It's just a theory

[Dasanudas]

One plausible explanation I have heard was used in Greg Bear's sci-fi book, Darwin's Radio. The book was entirely fiction, but he's like Crichton in that he takes cutting-edge science for book ideas. I don't know the exact hypothesis but basically there are times when a species goes through uber-mutation but only in the womb - nothing actually born. This way, all the "defects" are weeded out in the space of a few years or decades and the old species actually gives birth to the new one. This is one hypothesis on why there seem to be missing links on the record, and I believe it was using something from our DNA or RNA that seems to carry information that isn't being used by the body, or something. I don't know the exact theory, but the book was cool.

Lets just say that I don't think that a scientific conspiracy on such a scale is plausible.

The implication isn't one of a massive conspiracy where seedy men in the dark control the fate of science, or anything less dramatic even. It is simply an effect of paradigms where many people each on a small scale decry or ignore evidence because it doesn't fit the current understanding instead of rethinking the current understanding. A great recent example is the understanding that stress and anxiety causing ulcers. Two men just won a Nobel Prize for showing that it is, in fact, bacteria caused. Of course, in this situation it is easily shown to be otherwise - although it took the guy such drastic measures as giving himself a major ulcer by drinking down the bacteria to do it. It's a little harder for something as nebulous as evolution. Usually things on this scale have no chance of convincing "old hat" scientists, but rather they become interesting to up and coming intellects who try them out. If they are better or just as valid as the old theory, they become slowly part of the standard.

I'm not suggesting that every wierd phenomenom should throw the current model out, there should certainly be scrutinizing study into each and every case, but when there's enough to fill a 900 page book, with more coming in (where in the chain of evolution do hobbits fit in?) it would just make sense to look at the theory and consider alternative possibilities.

As for the sensitivity thing, I have no idea, but I will posit a hypothesis. Humans have no hairs as sensitive as whiskers, but still have a need to know even subtle changes in wind direction for hunting, temperature changes, and various other things. It would certainly help to have very sensitive skin to better receive the small sensory information. The ability to detect minor surface changes is simply a side effect. Also, humans and other primates are the most dextrous with their forelimbs, sensitivity in these limbs would certainly help out in using them as best as possible. Any number of things could be suggested - like it might have been helpful in finding discriminating between types of leaves and rocks. I mean, the human eye can perceive over 200 shades of red, and women can statistically percieve more than men. Why would you ever need to tell the difference between brick red and apple red and cherry red and nosebleed red and pissed-that-the-dog-ate-the-cat-so-my-face-is-red red?