Goose Bumps are useless!

[RaylightI]

Usually the Goose Bumps are used as an evidence for Evolution and that they are useless for humans, but they are left over from our past. Because Goose Bumps are very effective in animals but for us, humans, they are not effective anymore.


What is the response for such claim ? Are Goose Bumps really useless for humans ?

 

[Smidlee]

How about tears? You think they are useless? What about laughter?

 

[Hetta]

Goosebumps tell us something about ourselves. I don't find them useless at all.

 

[jacknife]

How about tears? You think they are useless? What about laughter?

tears flush debris from the ocular surface, laughter is a form of communication such as hand gestures it most likely comes from us being a social creature.

 

[jacknife]

Usually the Goose Bumps are used as an evidence for Evolution and that they are useless for humans, but they are left over from our past. Because Goose Bumps are very effective in animals but for us, humans, they are not effective anymore.


What is the response for such claim ? Are Goose Bumps really useless for humans ?

as for goosebumps as far as i know they may have been used by our ancestors to raise the body's hair making them appear larger then they are. while not so useful to humans other mammals like porcupines find them very useful

 

[Smidlee]

tears flush debris from the ocular surface, laughter is a form of communication such as hand gestures it most likely comes from us being a social creature.

LOL . I'm referring to the "useless" crying tears not the tear duck itself. Laughter more likely is a form of communication replying to just have far out evolutionist will go to making human behavior fit their little theory.

Goose bumps as well as tears are connected to human emotions which has absolute nothing to do with survival.

 

[sfs]

LOL . I'm referring to the "useless" crying tears not the tear duck itself. Laughter more likely is a form of communication replying to just have far out evolutionist will go to making human behavior fit their little theory.

Goose bumps as well as tears are connected to human emotions which has absolute nothing to do with survival.

So it's just a coincidence that humans have the exact same muscles as other mammals to raise our body hairs, that our muscles and theirs raise our hairs when we're frightened, and that raising the hair is useful for them and not for us.

 

[EternalDragon]

Our hairs are like small levers that, when moved by any physical stimulus including air, send sensory signals to our brain. This is true of both the tiny vellus hairs and the long terminal hairs. This sensory function of hair can hardly be considered vestigial. Another important function of hair follicles is the restoring of the epidermal skin surface following cuts and deep abrasions. Human hair follicles, regardless of size, serve as an important source of epidermal cells for recovering the skin’s surface (reepithelialization) when broad areas of the epidermis are lost. If it were not for man’s abundant hair follicles and sweat ducts, even routine skin abrasions might require a skin transplant.

All hairs are associated with muscles, and most have a muscle called the erector pili, which serves to move the hair from its normal inclined position to a more erect position. In the case of the vellus hairs of man this produces what is commonly called “goose bumps.” This muscle is in a position to help squeeze oil from the sebaceous glands, which are also attached to the hair follicle. Erector pili muscles are supplied with nerves of the sympathetic nervous system, which is often associated with our response to “flight and fright” stimuli. Thus, when we are frightened we may get goose bumps. We also get goose bumps when we are chilled. Contraction of the erector pili muscles produces heat, and if this response is inadequate to warm the body, shivering may follow, which involves repeated contractions of the large body muscles.



https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/

 

[morse86]

150 years ago, blood letting was normal. Just 50 years ago, lobotomies were standard. 20 years ago, the lipid hypothesis was considered proof. Just because we don't know the "function" of it, does not mean it supports evolution.

After a few technological advances, main is ready to claim there is no god. Even worse, he is ready to proclaim himself God. Without the law, they become a law unto themselves.

2 Thessalonians 2:4:
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Psalm 14:1:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

[AV1611VET]

Eliphaz got goose bumps.

Job 4:15 Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:

 

[HitchSlap]

Eliphaz got goose bumps.

Job 4:15 Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:

See there, good 'ol Jobe mentioning vestigial organs in the bible. Don't ever let anyone tell you it's not a science book, AV.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Our hairs are like small levers that, when moved by any physical stimulus including air, send sensory signals to our brain. This is true of both the tiny vellus hairs and the long terminal hairs. This sensory function of hair can hardly be considered vestigial. Another important function of hair follicles is the restoring of the epidermal skin surface following cuts and deep abrasions. Human hair follicles, regardless of size, serve as an important source of epidermal cells for recovering the skin’s surface (reepithelialization) when broad areas of the epidermis are lost. If it were not for man’s abundant hair follicles and sweat ducts, even routine skin abrasions might require a skin transplant.

Who said that hair follicles were vestigial or not necessary?

All hairs are associated with muscles, and most have a muscle called the erector pili, which serves to move the hair from its normal inclined position to a more erect position. In the case of the vellus hairs of man this produces what is commonly called “goose bumps.” This muscle is in a position to help squeeze oil from the sebaceous glands, which are also attached to the hair follicle. Erector pili muscles are supplied with nerves of the sympathetic nervous system, which is often associated with our response to “flight and fright” stimuli. Thus, when we are frightened we may get goose bumps. We also get goose bumps when we are chilled. Contraction of the erector pili muscles produces heat, and if this response is inadequate to warm the body, shivering may follow, which involves repeated contractions of the large body muscles.

