Why Humans Don't Have Fur: More Fuel for Evolutionists

[ComeLordJesus]

We lost fur and began to walk upright because of the scorching heat - so says this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37640858/?gt1=43001

So why do hyenas, lions, and zebras still have fur and walk on all fours?

[Silvercord]

I took my daughter to the local pool today and saw a man that looked like he was wearing a black sweater in the pool. I suppose he just failed to evolve.

[BabeinChrist]

This is too funny, how would they explain different shades of color among people and some with lots of hair verses some with none. Using their theory, I guess bald people would be highly evolved in the brain and hairy men are fresh from the caves. LOL anyway, what will they think of next?

[4Godisjust]

This is too funny, how would they explain different shades of color among people and some with lots of hair verses some with none. Using their theory, I guess bald people would be highly evolved in the brain and hairy men are fresh from the caves. LOL anyway, what will they think of next?

That's my thinking too! These people and all of the education and years in college, and degrees, they haven't learned nothing but just filling their heads full of nonsense!

[logosone]

tell that to the "Wolf Boys" down in Mexico

[Bernardd]

This is too funny, how would they explain different shades of color among people and some with lots of hair verses some with none. Using their theory, I guess bald people would be highly evolved in the brain and hairy men are fresh from the caves. LOL anyway, what will they think of next?

If God started with Adam and Eve (or Noah), how do you explain all the shades of color, etc.?

[silvarum]

If God started with Adam and Eve (or Noah), how do you explain all the shades of color, etc.?

Well if Adam and Eve were created perfect, lets say that God knew they would sin, so He gave them dominant AND recessive genes (Aa, Bb, etc.) These genes are the instructions for the body, and when two people with dominant and recessive genes organized like that, depending on how many children Adam and Eve had, in one or two generations, all of the different shades of skin that we see today could have been present. It's a matter of chance what the offspring will inherit from the father and mother:
Aa, Bb...; AA, BB...; Aa, bb...; aa, Bb...; aa, bb...

and so on. Since this is ORIGIN science, and not REAL science, we cannot test the DNA of Adam and Eve, but if they did not have that perfect mixture of dominant and recessive genes none of us would be possible today. I'd suggest checking out www.answersingenesis.com, they have a lot of great resources and explain everything from dinosaurs to races in a very complete and defensible way.

God Bless!

[seank6]

ah the great debate..creationism vs evolutionism.well for starters we are different colors due to adaptation not evolution.in God's great wisdom he built all life with the ability to adapt to the enviroment.one great argument that always stumps evolutionist..if our dna is 96.5 % identical to primates how do they explain why we are 98% indentical to sheep??they cant but its due to God's design and all life has certain parts of our dna that is identical.

[silvarum]

sorry for the double post, but I wanted to also show how people who believe in evolution are committing a serious inconsistency in thought:

judging by the article, MSNBC believes in science, correct? Well what is science? It's a series of presuppositions about our universe - the way it acts and operates today and how it will act tomorrow (so uniformity of nature), and logic among other things. But these are the most important. Tell me evolutionist, what is the basis for YOUR scientific work? If we are just re-arranged pond scum (term from Dr. Jason Lisle), there would be no laws of logic! Think about it... if today's evolutionist is akin to a naturalist: well if nature is all that there is, there can't be any abstract laws with which to govern thought! If today's evolutionist is akin to a relativist: is he/she absolutely sure of her position? If today's evolutionist is akin to an empiricist (someone who believes that knowledge comes from observation): tell me, can you observe knowledge? Can you observe the laws of logic? No! There is absolutely no basis for someone who believes in the RELIGION of evolution to believe in science. Their positions refute themselves - they are not appropriate ultimate standards.

One final point, science would only be possible if God and God's universe were true. God is a self-consistent being, and He does not contradict Himself, and finally all things are upheld in Him. There is a God that upholds everything around us (uniformity of nature) in a logical way, because He cannot contradict Himself, God is perfect. God has also created us in His image, so we are able to know some things about Him, through His word and His creation. I posit that evolutionists are stealing biblical presuppositions in order to argue AGAINST the bible. Weird no?

