If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armp

Hair in those places doesn't seem to have any purpose. I understand though why we still have eyebrows, eyelashes, hairs in the nose and so on.

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

Evolution doesn't eliminate everything which is useless. It will remove anything which is a disadvantage. For example, if it slows us down while running or makes us less intelligent, then it would have disappeared long ago.

Pubic and underarm hair may not have a reason to exist, but it also doesn't harm us, so it's still around. It may or may not disappear from humanity several thousand years from now.

A few other points:

- Some people believe that the underarm and pubic hair is used to reduce chafing. You'll notice that the crotch and armpits are two areas where the human body rubs against itself the most.

- Some people believe that the underarm and pubic hair is used to hold in the pheromones that we produce. The crotch and underarms are two of the smelliest places on the human body.

- In Asia, there are people who are actually born without underarm or pubic hair. However, in places like Korea, pubic hair is considered a sign of fertility, so many of the women born without pubic hair actually transplant hair from their head to their pubic area.

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

Note also, however, that evolution will eventually eliminate even useless components since they waste bodily resources (and are hence a selection disadvantage). The selection pressure is still there, just more minor. Report It

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

everything is there for a purpose, sometimes we know the purpose, sometimes we don't but doesn't mean it has no purposes

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

It's called "old age". NOT evolution!

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

did you know that humans still have remnants of a tail... ur not complaining about that. :)

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

Hair within the pubic area is meant to keep such area warm during the cold months. It has little importance now when we wear clothes. The same for hair within the underarms. THe hair in these parts are left over from earlier times when we needed it.

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

Women who shave their under-arm hair may know if this is the case, that when armpits become sweaty it feels uncomfortable.

I know that after I shaved my pubic hair in preparation for a vasectomy, it was very uncomfortable - things kept sticking together!

Of course, this does not seem to trouble pre-pubescent children.

Hair in these regions is a secondary sexual characteristic and functions, in part, to localise the pheremones produced during sex. These sexy smells linger in the sweat held on the hair.

As to why many people choose to cover up their powerful and effective sexy smells with deodorants, colognes, etc. I can only guess.

As to why many women shave their armpits, my theory is that it is an effective marketing ploy of anti-perspirant manufacturers which has become a fashion.

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

we DID NOT EVOLVE we are the same as we were 6000 yrs ago. you hit on something if we evolved we would still be evolving.therefore we would all be hairless because we dont need it anymore. ha ha im not worried.

If we've lost most of our hair in the evolution, why do we still have pubic hair and hairy armpits?

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish, extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality.

For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays鈥攁 situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.

There are many examples of rudimentary and nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most pythons (which are legless snakes) carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin (Cohn 2001; Cohn and Tickle 1999). The vestigial pelvis in pythons is not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, vestigial legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside (Raynaud and Kan 1992).