Evolution: shouldn’t Eskimos grow fur?

As a Creationist I tend to watch and read more secular material than most might expect. There is a good reason for this. Usually the secular material provides me with the best arguments against Evolution imaginable – and on many occasions, the material provides me with a good laugh as well. While watching a few minutes of the History Channel’s program entitled The Big History of Everything, a few interesting questions shot through my mind along with a few chuckles.

Evolution: sea to land and back?

The program, besides making a number of assumptions that just don’t make sense and can’t be supported by any credible data, attempted to explain how creatures that evolved in the sea made their way onto land; but then had to go back to the sea in order to reproduce; and then these creatures were able to go back onto land and live because they had figured out how to lay eggs. According to the program, figuring out how to lay eggs enabled them to take part of the sea onto land with them, which enabled them to reproduce on land. The program made a point of asserting how important a development this was. It sounds silly when you write it out this way but they present it in a manner, complete with artists’ renditions and computer-generated images that make you think they actually know what they’re talking about.

Do whales really represent a step in evolution from land back to the sea?

A humpback whale shows its tail off the California coast. Humpbacks are one of the best-known members of the baleen order, the same as the desert whales of the Atacama Desert. Photo: Mike Baird, CC BY 2.0 Generic License.

In this case their hypothesis is more than silly; it is an insult to our intelligence. Stay with me. This gets a little confusing. First of all, Evolutionists would have us believe that one phylum of animal – or whatever they were supposed to be – evolved in water; then they tried to evolve on land but couldn’t; so they went back in the water to evolve their reproductive systems; once they did this, then they came back on land and evolved again. Whew! That’s a whole lot of evolving! And the program left out one very important question: how did this animal develop a respiratory system that enabled it to live on land and not in water? Are we supposed to believe they figured out how to do that as well?

Perhaps the most silly and insulting explanation offered is that these creatures “figured out” how to produce eggs. Really? So the program would have you believe that these creatures that were significantly lower than us on the Evolutionist’s evolutionary chain were able to figure out how to change their entire reproductive system and how to produce eggs, as well as how to develop lungs. Do you know of any of us more highly evolved humans that have figured out how we can biologically produce an egg? Perhaps someone should educate these educators on how complex an egg really is. But more importantly, I would like to ask: if these primitive life forms could figure out how to lay eggs, why can’t Eskimos figure out how to grow fur?

After all, the theory of Evolution would have us believe that phyla evolve through mutation in order to adapt to their changing environment. They use the argument of survival of the fittest to support their argument. Although the fittest do survive in challenging environments, there isn’t any data to support that these “fittest” evolve into a new kind of phyla. For example, if a small cat can’t survive in the arctic but a husky can, is there any evidence that suggests that somewhere along the line the cat evolved into a husky? Of course I’m only using cats and dogs as an example. The proper question should be: if one animal phylum can’t survive in a certain environment, is there any data that supports the idea that the phyla evolved into another phyla that could survive in the harsher environment?

Evolution: reptiles to birds?

All the rage now is that reptiles/dinosaurs evolved into birds. Really? Well, here’s a few questions:

  • How did the scales on these creatures turn into feathers? If you think that seems like a reasonable task, look up the structure of a feather and you will be amazed at its complexity.
  • And since flight would not be possible with only feathers or even with feathers and wings alone but would need an entirely re-designed respiratory system and a lighter skeletal system, then how did these creatures manage to survive long enough to reproduce – especially since partial development of any of these physical attributes would turn these creatures into a new phylum, which would properly be called “Bait”?
  • And where, Mr. Darwin, are all the “innumerable species of transitional fossils” you predicted would be found if your theory were true? Remember, a criterion of the scientific method is that theories have to be predictable. Through the years we have heard of a few popping up here and there, but as time went on, all of them have been found to be hoaxes and frauds – although the discoveries that they were frauds never quite make it into the general public’s discourse. Perhaps it’s why Evolutionists fight so frantically for the known errors and hoaxes to be kept in textbooks.

