How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for
evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account
of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must
explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's
explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned
scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the
least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because,
naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and,
finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do
sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If
we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of
phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of
their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the
males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous
process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head
and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and
children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is
there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute
ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not
believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even
the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from
the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the
monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute
should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species
of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural
selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy
animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute
perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great
abundance.
The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some
reconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a
picture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed
from his "restorations," the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, and
the Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body or
even without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny Charlie
Chaplin mustache. Their hair had not been combed for 1,000,000 years;
yet we could not detect it. A sympathetic artist can make a
"restoration" suit his fancy and support any theory.
If we are descended from simian stock, how did we come to lose our
tails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species to
lose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not to
find a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sport
simian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could natural
selection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all the
monkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, and
developed into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been a
fatal imperfection.