Share this comment
....how would hairlessness represent an evolutionary advantage? This interesting question is being posed from a position of doubting the veracity of the evolutionary model. Evolution is a fundamental building block for contemporary science. It is considered ridiculous to question evolution, although it has the status of a theory, which m…
....how would hairlessness represent an evolutionary advantage? This interesting question is being posed from a position of doubting the veracity of the evolutionary model. Evolution is a fundamental building block for contemporary science. It is considered ridiculous to question evolution, although it has the status of a theory, which means that it is not proven beyond doubt. This fact alone makes it a dogma by nature. Interestingly, when the theory of evolution muscled into prominence, it eclipsed a long philosophical and cosmological enquiry that spanned many centuries, in which various proposals on the origin of species had been presented, considered, perfected, disputed, and sometimes rejected. The Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophical traditions all offered solutions to the riddle. In medieval Europe, scholars had settled on a view that individual beings were composed of a material form that is imbued with an immaterial and eternal form. The presence of the Soul, as an intermediary between these two forms, in all species, not only humans, was an essential component for this rendering.
In fact, if we step outside of the echo chamber of European scholarship, and consider what the majority of humanity was thinking, the theory of evolution had no place in the ancient or indigenous cosmologies. Wherever you seek, from Mesopotamia, to Mesoamerica, from Aboriginal Australia to the Ancient world of the Subcontinent, there has always been a creator, and it would make no sense to consider Creation without the source, which could be named or nameless, but which is the originator of all things, from a neutrino to an planet, a bacterium to a crustacean.
If we are determined to keep the concept of the Creator out of the discussion, we must accept the potholed theory of evolution. It is our call. Each one of us must decide for ourselves. There is no scientific certainty on this.
"THE POTHOLED THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!" --GREAt description and yes it is very "potholed" . This theory(evolution) explains very little about actual humanity and our lives as they are lived now. Where did we come from? Who--if anyone--made us?
These are still great mysteries and generally each person must answer by looking into the depths of what used to be called their "souls"....I hope I have one. I'd like to believe that I do....
You have touched a collective nerve. The established academies where true knowledge is supposed to reside, have relegated the Soul to the level of subjective fantasy, tolerated like the childhood belief in Santa Claus. People who "believe" they have a Soul experience polite derision from the cognoscenti. But when push comes to shove, Soul bearers cannot be taken seriously, because the current paradigm cannot accommodate something as mystical and non-rational. But according to ancient wisdom, not only do you have a Soul, but you ARE your Soul! The mind is not really the boss, it only thinks it is!
RE "....how would hairlessness represent an evolutionary advantage?" It is an evolutionary advantage for the mammals that left the land to live in the sea: whales, seals, etc, (which have different degrees of hairlessness). An out-of-favour theory is that humans made a half-hearted attempt to 'return' to the sea but stopped half-way and came back. It is described in The Descent of Woman by Elaine Morgan (approx. 1970s).