What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

What benifit is it that women do not grow beards, but men do?

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

I think the scientific jury is still out on that one, but in my unscientific opinion, the answer is obvious: as the human male brain developed and evolved, so did its sense of beauty which began to include women, and women without facial hair just began to look more beautiful to men than those with it.

It was and is just one more way to differentiate women from men so to allow the 2 sexes to be attracted to each other.

That's why homosexuality is so unnatural.

Think about it, if men and women looked almost the same, what would attract us to each other?

It is our differences that attract the 2 sexes, not similarities.

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

women have facial hair. Just look really closely and its all over. Plus if yu look at girl monkeys they dont have much either

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

it is easier to tell apart men and women :)

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

Women do have facial hair, it is just usually lighter. However, get them to the age of menopause, the darker hair starts growing! You won't normally see it because it is removed.

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

Good question,

Why do women have wider hips, generally? -- (Birth Canal)

Why do women have breasts and men don't? -- (Feeding)

So I get your point, with all of the other differences between men and women there is a reason behind it. I don't know.

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

Women use their faces to communicate much more them men do, even more so with babies and kids. So they need to get that hair off their face so the babies and kids could see it.(the hairless woman survived natural selection).

Just watch any woman when they get near a baby...there face lights up and they get all happy. You don't see guys doing that...

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Is evolution really scientific?

The 鈥渟cientific method鈥?is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: 鈥淭o their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature鈥檚 experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.鈥濃€擳he Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: 鈥淎fter having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.鈥濃€擳he Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: 鈥淎n increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists .聽.聽. argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. .聽.聽. Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.鈥濃€擩une聽25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: 鈥淭he only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.鈥?(Italics added.)鈥擯hysics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin鈥檚 Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: 鈥淎s we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.鈥濃€擝y W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

鈥淎 century after Darwin鈥檚 death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place鈥攁nd in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. .聽.聽. A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.鈥濃€擟. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April聽20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: 鈥淓volution .聽.聽. is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.鈥濃€擮ctober 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: 鈥淚f numerous species .聽.聽. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.鈥?(The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that 鈥渘umerous species鈥?came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: 鈥淭here are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.鈥?(New Scientist, January 15,聽1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: 鈥淏y the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.鈥濃€?New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago鈥檚 Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: 鈥淒arwin鈥檚 theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. .聽.聽. the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.鈥濃€擩anuary 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22,聽23.

A View of Life states: 鈥淏eginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.鈥濃€?California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: 鈥淏elow this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.鈥濃€擭atural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: 鈥淚f progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major聽forms of life were established fits best.鈥濃€擫iberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: 鈥淭he fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.鈥濃€?New York, 1980), p. 29.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: 鈥淓volutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.鈥?However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: 鈥淪peculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.鈥?(February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: 鈥淭he fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.鈥濃€?1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

What about those 鈥渁pe-men鈥?depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

鈥淭he flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. .聽.聽. Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face鈥攐f these characters we聽know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.鈥濃€擳he聽Biology聽of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp.聽135,聽151.

鈥淭he vast majority of artists鈥?conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. .聽.聽. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.鈥濃€擲cience Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

鈥淛ust as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.鈥濃€擬an, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p.聽304.

Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?

鈥淢any scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, .聽.聽. over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. .聽.聽. But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.鈥濃€擳he Guardian, London, England, December 4,聽1980, p. 15.

But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?

There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.

Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his 鈥済randfather鈥檚 day,鈥?meaning that one鈥檚 entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term 鈥渄ay鈥?to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2聽Peter 3:8.) Thus the 鈥榙ays鈥?of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

And who said women lack facial hair? Not my mirror, that's for d^mn sure.

Women do have facial hair. It just doesn't grow as fast or get as coarse as men's ... unless they shave it.

What evolutionary reason is there that women lack facial hair?

There is no evolutionary reason why women lack facial hair, because they have facial hair. What do you think they make tweezers for?

If a woman decided to shave she could grow a full beard.

The benefit is to make them self pretty. Would you want a woman with a full beard?