...genome-study-r
Why do we have no in between transition apes?
No one really knows. But I could make a pretty good guess. Humans do not like competitors. Not even other humans. You just have to look at the degree of inter-tribal warfare between neighboring tribes in primitive (and sometimes not so primitive) humans.
When humans moved into Neanderthal territory, the Neanderthals died out within a few thousand years, after surviving for 300,000 years without humans. While some people will try to tell you it was due to competition, I do not believe a word of it. After all, the deer we hunted survived both species, as did lots of other food sources. I strongly suspect the last Neanderthal died on the end of a flint tipped spear wielded by a Homo sapiens sapiens.
So there is a very solid clue as to what happened to all the other transitions species as well.
i heard it in creation dvd.Define "half-human" as it relates to the members of the subfamily Homininae.
What specific 10 specimens are you talking about
What specific frauds are you talking about.
Originally Posted by jocular
what about other in-between-transition animals? (other than apes)
do they exist?
Originally Posted by jocular
The frustration of the agenda they have leading them to manipulate, lie and mislead. This is used to create confusion between scientific knowledge and faith in order to make people think it's just a matter of interpretation or belief.i heard it in creation dvd.
They often refer to evolution as "faith" or "Neo-Darwin Religion." Or you hear some say, "Those evolutionists who worship Darwin..."
The other purpose it serves is when they use "Sciency sounding speak" to promote their nonsense.
We've covered this and you need to define your words. What the heck is an "In Between?!"
I already told you- by your definition, we are an "in Between" species because we are not what our common ancestor with apes is and we are not whatever we will be a hundred thousand years from now. ALL fossils can be called an "in Between."
Certainly.
Intermediate species are found throughout the fossil record. For example, there is a fossil fish Tiktaalik which is clearly well on the path to becoming an amphibian.
There are also living species that are clearly descended from species that would have been intermediate. Tiktaalik was a lobe finned fish. Today, there is a surviving lobe finned fish called Latimeria - or Coelacanth. Such creatures are often, and misleadingly, called 'living fossils.'
In regard to the pictorial of human evolution, it occures to me that the last 3 figures could pass for modern humans. There is that much variation in the human morphology. As to why other hominids are not still alive and living among us; either they are and are passing for human or they are and are hiding in the forest (big foot) or in the mountains(yeti) or mostlikely, we killed and ate them. Evolution is a contest and the losers die.
re: the lack of hominid fossiles: the presence of fossils depends first on the numbers of a species alive. There needs to be a population of many thousands before we can be reasonably sure of getting one fossile. Early hominids existed in small groups. They were marginal animals, not the lords of creation. As previously stated the population needs to be in an area that favors fossilization. Most dead things just rot, they don't become fossils. Finally we need to happen to dig up the area a fossile is in.
Umm just a nit, this is incorrect, All the great apes plus humans are in the same family, Hominidae. Orangutans are in a separate subfamily, Ponginae from Humans/gorillas/chimps/bonobos which are all Hominiae. Gorillas are in the tribe Gorillini, Chimps and bonobos in Panini while humans are in Hominini.
Paleo
No argument
But I have seen so damn many schemes of classification........
Every species that exists and has ever existed is an "in-between-transition" animal.
Thinking about Strange's comment.
Does anyone really think that our descendants thousands or millions of years from now will be exactly the same as we are now? We can comfortably predict that if we had a time machine we could come back and see the 10th or 20th generation of our descendants being much like ourselves - even recognisably alike.
But once we move into 10s or hundreds of thousands of generations we can have no real expectation of that. Remember the first humans were less than a million years ago.
Our own evolution has not stopped with us. It just keeps on keeping on in the background.
Hmmmm, how old were those schemes? The current tree has basically been the same for decades.
Thousands or millions of years from now, the majority of our descendants are likely to be scattered among the stars. Since we are unlikely to ever travel interstellar at more than a good fraction of light speed (say, a tenth), this means travel times of decades or centuries. The end result will be a high degree of reproductive isolation, which leads to evolutionary change.
End result : thousands or millions of years from now, there will probably be dozens, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of new species, all separate, but all descended from Homo sapiens.
And some us still won't get a girlfriend!
Natural selection in operation.
It's probable that those beings would fight amongst themselves, referring to ancient beliefs that they are all separately created species and denying any evidence that they originated on only one planet from such simple creatures.
