Evolution didn't happen

You forgot the capital "G".

I usually don't bother holding the shift key, as I see it more of a title than a name.

And, he did say "a god" after all, not "the God". But thats wardoggy for ya.

And, he did say "a god" after all, not "the God". But thats wardoggy for ya.

Yeah your right, I didn't notice that.  In that context the little g was correct.

INCORRECT ! ! ! - see bottom of page

The dinosaurs that developed feathers are the ones that gave rise to birds.  Before they had full flight feathers they had plumage a lot like what you have shown.  Flight feathers developed from simpler proto feathers that were originally used for insulation, not flight.  Birds still have plumage today, exactly like many dinosaurs had.

Funny, that picture you provided looks a lot like an emu.  This is because emu's, as well as all birds are modern day dinosaurs that evolved from ancient feather bearing dinosaurs.


The three toed foot of an emu is unique in the animal kingdom, all birds have them, and all theropoda dinosaurs had them.   In fact, every trait common in dinosaurs we also see in birds.  Hence birds are dinosaurs. 

Your one quote said this...

Quote from: Masterchief2219 on November 15, 2009, 07:54:19 PM
Babs took those pictures straight from Wikipedia. He is right, what was believed to be some kind of feathers turned out to be from a plant. But since then we have uncovered dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers on them. So your argument is moot.

And your other quote said this ...

Nobody ever claimed that all dinosaurs had feathers.

#1) First to address the bottom quote - I never said all dinosaurs had feathers - It was in response to Raist who was talking about those dinosaurs that had feathers and I replied that even some dinosaurs that were thought to have feathers - did not actually have feathers but hair or plant-like fibers.  I was only addressing the dinosaurs that had supposed feathers - but were actually plumage of another sort.

#2) Your first quote (above that) says I have a moot point, because we have found dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers, but I never said NONE existed, and that has nothing to do with the fact that SOME did not have that type of plumage, so my point is NOT moot.


#3) Lastly you are incorrect that all birds as you said, and you did say "all" are 3 toed.  There are birds with 2, 3, 4, and 5 toes.  Only one bird has 2 and that is the ostrich.  Most birds have 4.  The chicken has 5, because the fifth is used as a defensive spur.  The part of the bird's leg that looks like its shin, is actually the equivalent to the arch.  Those birds with 4 toes have the 1st one pointing backward consisting of a small metatarsal and one phalanx (toe bone).  The second, third, and fourth digits or toes (of same 4 toed bird) are counted from the inside of the foot out and have two, three, and four phalanges respectively.

References for 5 toed chickens - many kinds of chickens in fact:
http://www.poultry.ie/2009/08/03/dorking-the-five-toed-chicken/
and also
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/eggs/res13-feet.html


References on Ostriches:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ostrich
and also
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/ostrich.html


I understand that things have disappeared on this site, if you do not post your cited material, which I have done - but I really should not have to do your homework for you.

I like how this thread has descended into nitpicking.

Sorry if these points have been brought up before but I haven't read the thread in it's entirety. Now don't get me wrong I'm no creationist, I do however see a few flaws in the theory of evolution. I also think the keyword in that last sentence is theory

1) If evolution is correct then why did animals evolve to use sex as the method of reproduction, splitting in the same way that micro-organisms do is much more efficient.

2) Which leads to the question if all life started off as micro-organisms and all micro-organisms reproduce by splitting themselves how did sex evolve?

3) Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain? There is no fossil record of short necked giraffes for instance.

4) What about species that have regressed. I'm searching for the example but can't remember it's name, there is however a sea creature that originated from land.

Sorry if these points have been brought up before but I haven't read the thread in it's entirety. Now don't get me wrong I'm no creationist, I do however see a few flaws in the theory of evolution. I also think the keyword in that last sentence is theory

Theory means something much different in science, it is not a guess.  For example we have cell theory, but we know for a fact that cells exist.  Atomic theory as well.  A theory is more like a field of study, it is supported by facts and evidence.  It is a fact that populations change through generations, the theory of evolution is the study of those changes and why they occur.

1) If evolution is correct then why did animals evolve to use sex as the method of reproduction, splitting in the same way that micro-organisms do is much more efficient.

