It is still more difficult to explain when sex life began in animals. There could have been no sex life at first, and perhaps for ages. They can not tell us when the animals, by chance, acquired the wonderful adaptation of the sexual life. They have no evidence whatever. Their guess is no better than that of others. It passes credulity to believe that the sexual life, with all its marvelous design, was reached by the invention of irrational animals, when man, with all his powers of reason, invention, and discovery, is helpless even to understand the great wisdom and power that brought it about. Can blind chance, or aimless effort by senseless brutes, accomplish more than the amazing design of an infinitely wise and powerful God? How was the progeny of mammals kept alive, during the ages required for the slow development of the mammae? 21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must 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.