There are a myriad of valid questions regarding the veracity of Evolution that people are too intimidated to ask, starting with:

  • If through mutation and adaptation one phylum evolves into another in order to survive, then would someone please tell me why observable data provides us with a record of extinction and not a record of transitions into better and more adaptable kinds?
  • And if Evolution is true, why isn’t there a record of transitional fossils for every family of animals known to man – starting with a simple cell which isn’t so simple after all – and all the way up the Evolutionary chain to man?
  • And if Evolution is true, if kinds do evolve in order to better survive in their environments, then will someone please tell me why Eskimos haven’t figured out how to grow fur?

Evolution may have convinced the general population that it is a reasonable answer to many questions regarding origins, but if it is an answer, it’s only because the right questions aren’t being asked.

Reprinted from Conservative News and Views


9 thoughts on “Evolution: shouldn’t Eskimos grow fur?

  1. RoseAnn, Thanks for a few more laughs! Just as you find what Evolutionists state is amusing, As one who believes in the word of science, I am in turn amused by your article. I did not see the PBS story. However, common sense allows me to understand what the show was about. Today, we have salamanders and frogs which live primarily on land, but lay their unprotected cluster of eggs in the water. Not hard to see that some of these amphibians developed the trait of covering their eggs in a shell. It will be argued that there is no evidence that present day amphibians are not evolving. Evolution acts slowly in many species well adapted to one environment, however there are many species of seemingly related amphibious species. However, how can the proof of selection exhibited in the domestic dog be ignored. Genetic evidence, assuming you believe in that, shows that all domestic dogs are the descendant of the wild Grey Wolf. Why then are their so many types of dogs. Great Danes vs Chihuahuas? Is the answer God? No, artificial selection by man, yes. Because it is artificial selection, many of the traits are actually negative. The predatory perfection of the wolf was altered by man to serve man’s needs, not to serve the survival needs of the dog. The Wolf is the product of natural Darwinian selection or the survival of the fittest. The Cocker Spaniel is not. Is this too hard to see or comprehend?

    • None of the above addressed the issues the article laid out. None of the above, for example, said why no human being has ever grown as rich a coat of fur as, say, a polar bear, or the Alaskan moose. Nor does even the Inuit have as much natural adipose insulation as has, say, his favorite staple, the walrus.

      About those dogs: ask yourself this. How could even man artificially select all those traits so quickly? Particularly if you say natural selection occurs slowly?

      Contradictions do not exist. Check your premises. One of them is false. And we all know which one.

      One thing last of all: just what do you mean by “the word of science”? Do you really want to lend credence to the charge, by Mrs. Salanitri, Mr. Lally, our other fellow Directors, and myself, alleging that what you call “science” depends on a chosen committee of hegemony that dares tell the world what is scientific and what is not?

  2. This article is incredibly ignorant. I’m only commenting on one of the many silly points made here: The Eskimos wear the hides of furry animals and have been for many centuries! There would be no reproductive fitness advantage for hairy individuals. Anyone, even hairless Eskimos, would be able to reproduce because they are able to overcome the problem of cold weather by covering themselves with the fur and skins of indigenous animals!
    Please open a textbook.

    • Why do the Inuit wear the hides of furry animals? For that matter, why are human beings the only ones who do this?

      Why would no reproductive fitness obtain for human beings growing fur in that environment?

      I did open a textbook. It’s incomplete. It doesn’t answer those questions.

      Can you?

  3. To answer your question regarding Eskimos and fur.
    Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the actual way evolution works would know that beneficial traits are the ones selected for, not what one would THINK would be beneficial. In the case of people who live in very cold locations, two things have to be considered.
    1) Humans generally do not find excessive hairyness attractive. Therefore there is no mating benefit, and likely a detriment to have excessive body hair.
    2) With technology (buildings, clothing, etc) the risk of dying from the cold is extremely low and generally requires stupidity, therefore the possible advantage gained by fur is nullified by the fact that it is not needed. We wont find hairier eskimos surviving the cold winters their bare counterparts perish in.

    Second note – to Terry Hurlbut – Are you actually denying that mankind has selectively bred dogs and other animals, changing their shapes and creating various breeds? Are you denying that we have created the dog breeds and stating instead that they were all created as they are now by god?
    ” How could even man artificially select all those traits so quickly? Particularly if you say natural selection occurs slowly?” – Artificial natural…. selective breeding natural selection… What you said is like saying ‘its impossible to dig a hole that fast, look at how long it takes a river to wear a channel!’