Not really, sexual reproduction allows for a greater diversity of the gene pool, among other advantages, fitter offspring, and a better chance of survival.

2) Which leads to the question if all life started off as micro-organisms and all micro-organisms reproduce by splitting themselves how did sex evolve?

There are several hypotheses regarding this.  However I am no expert.  Start with Wikipedia and go from there if you want to learn about it.

3) Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain? There is no fossil record of short necked giraffes for instance.

Actually there are hundreds of definite transitional species that have been found.  As for the Giraffe, its closest living relative is the Okapi, and there are several ancestors species that have been found that had shorter necks.

4) What about species that have regressed. I'm searching for the example but can't remember it's name, there is however a sea creature that originated from land.

Like whales?  What about them?  The fact that their ancestors walked on land is perfectly explainable by evolutionary means.  In other words, evolution does not say that such a thing is not possible.

Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.

Try looking at protists that show some early major shifts in cell function and design.

Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.

Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.

Quote from: RMcLeod on November 27, 2009, 07:56:34 AM

Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.

Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.

Seems that you are ignoring his major point.  How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?

Quote from: Raist on November 27, 2009, 05:01:56 PM

Quote from: RMcLeod on November 27, 2009, 07:56:34 AM

Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.

Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.

Seems that you are ignoring his major point.  How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?

Because it's better.

Sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring capable of better dealing with infections and parasites. Certain snails can reproduce either sexually or asexually depending on their situations. In areas where there are high incidences of parasites the snails will switch to sexual reproduction, in areas where parasites are not found they reproduce asexually. I don't see how that isn't seen as a benefit.

What organism was the first male, female reproduction.  Was it a mutation that formed in that organism?  Why the switch?  What forced the organism to switch in the first place?

There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.

What organism was the first male, female reproduction.  Was it a mutation that formed in that organism?  Why the switch?  What forced the organism to switch in the first place?

There is probably no way to know what organism was the first to reproduce sexually, it could have been an extension of some bacteria's ability to exchange DNA between eachother.  It may have been that when some unicellular organisms organized into multicellular life, they retained this ability to exchange DNA with one another, and as individual cells within the cluster specialized, some cells may have specialized in transferring DNA between organisms.  Nothing forced these organisms to switch to sexual reproduction, as was explained earlier, greater genetic diversity within a population is achieved through sexual reproduction, as opposed to asexual reproduction.  Evolution favours genetic diversity.

There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.

It also spreads genetic advantages such as resistance.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 27, 2009, 05:04:14 PM

Quote from: Raist on November 27, 2009, 05:01:56 PM

Quote from: RMcLeod on November 27, 2009, 07:56:34 AM

Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.

Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.

Seems that you are ignoring his major point.  How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?

Because it's better.

Sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring capable of better dealing with infections and parasites. Certain snails can reproduce either sexually or asexually depending on their situations. In areas where there are high incidences of parasites the snails will switch to sexual reproduction, in areas where parasites are not found they reproduce asexually. I don't see how that isn't seen as a benefit.

There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.

MOSTLY INCORRECT
You are confusing hermaphrodite with asexual, and also do not understand when or how they do it.

* Note 1:   Self-fertilization is NOT the same as Asexual, which requires NO fertilization.  Note 2:  Some crustaceans are hermaphrodites but they do not self fertilize, (not usually- but can), so not all hermaphrodites from different family classes or even the the same family class have the same trait of self-fertilization.  Note 3:  Other snails and slugs are hermaphrodites (true), but also cannot self-fertilize like their kin the banana slug.  So the banana slug has anomalies among both hermaphrodites of different families, phylums, and classes, and an anomaly of self-fertilization within its own family of snails (gastropods).  Note 4: With all that being said, then yes Raist most snails are hermaphrodites, but not all self-fertilize and none are asexual with no fertilization, but instead they either self-fertilize - like simulataneous hermaphrodites (example banana slug), or for other snails and some other hermaphrodites they copulate as sequential hermaphrodites (by switching to the other gender) 

Additionally:
Note 5:   Some hermaphrodites are very different than they are for human beings or snails.  Human and snail hermaphrodites have both genetalia, but most other types of hermaphrodites usually just switch between female and male when necessary.  In the latter, those hermaphrodites can switch back and forth many times in the course of their lives, while other hermaphrodites can switch only one time. 