The one on the far right looks remarkably similar to a certain Chuck Norris. I agree that this picture has some missing transitions, most notably it's missing modern homo-sapiens and God in the space between the cave-man and Chuck Norris.
then why aren't those in-between-transition creatures existing these days?
yes, some men are hairier than others, but we are mutually the same-humans.
bone structure tells all of us to be humans too, right?
I understand the satirical point you are making. However, the decades or centuries of travel time between stars might make interstellar wars a bit impractical.
Don't worry, though. I am sure there will be wars aplenty within one stellar system.
Why can't humans mate with chimpanzees? (if we come from the same ancestors)
im not a sicko, just wondering
Originally Posted by jocular
One answer is: that is the definition of "different species". (Well, it is one possible definition).
Practically it is mainly because we have different numbers of chromosomes (48 vs 46).
then can:
the starting stages of ancestor-man transition
and
the starting stages of ancestor-chimpanzee transition
can they mate?
how many chromozones did the common ancestor have?
Originally Posted by jocular
With vague terms like "starting stage of ... transition" it is probably impossible to answer. If the "starting stage" was the common ancestor then obviously yes.
But there are plenty of cases where different species can breed. In some cases the offspring are fertile. There is evidence that humans (H. sapiens) may have interbred with Neanderthals and possibly other human species.
I don't know. I doubt it is possible to say.how many chromozones did the common ancestor have?
starting transitions...........^ <=== above this up" arrow symbol.
and also,
for the same picture that changes from ancestor to chimpanzees.
Originally Posted by jocular
and if you answered yes,
u'd prob guess ill ask what about this.....^? or this..^ or this.....^?
Originally Posted by jocular
No.
starting transitions...........^ <=== above this up" arrow symbol.
and also,
for the same picture that changes from ancestor to chimpanzees.
That diagram is VASTLY simplified.
There was NOT a "jump" from the preceding creature to the one indicated by you.
Ther were numerous (and probably unknowable) steps from one to the other.
In other words EVERY stage is a "starting transition" leading to the next...
i know. its not a jump from those transitions, its a slow process that has thousands of "generation jumps", but still, the general question,
which part do we have the same no. of chromozones?
how can the number of chromozones change in 1 generation?
Originally Posted by jocular
Evolution is a gradual process of change in a population.
Note the use of the word population. Individuals do not evolve, populations do.
(Although, there are some (probably relatively rare) cases where speciation happens due to a single change in an individual.)
By an extra copy being produced during reproduction. Or by two chromosomes being merged during reproduction. (I don't know if a chromosome can just be "deleted"...)
Then why did you bother specifying, and marking, a supposed "starting transition"?
Some dissonance here methinks.
does it happen to us nowadays?
if it happens, those people are unable to have offspring, right?
then how did they (transition) have offspring in the past?
Originally Posted by jocular
Does what happen to us?
.
these happening to us
Originally Posted by jocular
Yes, they do happen. Many disorders are caused by this sort of thing. The commonest being Down's syndrome. I believe it can also have no symptoms at all, but I'm not sure about that. Any bilogists here?.
these happening to us
Not necessarily.if it happens, those people are unable to have offspring, right?
how can they have off spring?
,
(then why cant have offspring with chimpanzees)
Originally Posted by jocular
Down's syndrome is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21. (Which is why it's sometimes called trisomy 21.)
There are several of these random additions and deletions causing various identified conditions, many of them do cause early death or otherwise mean that the individuals don't reproduce - but not all of them.
Because the real world is rarely simple.
Because there is more difference that just the number of chromosomes. (I assume. I am not a biologist.)(then why cant have offspring with chimpanzees)
i hope a biologist can help here..
or we are stuck on how:
normalhuman-downsyndrome can have offspring, but human-chimps cant.
Originally Posted by jocular
Pardon? What on earth do chimps and humans with or without Down's syndrome have to do with each other's reproduction.or we are stuck on how:
normalhuman-downsyndrome can have offspring, but human-chimps cant.
About 15-30% of women are potentially fertile and the risk of them having a Down's syndrome child is about 50%. There is no record, apparently, of a man with Down's syndrome ever having fathered a child.
back to post number #52 and #53,
how can that answer #52 and #53?
Originally Posted by jocular
Sheridan R, Llerena J, Matkins S, Debenham P, Cawood A, Bobrow M (1989). "Fertility in a male with trisomy 21". J Med Genet 26 (5): 294–98. doi:10.1136/jmg.26.5.294. PMC 1015594. PMID 2567354.
Pradhan, M; Dalal, A; Khan, F; Agrawal, S (2006). "Fertility in men with Down syndrome: a case report". Fertil Steril 86 (6): 1765.e1–3. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.03.071. PMID 17094988.