This paragraph only states what occurs to give humans goosebumps; it does not tell us what value for humans, there is in the expression of goosebumps.

 

[Smidlee]

So it's just a coincidence that humans have the exact same muscles as other mammals to raise our body hairs, that our muscles and theirs raise our hairs when we're frightened, and that raising the hair is useful for them and not for us.

Just like it a coincidence we have a backbone. We can all play the guessing game of why we have this and that.

See there, good 'ol Jobe mentioning vestigial organs in the bible. Don't ever let anyone tell you it's not a science book, AV.

The Bible is greater than any science book.

 

[Loudmouth]

Usually the Goose Bumps are used as an evidence for Evolution and that they are useless for humans, but they are left over from our past. Because Goose Bumps are very effective in animals but for us, humans, they are not effective anymore.


What is the response for such claim ? Are Goose Bumps really useless for humans ?

Goose Bumps are vestigial since they have lost their primary function seen in related species. Vestigial does not mean without function, just that it has lost its primary function that it evolved for.

To use an analogy, a broken TV can be used as a door stop. Even though you can find uses for the broken TV, it is still broken.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just like it a coincidence we have a backbone. We can all play the guessing game of why we have this and that.

Perhaps you can explain the coincidence that vestigial features just happen to fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. We don't see whales with vestigial feathers, or birds with vestigial teats. Why not? Each and every time, the vestigial features are consistent with their proposed evolutionary history.

 

[Smidlee]

Perhaps you can explain the coincidence that vestigial features just happen to fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. We don't see whales with vestigial feathers, or birds with vestigial teats. Why not? Each and every time, the vestigial features are consistent with their proposed evolutionary history.

You mean those vestigial features that happen to have function. If vestigial feature has function then isn't all feature by evolution definition vestigial?

Why is it we can easily identify whales as mammals considering the huge transformation that had to happen for it to evolve from a land creature. Why is these lines not more blurry if evolution is true? It's there a natural law that state once a creature gain boobs and hair it can't never lose them?

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean those vestigial features that happen to have function.

Vestigial does not mean without function. A broken TV can still serve a function by acting as a door stop. That doesn't change the fact that it is still broken. You can pound in nails with a broken computer keyboard, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still broken.

If vestigial feature has function then isn't all feature by evolution definition vestigial?

Vestigial features have adaptations that are not being used. That is how we determine that they are vestigial. For example, your coccyx has a muscle that spans a fused joint called the extensor coccygis. That muscle couldn't move those bones even if it wanted to. The same muscle in other mammals lifts the tail. We have an adaptation in our bodies that is not being used for what it was adapted for.

Why is it we can easily identify whales as mammals considering the huge transformation that had to happen for it to evolve from a land creature. Why is these lines not more blurry if evolution is true? It's there a natural law that state once a creature gain boobs and hair it can't never lose them?

You are making the assumption that the adaptations that were kept had to be kept. The features that are shared by lots of species just happen to be the ones that were kept. If we wound the tape back and let evolution run again we might see other traits that were largely conserved, and others that were not. However, you would still get a nested hierarchy. The shared features would still fall into an objective phylogeny.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just to make this clear . . .

The main evolutionary argument for vestigial features is no that they lack any function whatsoever. Rather, they have obvious adaptations that are not being used, and they fall into the expected evolutionary history for that species.

More to the point, if we found a squirrel with vestigial feathers this would FALSIFY the theory of evolution. If we found bats with vestigial flow through lungs, this would falsify evolution. If we found turtles with vestigial fur, this would falsify evolution. It is the PATTERN of vestigial features that points to evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Goose Bumps are vestigial since they have lost their primary function seen in related species. Vestigial does not mean without function, just that it has lost its primary function that it evolved for.

.

According to evolution then everything are vestigial features which makes vestigial meaningless.

You are making the assumption that the adaptations that were kept had to be kept. The features that are shared by lots of species just happen to be the ones that were kept. If we wound the tape back and let evolution run again we might see other traits that were largely conserved, and others that were not. However, you would still get a nested hierarchy. The shared features would still fall into an objective phylogeny.

You make the assumption that a whale made serious change from a land animal yet somehow kept all the mammal features we could clearly tell it's a mammal. There is no reason after millions of years of evolution for their to be a nested hierarchy.
There is no explanation why evolution conserved some features and not others. It's just assumption without any evidence to back them up.

 

[AV1611VET]

To use an analogy, a broken TV can be used as a door stop. Even though you can find uses for the broken TV, it is still broken.

But an unbroken TV does not need a door.

It's only after the TV breaks, that a door is needed.