Note 6:   Those that can switch to the other gender do NOT switch to sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction as you said Raist due to "high incidents of parasites," but instead switch the gender when the female has been removed from the group, so it's not related to parasites at all as a reason for doing so.  When no female is present they either switch (or in the case of the Banana Slug they self-fertilize.)  This is called "artificial selection" also known as selective breeding, which is not the same as natural selection, which describes intentional breeding for certain traits or combination of traits.  Even evolutionist Charles Darwin knew that, for he utilized the term in contrast to natural selection in which the diffential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability.   

Note 7:  There are hermaphrodites that are sequential and those that are simultaneous (for genetalia).  Sequential are:  Wrasses (marine fish), the Clownfish, Teleost, flowering plants and MOST Gastropods.  Simultaneous hermaphrodites are Hamlets, Banana Slugs, and Earthworms, (which were originally thought to be asexual).

Note 8:  And Raist, your remark of "The first male was probably a hermaphrodite"- actually hermaphrodites (not including humans) can start as a male and switch to female, as well as a female can switch to a male; they do NOT ALL START as males.   

Raist, whatever happened to that biology degree you say you have, while working on another degree of the same sort?  I would suggest a better university.

1) If evolution is correct then why did animals evolve to use sex as the method of reproduction, splitting in the same way that micro-organisms do is much more efficient.

*stares* Wrong. Recombination of genetic material promotes diversification. Asexual cloning is more efficient.... and is also a good way to be wiped out by a single disease.

2) Which leads to the question if all life started off as micro-organisms and all micro-organisms reproduce by splitting themselves how did sex evolve?

See above.

3) Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain? There is no fossil record of short necked giraffes for instance.

Google transition fossils. And this is an argument from ignorance, logical fallacy.

4) What about species that have regressed. I'm searching for the example but can't remember it's name, there is however a sea creature that originated from land.

Dolphins? This is evidence for evolution, not against it.....

Quote from: Raist on November 27, 2009, 05:07:44 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 27, 2009, 05:04:14 PM

Quote from: Raist on November 27, 2009, 05:01:56 PM

Quote from: RMcLeod on November 27, 2009, 07:56:34 AM

Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.

Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.

Seems that you are ignoring his major point.  How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?

Because it's better.

Sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring capable of better dealing with infections and parasites. Certain snails can reproduce either sexually or asexually depending on their situations. In areas where there are high incidences of parasites the snails will switch to sexual reproduction, in areas where parasites are not found they reproduce asexually. I don't see how that isn't seen as a benefit.

Quote from: Raist on November 27, 2009, 08:48:58 PM

There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.

MOSTLY INCORRECT
You are confusing hermaphrodite with asexual, and also do not understand when or how they do it.

* Note 1:   Self-fertilization is NOT the same as Asexual, which requires NO fertilization.  Note 2:  Some crustaceans are hermaphrodites but they do not self fertilize, (not usually- but can), so not all hermaphrodites from different family classes or even the the same family class have the same trait of self-fertilization.  Note 3:  Other snails and slugs are hermaphrodites (true), but also cannot self-fertilize like their kin the banana slug.  So the banana slug has anomalies among both hermaphrodites of different families, phylums, and classes, and an anomaly of self-fertilization within its own family of snails (gastropods).  Note 4: With all that being said, then yes Raist most snails are hermaphrodites, but not all self-fertilize and none are asexual with no fertilization, but instead they either self-fertilize - like simulataneous hermaphrodites (example banana slug), or for other snails and some other hermaphrodites they copulate as sequential hermaphrodites (by switching to the other gender) 

Additionally:
Note 5:   Some hermaphrodites are very different than they are for human beings or snails.  Human and snail hermaphrodites have both genetalia, but most other types of hermaphrodites usually just switch between female and male when necessary.  In the latter, those hermaphrodites can switch back and forth many times in the course of their lives, while other hermaphrodites can switch only one time. 