    • Can you answer these questions under the terms of the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm:

      1. Why do human beings not find abundant body hair attractive? In fact, I remember a movement during the Nineteen Seventies among women who wanted to abandon leg shaving because they were tired of doing things to please men. (And for that matter, why don’t you tell me why women never lost their ability to grow hair on their legs.)
      2. Why did human beings, unique among the animals, develop technology? Why did they even feel the need? Have you or any of your sources a clue to those selection pressures you invoke?

      Now about those dog breeds: I don’t deny those breeds. I cite them as utterly falsifying a central tenet of animal evolution: that it takes time. Lots of time.

      • In reply:
        A: Our society teaches us that body hair is unattractive, possibly in part to sell hair removal products. I personally find shaving to be preferable as it makes grooming easier. And answer me this – what would cause women to lose leg hair? How would leg hair cause women to die before having kids, or prevent them from having kids during their life? Nothing, therefore from a natural selection/evolutionary viewpoint its moot, there is no driver to change it. Just like there is no driver for people in cold environs to grow fur – we have clothes and warm buildings so it wouldnt matter.
        B: Fingers. There are other smart animals, dolphins, crows, ravens. Crows are capable of solving multi-step puzzles using tools. Lets say there was a crow or a dolphin twice as smart as you – could it build a spear? or a house? They dont have hands, so even with the brains they dont have the means for detailed crafting.
        There is a hypothesis that the discovery of fire gave neolithic man the leap forward we needed to develop intelligence superior to that of the apes who branched off of our mutual ancestors (to simplify a bit). Apes chew for approx 5 hours a day, raw meat for example is particularly hard to chew. They have to spend much of their time getting and eating food. When cavemen got fire, cooked food is easier to digest and also gives more nutrition, therefore the cavemen had a lot more time on their hands (and better nutrition to build brain mass) to think and work on tools and build society. And it still took many many thousands of years before they got to anything resembling technology. Give apes fire, and once they learn to control it, they could possibly after a long period of time follow our footsteps.

        Dog breeding – again, selective breeding is WAY different than natural selection, it is orders of magnitude faster.
        Natural selection – lets say there is an area with dogs where little dogs are more likely to get eaten by predators than big dogs. A higher percentage of big dogs will survive to mate than little dogs, but some little dogs are still there. The natural variation will slowly favor larger dogs, but there will still be a mix of parents of different sizes, even if the smallest 10% usually dont make it. Taking out a few big dogs and a bunch of little dogs will only raise the average size a bit.
        Selective breeding – Take only the largest dogs from your sample, like top 5%. Breed them, cull anything below the average size and keep breeding, or maybe take the top 5% again if you have a large enough group. You are already starting with your first generation being in the top 5% of size, lets call that 95% compared to a group of wild dogs where if you lose a bunch of the smaller ones the overall average size only shifts a few percentage points up, maybe to 55%. That’s only first generation, each generation selective breeding can widen the gap.
        That’s why we can breed animals and change them 1000 – 10,000 X faster than natural selection would. So 100 years to breed a certain breed of dog can equal what might possibly happen with evolution over 1,000,000 years.

  4. And another point on the eskimo fur thing – it has to affect passing on genes, which is why house cats in siberia wont evolve extra fur, but WILD cats in siberia would.
    BTW, change in animal populations could be through natural variation (a litter of puppies, some will be larger, some will be smaller, there is always that small variation) that slowly adds up. If you have dogs and some go where smaller dogs have the advantage and survive better, and some go to an area where big ones survive better, after many many generations the two groups will start looking rather different. The other method is through mutations – I have read that the average human has about 100 mutations, however 99%+ of them are not noticeable or effect no real difference. However, sometimes you get one that does. hypertrichosis for example that makes people look like werewolves. That is a mutation, that passes down genetically from parents to children. So a random mutation like that could end up creating a group of people who are all covered in fur and its an example of how what would be considered a big step in evolution that can happen quickly and in one step.
    The first kind of lung-fish that could breathe air may have been a mutation that passed it on to its offspring and using it as an advantage they multiplied and became a new branch of the tree of life – which can then seed other branches via mutation or natural selection of variation.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.