[Steve53]

Standing on the railroad tracks while declaring there is no train.......

[SaneChick]

ah the great debate..creationism vs evolutionism.well for starters we are different colors due to adaptation not evolution.in God's great wisdom he built all life with the ability to adapt to the enviroment.one great argument that always stumps evolutionist..if our dna is 96.5 % identical to primates how do they explain why we are 98% indentical to sheep??they cant but its due to God's design and all life has certain parts of our dna that is identical.

Do you have a source for our genetic similarity to sheep? I'd be interested in using it other places. Thanks.

[Steve53]

Do you have a source for our genetic similarity to sheep? I'd be interested in using it other places. Thanks.

Don't know about the sheep, but here are a couple links -

http://www.koshland-science-museum.o...na/intro03.jsp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...similarity.asp

[Glory in print]

That's my thinking too! These people and all of the education and years in college, and degrees, they haven't learned nothing but just filling their heads full of nonsense!

Your right.... It seems some of the dumbest people that walk the planet today profess themselves to be the most wise and educated... There so dumb they think there smart LOL.

[What_IS_Truth?]

All I ahd to do was google one of their premises about dinosaur bones with soft tissue and I found it was refutiated by later science;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...y#fnMark_1_1_1

http://depletedcranium.com/2008/07/

We have to be careful and double check everything, the world WANTS to see us slip up. Due the due diligence!

[24thchance]

If we come from apes ,how come there,s still apes???

[Six Days]

All I ahd to do was google one of their premises about dinosaur bones with soft tissue and I found it was refutiated by later science;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...y#fnMark_1_1_1

http://depletedcranium.com/2008/07/

We have to be careful and double check everything, the world WANTS to see us slip up. Due the due diligence!

Actually, the scientist that discovered the tissue, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, maintains that it is soft tissue. The samples definitely contain collagen. The bacteria slime explanation is just grasping at straws because they know the implications.

Schweitzer, the lead author of the 2005 Science study, defended her hypothesis that the tissue-like structures that her team analyzed are indeed—at least partly—preserved soft tissue.

"The idea that biofilms are completely and solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," Schweitzer wrote in an email statement.

She noted that the scientific literature lacks any evidence that such slime coatings form branching, hollow tubes, as her team observed in the T. Rex specimen.

Given the force of gravity, she added, if biofilms were the source of the vessel structures, they ought to be thicker towards the "bottom" of the bones and not evenly distributed across the vessel walls, as her team found.

Nor, she noted, is there any evidence methane-breathing organisms were in the bone to produce the "bubbles" seen by Kaye, or, for that matter, evidence that bacteria ever inhabit bone material.

In addition, Kaye's team largely refrained from addressing several follow up studies by Schweitzer and her colleagues that present chemical and molecular evidence to support the soft tissue claim, she pointed out.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-tissue_2.html

[ron4Jesus]

Your right.... It seems some of the dumbest people that walk the planet today profess themselves to be the most wise and educated... There so dumb they think there smart LOL.

I have seen this on a daily basis, the so called smart are really dumb.

[Caver]

This is too funny, how would they explain different shades of color among people and some with lots of hair verses some with none. Using their theory, I guess bald people would be highly evolved in the brain and hairy men are fresh from the caves. LOL anyway, what will they think of next?

Some of the answers here are fascinating......but, me thinks this is a wee bit above our pay grade. At least on this side of the Rapture.

[What_IS_Truth?]

Actually, the scientist that discovered the tissue, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, maintains that it is soft tissue. The samples definitely contain collagen. The bacteria slime explanation is just grasping at straws because they know the implications.

That's GREAT NEWS. Thanks, that's good blood hound work!

[HumbleBerean]

If we come from apes ,how come there,s still apes???

And if we came from apes then apes were here first. So apes have had to deal with the "scorching heat" for at least the same length of time as humans. So why are apes still covered in hair?