[gallo]

So, back to the original topic.

Quote by: loser I'm sure that I don't understand the TOE in all of its nuances so perhaps someone can answer this question for me.

If you are sure that you don't understand it, then why on earth would you offer the opinion that it is hard to accept in the last paragraph? If you understand it, then it is actually quite easy to understand on a broad, high school level. If you don't understand it, then how on earth can you say that it goes against reason? That's unreasonable.

Moreover, you received two quite reasonable answers and you took exception to both. In fact, your response to rez was ad hominem without a single response to any matter on which he instructed you. That seems very strange, since you admit that you don't understand evolutionary theory and he, quite obviously, does. And yet, good old Matt warns rez rather than you.

So I wonder. Are you really trolling? Obviously, you reject evolutionary theory, whether you actually know what it is or not. Why ask what you seem to think is an unanswerable question and pretend that you want an answer?

Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer.

It's my (mis?)understanding that evolution is triggered as a survival of the fittest phenomenon; that adaptations which give a species a clear advantage (a better chance of survival) are the ones that are passed on.

Yes. It is your misunderstanding. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, a social economist. Spencer was talking about business in a capitalist society, i.e., businesses that offer products and services that the public demands succeed, while those that do not fail. No biggie. Still a valid theory in economics today. But it misses the mark in biology.

Darwin didn't like the phrase "survival of the fittest" applied to his theory (only one of at least 5 in "On The Origin Of Species"), and didn't actually use it until the 5th edition after the public use had become so common. It was Alfred Russel Wallace co-discoverer of the theory who actually accept the term. Even at that, he always (without exception) clearly stated that he was talking about "natural selection" whenever he used the term.

Further, natural selection is not a matter of "clear advantage." Clear to whom? The simplest way to state natural selection is differential reproductive success. It is statistical. Those individuals that posses genetic characteristics that give them a better chance to reproduce more offspring will tend to pass those beneficial characteristics on to a relatively larger portion of the population.

I was thinking about just how much of an advantage it is to have thick fur.

Where do you live?

My dog is able to withstand cold outside that would kill me.

And you are probably able to withstand cold that would kill your dog. Even the ancestor of your dog, the wolf, has heavy fur in the north (Canada and northern Europe and Asia), and much lighter fur in the south (for example, the red wolves of Texas - no grey wolves here). Of course, there are other cold adaptions (genetic) - northern wolves and foxes, besides having heavier fur, they are larger, with smaller ears, and shorter legs.

I once saw several Alaskan husky sled dogs nearly die from heat in Montana in June. With the temperature in the 70's, just how beneficial was that thick fur? On the other hand, I've seen Greenland Eskimo sled dogs that were perfectly comfortable and active in below freezing temperatures. They were, of course, in Greenland and not in equatorial forests or savannas. Hopefully, you are aware that humankind evolved in equatorial Africa.

Some arctic animals swim in frigid arctic waters that will kill us in seconds. How much better it would be for humans to have such fur in order to live in the many hostile and extreme conditions.

It's not seconds. I notice that you tend to exaggerate a bit. So how well do you think that these arctic animals would do in waters around the equator. Why do you think that we don't find them there?

Did we evolve away from having body fur so that we would have to kill animals and then make coats from their fur in order to survive in these conditions?

The simple answer is that we evolved in an environment where we didn't need fur. How is that against reason?

That really doesn't make much sense to me.

Of course it doesn't. Not to you. But it does make sense to anyone who has actually made an effort to educated himself about biology, ecology, evolution, and science in general.

If we had more hair in the past, why did we lose it?

Because less hair offered a differential reproductive in that environment.

For aesthetic purposes?

Not likely.

[Why couldn't we just evolve body fur with zippers for easy removal?

I'm sure that you realize that your question is ignorant to the extreme.

Or, like other animals, the ability to molt or shed?

Because we didn't evolve in an environment with extremes. We evolved in tropical Africa.

It's hard to accept evolution when so much of it goes against reason.

But you haven't used reason. First of all, you haven't bothered to educate yourself. Second, you haven't stated why a theory that you don't understand (by your own admission) is unreasonable.

Of course, there may be answers that I can't see that others can. Hence, the question.

How disingenuous can you be?