Note 6:   Those that can switch to the other gender do NOT switch to sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction as you said Raist due to "high incidents of parasites," but instead switch the gender when the female has been removed from the group, so it's not related to parasites at all as a reason for doing so.  When no female is present they either switch (or in the case of the Banana Slug they self-fertilize.)  This is called "artificial selection" also known as selective breeding, which is not the same as natural selection, which describes intentional breeding for certain traits or combination of traits.  Even evolutionist Charles Darwin knew that, for he utilized the term in contrast to natural selection in which the diffential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability.   

Note 7:  There are hermaphrodites that are sequential and those that are simultaneous (for genetalia).  Sequential are:  Wrasses (marine fish), the Clownfish, Teleost, flowering plants and MOST Gastropods.  Simultaneous hermaphrodites are Hamlets, Banana Slugs, and Earthworms, (which were originally thought to be asexual).

Note 8:  And Raist, your remark of "The first male was probably a hermaphrodite"- actually hermaphrodites (not including humans) can start as a male and switch to female, as well as a female can switch to a male; they do NOT ALL START as males.   

Raist, whatever happened to that biology degree you say you have, while working on another degree of the same sort?  I would suggest a better university.

Uh.... You pretty much misinterpreted everything I said and showed that you do not know anything about the subject.

I'm not going to wade through that paragraph of utter shit, but I'd just like to say keep the ad hominems out when you can't even figure out what I was saying. I was referring specifically to animals that reproduce both asexually by budding and sexually through mitosis and sexual intercourse depending on external pressures.

Now please stop making assumptions.

I like how this thread has descended into nitpicking.

Pete, this is not nitpicking; Marcus was just plain incorrect.  He said...

The three toed foot of an emu is unique in the animal kingdom, all birds have them, and all theropoda dinosaurs had them.   In fact, every trait common in dinosaurs we also see in birds.  Hence birds are dinosaurs.

Of which I responded...

#3) Lastly you are incorrect that all birds as you said, and you did say "all" are 3 toed.  There are birds with 2, 3, 4, and 5 toes.  Only one bird has 2 and that is the ostrich.  Most birds have 4.  The chicken has 5, because the fifth is used as a defensive spur.  The part of the bird's leg that looks like its shin, is actually the equivalent to the arch.  Those birds with 4 toes have the 1st one pointing backward consisting of a small metatarsal and one phalanx (toe bone).  The second, third, and fourth digits or toes (of same 4 toed bird) are counted from the inside of the foot out and have two, three, and four phalanges respectively.

Nitpicking is when you have asked me to cite references and called me a liar, before even knowing the facts.  You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear, while using abusive language to drag someone through the mud - trying to discredit them.  Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.  Practice what you preach.   

Quote from: Pete on November 25, 2009, 04:41:09 PM

I like how this thread has descended into nitpicking.

Pete, this is not nitpicking; Marcus was just plain incorrect.  He said...

Quote

The three toed foot of an emu is unique in the animal kingdom, all birds have them, and all theropoda dinosaurs had them.   In fact, every trait common in dinosaurs we also see in birds.  Hence birds are dinosaurs.

Of which I responded...

Quote

#3) Lastly you are incorrect that all birds as you said, and you did say "all" are 3 toed.  There are birds with 2, 3, 4, and 5 toes.  Only one bird has 2 and that is the ostrich.  Most birds have 4.  The chicken has 5, because the fifth is used as a defensive spur.  The part of the bird's leg that looks like its shin, is actually the equivalent to the arch.  Those birds with 4 toes have the 1st one pointing backward consisting of a small metatarsal and one phalanx (toe bone).  The second, third, and fourth digits or toes (of same 4 toed bird) are counted from the inside of the foot out and have two, three, and four phalanges respectively.

Whatever. 

Nitpicking is when you have asked me to cite references and called me a liar, before even knowing the facts.

Yes, demanding that someone source a scientific claim is definitely nitpicking. 

  You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear,

I belabor it because you keep making claims you can't source.

while using abusive language to drag someone through the mud - trying to discredit them.

Of course I do.

  Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.