Nothing can answer that. It is a meaningless question.
maybe because i have bad way of trying to communicate across what i am trying to tell.
i think you dont understand what i mean..
Originally Posted by jocular
I suspect you are trying to ask: when did some early ancestor of modern humans become a separate species (for some particular definition of "species"). Is that about right?
If so, I doubt there is any way to know. And, as there is evidence of cross-breeding between different human species, the answer may be never.
Note that there is no simple definition of species. It is probably an even harder concept to define than "life".
One of the standard definitions is: "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".
Note that "reproductively isolated" can mean that they cannot interbreed (and produce viable offspring), or that they could but don't, or that they are geographically isolated. By this definition, a chihuahua and a great dane should probably be considered different species.
There are many circumstances where this simple definition doesn't work.
erm,
why cant the individuals, few generations between ancestor and chimps, and the individuals, few generations between ancestor and humans: mate?
Last edited by RamenNoodles; June 24th, 2013 at 12:38 PM.
Originally Posted by jocular
They might be physically separated by rivers or mountains.
They might be aggressive towards one another.
Or maybe they can. And did. The idea of a simple "family tree" of taxonomy is probably rather too simple in many cases.
ryanawe123, are you homeschooled?
Corrected.
so its when they were isolated, where their genes differentiated? is this a guess or could there be another explaination
i thought they always lived together :O
Originally Posted by jocular
What other explanation would you suggest? Take a look at Galapagos finches and ring species.so its when they were isolated, where their genes differentiated? is this a guess or could there be another explaination
i thought they always lived together :O
ranges_map.jpg
The species west of the central valley cant breed with the species on teh east side, while they both can breed with the northern and southern species. the northern species cant breed with the southern species.
I'd probably phrase that a bit differently concerning 'half-human-apes'.
Evolution a slow and gradual process, there isn't really a complete distinction between 'ape' and 'human' during the fossil record. 'Apes' and 'humans' have a common ancestor most definitely, but the species which evolved in the time period towards the evolution of Homo sapiens from that common ancestor arn't either apes or humans, they are their own species in their own right, speciated due some specific reason such as a community physically isolated for millions of years, until they could no longer interbreed with other species.
That is all good. Apart from the little detail that they (and we) are all apes as well.
So, isolation is critical in evolution? Right?
Originally Posted by jocular
Absolutely.
As shown by the fact that the entire human race is isolated. That's why we're evolving.
I thought isolation is only critical in slit path evolution(ancestor splits into chimps, and humans)?
How does it play a role in the evolution of the whole human race?
thinking of it its wierd thinking how you describe it as "entire human race is isolated"
human race is isolated from?
"the human race is isolated from nothing" makes no sense... to me
Originally Posted by jocular
Isolation is important in speciation (what you, apparently, call "slit path evolution").
I was being sarcastic, because your statement, as it stood, was inaccurate.thinking of it its wierd thinking how you describe it as "entire human race is isolated"
human race is isolated from?
"the human race is isolated from nothing" makes no sense... to me
Evolution occurs regardless of isolation.
The human race is not "isolated" yet it's evolving anyway.
How do we confirm that we are evolving?
and where(or what) do we evolve to?
Originally Posted by jocular
Um, because there's no "off switch" to evolution.
That's not a rational question.and where(or what) do we evolve to?
Evolution "just happens" (or we die). To ask what we'll involve "into" is unknowable.
It depends on what environmental pressures occur and how we, as a species, deal with them.
There's no set path to evolution, what works survives, what doesn't work dies.
Also, the diversity and variation in current populations.Um, because there's no "off switch" to evolution.
M.Eve.
Genetics.
We can confirm bacterial evolution much more easily since the cultures in a lab can go through hundreds of thousands of generations during the span of our one generation. And it's been confirmed.
Nitpick: What works well enough to not die before breeding, survives.
Is there an ultimately evolved being?
at the end of the evolution chain
Originally Posted by jocular
If at the end, sounds like they're gonna die...
Yes.
Me.
And I'm the one yanking that chain.at the end of the evolution chain
Please, read posts that you reply to. It will cut down on the inane questions.
What end?at the end of the evolution chain
Evolution is what the biology of living things does. All species maintain viability by maintaining some diversity in their gene pool. It can be catastrophic when diversity is reduced or even eliminated, which is what happens too often in agriculture.
