explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's
explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned
scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the
least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because,
naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and,
finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do
sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If
we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of
phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of
their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the
males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous
process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head
and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and
children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is
there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute
ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not
believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even
the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from
the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the
monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute
should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species
of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural
selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy
animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute
perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great
abundance.

The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some
reconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a
picture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed