Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:48 AM
27 online now:
caffeine, candle2, JoeT, JonF, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Stile, Tangle (8 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 202 (450873)
01-24-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-18-2008 9:30 PM


Men - from nearly bare to covered in hair, all having little trouble finding mates, trait not selected at all.

All? I do not know if I would say 'all' :o

Jon


Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2008 9:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 202 (509617)
05-22-2009 10:54 PM


Case Closed!
Where's the fight? Is it so un-obvious to folk? Females do not have full hair development because less-hairy females were selected as they resemble younger women, i.e., those with a longer potential future mating period.

I would not be surprised to discover this selection factor reaching all the way back past H. erectus. The attractiveness of a female with a longer future mating potential is so overwhelmingly greater than one with a shorter future mating potentialespecially in pre-civilized society/groups with high infant mortality and horribly lengthy gestation periods. Therefore, any females who can even resemble the younger ones, i.e., pass themselves off as one, will receive more mating attention.

Can the matter be put to rest now? Good lord!

Jon


You've been Gremled!
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019