cofty, the wait for 2 is over.
Really? You think this is a hole in evolution? A schoolchild could tell you what selection pressures transformed us into "naked apes".
Try harder.
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
cofty, the wait for 2 is over.
Really? You think this is a hole in evolution? A schoolchild could tell you what selection pressures transformed us into "naked apes".
Try harder.
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
cofty, your link does nothing to address the question
Yes it does. It provides proof that Homo sapiens descend from very hairy ancestors who had a arectores pilorum muscle attached to every hair follicle.
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
Fur is beneficial for survival. Evolution stripped humans of this advantage?
No it didn't. The advantage of any feature depends on the specific conditions which change over time. Upright walking hominids who left the trees and walked on the African Savanna needed to keep cool.
A more interesting question is why we kept some hair.
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
Shadow - 8 months ago you started a thread called Evolution Hole #1 which turned out not to be about evolution at all.
Still waiting on number 2.
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
Goosebumps are the evidence of your hairy ancestry...
looking at the board, i see so many long threads on " evoultion vs creation " ect, ect.. therefore if " your" qualifications are only those of " an" uneducated j.w, may i ask one question?.
q) what makes you feel you are now qualified to comment with absolute ,authority on any discussion?.
i ask the above question because for most of us " ex-witnesses " logic is still words written in the pages of an awake" magazine.
both are susceptible to being represented by a Godlike deus de machina - Ruby
Do you mean Deus ex machina?
If so I don't understand what you mean by that in this context.
looking at the board, i see so many long threads on " evoultion vs creation " ect, ect.. therefore if " your" qualifications are only those of " an" uneducated j.w, may i ask one question?.
q) what makes you feel you are now qualified to comment with absolute ,authority on any discussion?.
i ask the above question because for most of us " ex-witnesses " logic is still words written in the pages of an awake" magazine.
It is a feature of our world that people think their opinion is of equal value to other people's facts.
The veracity of a position isn't measured by it's popularity or by how passionately somebody believes it to be true.
As long as somebody is discussing verifiable evidence I don't care about their qualifications. Recent threads have demonstrated a disconnect between qualifications and understanding of science.
as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.
i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.
and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.
it doesn't quite explain how very complex organisms developed fully distinct yet necessarily complementary reproductive apparel
That is the really easy bit. I'm sure a bit of research will turn up a lot of info and extant examples of external fertilisation ----> internal gestation. Just last week I read an article on the evolution of the placenta.
The origin of sex was the real hurdle and I have explained that in some detail above.
now the harvest is underway up north i can get out for a walk with the metal detector in the evening.
i am lucky to live on a historic rural estate and i have permission from the landowner to detect.. this is a coin that popped up last night.
it was only about 2 inches deep and had been tumbling around in the plough soil for the last 750 years.. it is a silver penny of king henry iii.
That is very cool Dunedain.
Its exciting when you can link a find to known events. Battle sites in the UK have mostly been declared "Scheduled Ancient Monuments" which makes it illegal to detect there. I get a lot of lead musket balls around here. Some of them are squashed flat from hitting something - somebody!
now the harvest is underway up north i can get out for a walk with the metal detector in the evening.
i am lucky to live on a historic rural estate and i have permission from the landowner to detect.. this is a coin that popped up last night.
it was only about 2 inches deep and had been tumbling around in the plough soil for the last 750 years.. it is a silver penny of king henry iii.
Here are a couple more I found recently.
Elizabeth I Shilling 1569. Notice the moneyer who hammered the die got a slight bounce and double-struck the bust.
This one was a very unexpected find. It is a 3 Groshen coin minted in Gdansk in 1539. The king is Sigismund I also known as Sigismund the Old. He was also Grand Duke of Lithuania and ruler of Bohemia. I found it just 50 yards from where I am typing now. One possible explanation is that ships sailed from Gdansk to Leith near Edinburgh in the 16th century. You just never know what will turn up!