Just look at the Irish potato famine for the consequences when you take one isolated example of the genetic diversity of a species, the potato, and then the environment changes - just for a few years. Potato blight was able to run rampant throughout the whole island because there were no potato variants which might have resisted the blight (and thereby inhibited its spread as well as successfully producing themselves). The result. Millions of people suffering, far too many dying in the misery of starvation, the whole countryside depopulated as people either emigrated or died when they stayed where they were.
There's plenty of genetic diversity in most populations that haven't been reduced too far in number (mostly by human mismanagement). Evolution, by the very blunt instrument of death, comes to the fore when the environment changes. At that point, those members of the species with the capacity to survive or even thrive in those changed circumstances will succeed. The others will die out. There's no real way to predict,
a) what changes are in store
b) which particular genetic variants will or won't be helpful or harmful to survival in the face of any particular change or combination of changes.
This is done for very limited numbers of species, those of agricultural importance. But for the vast majority of species, it's all down to maintaining genetic diversity in an adequate population to maximise survival chances when change comes - as it always does.
If there is no stress on the ability to survive, do we still evolve?
Originally Posted by jocular
I think stress is the wrong word. Evolution is in response to improving the odds of survival and reproduction. For example : the obvious reason human women have protuberant breasts is to make them sexually attractive to males, and hence improve their chances of successful reproduction. I don't think we can say that was in response to stress.
We still accumulate variations in genetics. There is always stress on survivability, certainly of the young, which is the crucial issue. Might be predation, might be seasonal, might be disease or parasites, might be food supply, all kinds of things. The issue is that the stresses will change, that is not in doubt. If that change is very quick and very large, say just a few generations, then a species can go extinct before enough individuals with the capacity to survive the new conditions can reproduce enough to sustain population numbers.If there is no stress on the ability to survive, do we still evolve?
Of course, if a species is reduced to a few hundred specimens nesting on the side of a cliff and a lava flow from an erupting volcano takes out all the nests with the young while the gas cloud takes out all the adults hunting, crawling or flying in the vicinity, that's instant, total extinction. The genetic fitness question has to go further back - why was this the only population of that species?
If there were no selection ("stress") then we would still evolve (by "genetic drift") because there are always changes in the genome of a population. Every time someone is born or dies, the population has changed slightly (evolved).
What has caused the evolution of the species we see around us is that there is also selection that affects which individuals are more likely to be born or to die and hence the "direction" in which the population changes.
This is why I can't understand how anyone can deny evolution. It is impossible for it not to happen.
newborn human babies that have genetic material that does not exist in the human gene pool?
how can that happen? i know the 100% of the genetic strings comes from the combination of the mother and father's dna.
but mother+father are in the gene pool.
or is it radiation-mutation of embryo?
Originally Posted by jocular
I was talking about the population, not individuals.
But, actually, it works at the individual level as well (at least for a sufficiently diverse population like humans). Every individual is genetically unique. This is partly due to the "shuffling" of genes that happens due to sexual reproduction. Also due to changes in the genome due to things like transcription errors and radiation. (Radiation is a pretty minor contribution, as far as I know, under normal circumstances.)
Errors in DNA Replication | Learn Science at ScitableLow Mutation Rates Can Be Cause for Concerndoes transcription mutation errors in sperm cells create bad genes? (that hinder survival-ability rate in natural habitat)Incorrectly paired nucleotides that still remain following mismatch repair become permanent mutations after the next cell division.
Originally Posted by jocular
Also, why do we have an extreme amount of less body hair compared to our chimp and ape relatives? I understand that this is thought to be caused by our bodies becoming warmer because we walk instead of hunching around and thus this triggered our genes to tell our bodies to stop producing body hair. Ok. makes sense. Then why are we all not bald? Our heads exert a large amount of heat. If the body heat theory is true, then we should be bald.
Because we're not hairless. We're furless.Also, why do we have an extreme amount of less body hair compared to our chimp and ape relatives? I understand that this is thought to be caused by our bodies becoming warmer because we walk instead of hunching around and thus this triggered our genes to tell our bodies to stop producing body hair. Ok. makes sense. Then why are we all not bald? Our heads exert a large amount of heat. If the body heat theory is true, then we should be bald.
The body heat mechanism is more about the lack of fur allowing cooling by sweating. Animals with fur generally cool by panting. The sweating process allows us to continue to work, walk, run despite already having exerted ourselves, whereas fur bearing animals would have to stop and pant for a while before continuing.
| « David Attenborough | Sea Horses breeding paradox. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
43Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
