An article titled "What is the Latest Theory of Why Humans Lost Their Body Hair? Why Are We the Only Hairless Primate?" appeared on the Scientific American website on 14 July, 2007. According to evolutionists" first theory on this subject, the imaginary ancestors of man who lived half in water and half out, hunting in shallow waters, some 8 million years ago lost their hair because it was not an effective insulator in water, and this was replaced by a thick layer of fat beneath the skin. The evolutionary biologist Mark Pagel, whose opinions were cited in the report, described this theory as illusory and one that could not be confirmed by the fossil record. According to their second theory, the imaginary forerunners of human beings lost their fur in order to adapt to hot savannas and thus decided it would be more logical to lose their hair rather than develop a system to cool their bodies. According to evolutionists" final theory on the subject, these creatures lost their fur in order to rid themselves of various parasites capable of living in it. That is the claim espoused in the article in question.
There is no doubt that it is impossible for any scientist to support any of these claim, each of which is more illusory, inconsistent and even comic than the last. When it comes to defending Darwinist ideology, however, the scientists in question sadly set reason, logic and science aside, happily espousing tales that not even children would believe in the scientific literature.
First and foremost, there is one important fact that needs to be made clear here: the alleged loss of fur has never been confirmed by any scientific finding, and there is not a single piece of fossil evidence to verify it. This claim is one put forward by Darwinists in order to preserve their scenario of the imaginary transition from primates to man. It also represents one of the insuperable differences between primates and human beings. In order to portray the scenario in question as a valid one, Darwinists need to dress up this impossible idea of the loss of fur. That is the whole essence of the matter.
There are also evolutionist statements regarding the invalidity and inconsistency of the claims in question. One by Ian Tattersall, head of the American Museum of Natural History Anthropology Department, for instance, is crystal clear:
"There are all kinds of ideas about the advantages of fur loss, but these are all "just-so stories"."[i]
The term "just-so stories" is used to describe imaginary tales frequently related by evolutionists but with nothing scientific about them in the slightest. It is very easy to produce such tales. First, the advantageous aspect or aspects of a characteristic of an organism is described. A scenario as to how this advantage might have evolved is invented. In practical terms there is of course no limit to the evolutionist theses that can be produced in this way. That is the origin of the claims we are looking at.
The claims in these stories are devoid of such scientific characteristics as testability and repeatability. Despite holding evolutionist views Henry Gee, science editor of the well-known magazine Nature and author of many articles and books describes how mistaken it is to attempt to account for an organ by saying it is advantageous:
"... our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles." Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure."[ii]
Christophe Soligo, an anthropologist from the Natural History Museum in London, says:
"The question we always have in explaining unique human traits is: why didn"t other animals evolve them as well if they are so advantageous?"[iii]
Darwinists have still to answer this question. The question of how and by what stages this loss of fur in the scenario they have developed took place also remains unanswered. Moreover, no Darwinist claim on the subject has been scientifically confirmed. The fossil record has produced not one single specimen to support these illusory tales of evolution. As on all subjects, the theory of evolution is in a deep dilemma with regard to human evolution and has no qualms about resorting to propaganda techniques in order to conceal the fact. However, in the light of the scientific evidence obtained, this endeavor is a completely hollow and invalid one.
Furthermore, it also needs to be made clear that human skin is in any case a perfect structure. It regulates temperature, keeps fluids inside the body and, because of its selective porosity, expels unnecessary substances. It protects the body against infections, and can repair and renew itself. There are countless receptor points on its surface that feel pressure, hot, pain and cold. It is the largest organ we possess and provides us with our sense of touch. It is a living, dynamic and perfect structure. By itself it is a flawless marvel of creation, and it is impossible for such a sublime structure to form spontaneously in order to suit the prevailing conditions. In producing the imaginary scenarios of change in question, Darwinists also need to explain, in full detail, how such a marvel, far superior to the furry skin of apes, came into being. To date that has not been possible. Nor will it ever be. Because man is a unique being created, together with all his superior attributes, by Allah (God).
In addition, the human body is not entirely hairless. We even have tiny, transparent hairs on the palms of our hands. The growth of hairs to a specific length is controlled by genes that regulate their development at the wish of Allah (God). This represents yet another of the miracles of human skin.
It is impossible for anyone aware of the body"s perfect anatomy to maintain that such a structure came into existence by chance. In addition, the scientific evidence totally fails to support evolutionist claims. That being the case, it is literally amazing the way that various publications persist in such childish claims. We advise Scientific American magazine to display more common sense on this subject and to cease repeating the claims of the theory of evolution, the invalidity of which is a proven fact.
[i] Nicholas Wade, "Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways," The New York Times, August 19, 2003
[ii]Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time; Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 103