Hi, I am just curious as to what information led you to abandon your creationist beliefs? Thanks.
That doesn’t seem correct – all visible hair above the skin is dead, so how could it synthesize anything?
That’s why you shoot 'em in the head.
To piss off their monkey parents.
What kind of soap were you using? Hand soap is very hard on hair.
I would also suggest that long hair in humans may have arisen after tool use, which means there may never have been a state of humans with long hair who were unable to cut it or style it if they wanted to. If that’s the case, then long hair would never have been a disadvantage from a natural selection standpoint because you can always use a sharpened rock to cut it as short as you’d like. Long hair would be purely a cultural status display of health, wealth and creativity.
I read one theory (undoubtedly put forth by a balding evolutionary biologist) that a bald head enabled women to spot older (and hence presumably genetically superior) males from a distance (sunlight reflecting off the bald spot).
Moderator Note
Such a discussion is better suited to IMHO or Great Debates than General Questions. If you want to pursue this, start a new thread in either of those forums.
As a reminder, my instructions to you about arguing creationism in this forum still hold:
[QUOTE=Colibri]
If you want to argue creationism, do it in Great Debates. . . . do not post creationist arguments in this forum.
[/QUOTE]
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Mainly the Green River Formation. It seemed to take millions of years to form. I believed that the Bible definitely says that it has only been about 6000 years since Adam and probably since the creation of the universe. So an old age means the Bible can’t be trusted.
Sorry I didn’t read that previous moderator message.
And it makes about as much sense as any other “why we evolved [a specific characteristic]” theory. I like it.
Did said biologist ever outline a reproductive benefit to being seen by potential mates from a distance?
It’s not necessary for a trait to give an advantage for it to become persistent. It merely has to not convey a disadvantage.
The theory as presented does assume an evolutionary benefit to being seen from a distance, though, so I wonder what it might be.
What I don’t get is why did the one ape stupid enough to lose it’s hair then decide it needs clothing to protect itself from climate become the ape that dominated the planet? It seems to be the total opposite of evolution and survival of the fittest.
We evolved in a dry tropical climate. Clothes only became necessary for protection from climate when we moved into temperate areas.
Some anthropologists hypothesize that clothing was first worn (in the tropics) not for protection but for ornament.
I don’t think I’d even grant #1 the status of “hypothesis”.
There still isn’t a consensus on why we lost our body hair. My favorite hypothesis is that we lost it when we started using fires regularly for cooking. Most likely, there was more than one reason, and any simple explanation is an oversimplification.
Hah – just realized that this is a necrothread.
It has more evidence than the overkill hypothesis. 
It doesn’t account for why chimps don’t have long hair.