Why do babies grow hair before they are born which they later lose? Doesn’t this prove we have a common ancestor with apes?
However, if we look closely at what this hair is, the timing of its appearance, and other related factors, this argument by Coyne is seen to be quite presumptuous.
Bystrova (2009) gives reasons for believing that this hair allows for sensory stimulation in utero that affects the growth rate of the baby. Additionally, this prenatal sensory stimulation is considered somewhat analogous to postnatal sensory input, as in a mother touching her baby, which is considered important for healthy development.
This points to a bigger question. Why do some scientists declare class warfare against anything that could possibly point to a Creator? While others are truly productive scientists? Productive scientists look at known details in living things and tend to assume that the structures and processes they observe have a function. This leads to improved understanding and medical advances. The argument by Coyne is not scientific and can be traced back to a philosophy, one intended to deny that there is a Creator.
(Excerpted from A hairy subject; Egg on our faces?, by Jean K. Lightner, published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 16, Number 2, March/April 2011, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2011/CM16%2002%20low%20res.pdf)
(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)
Bystrova, K. 2009. Novel mechanism of human fetal growth regulation: a potential role of lanugo, vernix caseosa and a second tactile system of unmyelinated low-threshold C-afferents. Medical Hypotheses 72(2):143–146.