Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways

The New York Times (Science Times) ^ | August 19, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

[RipSawyer]

You are wasting your efforts, I no longer wish to argue either side of this controversy but it would behoove creationists who want to be taken seriously if they would at least learn the theory instead of arguing against some theory which never existed except in the mind of creationists. Unfortunately they never understand this. I don't think most of them are even capable of making the distinction.

[RipSawyer]

"And just because WE KNOW the universe is 13+ billion year old universe does not mean there is no God - as some here would have you believe."

Precisely, I have never believed in the literal truth of Genesis and I don't understand how anyone can but that is a matter which has nothing to do with the existence of the Creator. Unfortunately, many of those who have tried to convince me of the literal truth of Genesis are ignorant of the meaning of the word literal.

[blam]

Humans still have the same number of hair follicles as other primates.

[LiteKeeper]

Ingenious solutions to both issues have now been proposed
It implies
resurrecting a suggestion
One theory holds
A better suggestion
their idea, if true
Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest
There are all kinds of notions
"There are all kinds of notions as to the advantage of hair loss, but they are all just-so stories," said Dr. Ian Tattersall
Dr. Rogers' argument was "completely plausible

It is all story telling. Of course, they would never consider that we humans were originally without "fur" and that we were designed that way by a Creator Who in the end is going to have the Last Laugh!

[Frankss]

I was told to eat my spinach because "it'll put hair on your chest" Well, it worked all over. Remember "birds make no nest in bare trees"

[Spok]

...and I thought it was because of PETA.
I don't know if this has any great anthropological significance, but I still teach my boys how to separate animals from THEIR fur...bear hunting this weekend just below B.C.

[martianagent]

Many shaky suppositions...

The whole thing is shaky, and the idea of humans ever living on the African savannahs is idiotic. Humans are too slow and too noisy to live on the savannahs. The young of prey animals know how to keep quiet; the first time some human infant ever started crying on the savannahs, with lions and hyenas walking around anywhere within five miles, it would be all over.

[HitmanLV]

As an intalian american gentleman, I've been accused of having fur on more than one occasion! Maybe I'm just so retro.....

[Gargantua]

" The result, if the dates are accurate, is something of an embarrassment. It implies we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes."

Of course we were. Now then, there's a good research group... now take your medication and try to relax, N'Kay?

"If" the dates are accurate? Get a grip. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on this junk science and get a real job. Please.

[WKB]

600,000 years ago.

I thought that was 600,003 years ago!!

[Gargantua]

Given the choice, I'll take wasted efforts over a wasted life, RS.

[pkjeff]

<< The compilers of Genesis write that as soon as Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they sewed themselves aprons made of leaves from the fig tree, and that the Creator himself made them more durable skin coats before evicting them. But if Dr. Rogers and Dr. Stoneking are correct, humans were naked for a million years before they noticed their state of undress and called for the tailor. >>

At least this shows clearly that certain theories are contradictory with Scripture. So is the Bible correct or Drs. Rogers and Stoneking? hmmmmmmm...

[talleyman]

I thought that was 600,003 years ago!!

You forgot to take leap years into account. That's the 3-year difference.

[katana]

We are the only part of the primate order to be without fur, have (slightly) webbed fingers and toes, hugely developed brains, and a subcutaneous layer of body fat. All of these are characteristics of aquatic mammals (whales, dolphins, etc.).

I've always thought the fossils they keep digging up in Olduvai Gorge and elsewhere are basically what they seem, chimpanzee progenitors or other now extinct forms of primates. If they really want to find ancient homo sapiens, they need to look near ancient shorelines, which because of changes in sea levels are now far off shore. This in turn makes the chances of finding genuinely ancient (100,000 years BCE plus) human remains all but impossible.

This is at least what I've drawn from a lifetime of watching National Geographic specials and IMHO probably as valid as the conclusions of PhD carrying believers in current "scientific" dogma.

[WKB]

I thought that was 600,003 years ago!!


You forgot to take leap years into account. That's the 3-year difference.



I ALWAYS do that!

[Publius6961]

An Australopithecus, sporting full-bodied fur about four million years ago.

Someone help me out here please?

I missed any citation and documentation of the discovery or discoveries on which this statment is based.

[happygrl]

So the quality, not the quantity changed.

[paws_and_whiskers]

Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways

[southern cross forever]

what about Robin Williams? now thats one hairy ape.

[Pharmboy]

Click here for a good aquatic ape site. Elaine Morgan (from the UK) has written much about this subject.