I didn't even try, I don't see the point. You guys have gone completely off topic and descended into bickering over semantics.

  Practice what you preach.   

I do. 

Quote from: babsinva on December 01, 2009, 01:50:23 AM

You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear,

I belabor it because you keep making claims you can't source.

I may not have cited info to your satisfaction on the Lipson article but I have cited material on Marcus' 3 toed claim- and I have cited material on Raist feathered dinosaurs - a few pages back. 

Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.

I didn't even try, I don't see the point. You guys have gone completely off topic and descended into bickering over semantics.

Marcus saying "ALL" birds have 3 toes makes them dinsosaurs because thermapods had 3 toes- when in fact birds have 2, 3, 4, or 5 - - is not semantics.   Sematics is related to word choice like vernacular - not related to wrong information.  If you think that was sematics then you really need a dictionary.   And It is very on point- not off topic at all - he was trying to make a point that birds were in fact dinosaurs with his arguement because of the toe count- and I showed this is NOT so - based on his claim of the number of toes.  If he wants to make another claim - then we'll talk about that - but the 3 toe count thing is not a valid arguement in support of evolution.  His claim has been refuted. 

Quote from: Pete on December 01, 2009, 01:34:29 PM

Quote from: babsinva on December 01, 2009, 01:50:23 AM

You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear,

I belabor it because you keep making claims you can't source.

I may not have cited info to your satisfaction on the Lipson article but I have cited material on Marcus' 3 toed claim- and I have cited material on Raist feathered dinosaurs - a few pages back. 

Quote from: babsinva on December 01, 2009, 01:50:23 AM

Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.

Quote

I didn't even try, I don't see the point. You guys have gone completely off topic and descended into bickering over semantics.

Marcus saying "ALL" birds have 3 toes makes them dinsosaurs because thermapods had 3 toes- when in fact birds have 2, 3, 4, or 5 - - is not semantics.   Sematics is related to word choice like vernacular - not related to wrong information.  If you think that was sematics then you really need a dictionary.   And It is very on point- not off topic at all - he was trying to make a point that birds were in fact dinosaurs with his arguement because of the toe count- and I showed this is NOT so - based on his claim of the number of toes.  If he wants to make another claim - then we'll talk about that - but the 3 toe count thing is not a valid arguement in support of evolution.  His claim has been refuted. 

Christ, no one cares Babs. No matter how you put it, you've descended to a level in which this is the entirety of your argument, and its really quite pitiful to see.

You guys are missing the point, when humans evolved at some stage they by chance would have had the combination of a good brain and (by chance) a lack of fur to keep warm, so they used that brain of theirs to wrap up in clothes (probably at the time animal skin) to stay warm, and as of then there was no need for humans to evolve fur as it is not needed in addition to clothes, by the time a human fur covered turned up (if) they where probably not accepted into society because over many generations humans have worn clothes.

You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.

You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.

Clothing was probably invented when homo sapiens began to move northward. That puts a nice long time period between divergence of species and invention of clothing.

You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.

Of course, if you understand how useless the arretor pili muscle is when we are this devoid of body hair, you will see that that is likely exactly what happened, albeit more gradually then a single generation. 


Yes, goosebumps occur when the autonomic nervous system triggers a response in response to the cold, contracting the arretor pili muscle to pull on the hair follicle, raising the hair to trap body heat. Of course this vestigal function is pretty much useless since we don't have enough hair to make it effective.

You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.

I know, that's insane. Obviously hair is controlled by several genes as we can see by the bell curve formed when graphing the amount of body hair on people. This means that it would have taken hundreds of generations in a warm plains like climate where the body had no advantage with these genes functional and an advantage without them functional.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 08, 2009, 11:47:53 AM

You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.

I know, that's insane. Obviously hair is controlled by several genes as we can see by the bell curve formed when graphing the amount of body hair on people. This means that it would have taken hundreds of generations in a warm plains like climate where the body had no advantage with these genes functional and an advantage without them functional.

Warm plains like climates like Africa?




Where these animals live?






Minus the elephant.....most of these seem to be pretty hairy.

Nice picture of an elephant. Kind of like a hairless woolly mammoth.