1
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Hominid mating and hair, hair is a thought for archeologists
« on: Yesterday at 19:54:05 »
QUOTE: saying that people have hair on their heads for some scent-based reason?
YES (as plain as the "officer savage" police sketch from Not the Nine O'Clock News) but that i wonder may be more how humans lost the hair on their bodies, possibly continual shaving every other feature on their bodies to be able to not require to roll in the grass to wipe off such attacks. The only trouble is that as an evolutionary point is more likely inbreeding alike the silver fox experiment result (selective) , and possibly better at not picking up disease to have as little hair as possible (perhaps through history of prehistoric populations everything that had body hair died from bad hygiene).
Head hair would be as heavy a problem could possibly be to keep (upkeep).
For most for half a million years people have basically only had hair on their heads, everything else is for purpose bare skin covering the body.
Meaning, the head hair is the only "sufficient quantity" of absorbent like or carrier of glue like fluid that cannot be rubbed (cleaned) off almost immediately.
e.g. A hypothesis such as any of the non adult children would be perfect for its advertising stunt half a million years previous because it would not be able to remove semen from the hair by scratching , is much more likely to run inside to its other family members to help that would gather to find what the problem and noise was.
It would not be an action of hitting the mark, more an action of being sure the (suppose AKA) junk mail is not able to be scraped off and sufficient to set up a huge smell as soon as the carrier gets into the dwelling space.
Plenty of creatures use scent distributed on objects, but that only works if the recipient gets within range.
In this system the recipient is bombarded with the information as heavily as commercial television!
Because homo sapiens brain can quantify well statistically , which do you think is the better chance as its brain would half a million years back, on a tree they may not get near for days? or a sure bet by catching "someone handlable" and unloading it into the hair whether direct self gratuity or from a recent store of the stuff?
Too, who's about to prosecute him? the NSW Police? , the AFP? , the FBI? Scotland yards lot? , it is half a million to 6000 years previous.
Personally i think it was probably civilisation and precise vocal language that allowed a male to live with the females because the problem would likely cause his death 10,000 years ago and previous that for numerous reasons such as food share and other males requirements for females particularly , with the point of engineering weapons comes a subtlety of not requiring to face a stronger male as much as being when he's awake, he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head!
YES (as plain as the "officer savage" police sketch from Not the Nine O'Clock News) but that i wonder may be more how humans lost the hair on their bodies, possibly continual shaving every other feature on their bodies to be able to not require to roll in the grass to wipe off such attacks. The only trouble is that as an evolutionary point is more likely inbreeding alike the silver fox experiment result (selective) , and possibly better at not picking up disease to have as little hair as possible (perhaps through history of prehistoric populations everything that had body hair died from bad hygiene).
Head hair would be as heavy a problem could possibly be to keep (upkeep).
For most for half a million years people have basically only had hair on their heads, everything else is for purpose bare skin covering the body.
Meaning, the head hair is the only "sufficient quantity" of absorbent like or carrier of glue like fluid that cannot be rubbed (cleaned) off almost immediately.
e.g. A hypothesis such as any of the non adult children would be perfect for its advertising stunt half a million years previous because it would not be able to remove semen from the hair by scratching , is much more likely to run inside to its other family members to help that would gather to find what the problem and noise was.
It would not be an action of hitting the mark, more an action of being sure the (suppose AKA) junk mail is not able to be scraped off and sufficient to set up a huge smell as soon as the carrier gets into the dwelling space.
Plenty of creatures use scent distributed on objects, but that only works if the recipient gets within range.
In this system the recipient is bombarded with the information as heavily as commercial television!
Because homo sapiens brain can quantify well statistically , which do you think is the better chance as its brain would half a million years back, on a tree they may not get near for days? or a sure bet by catching "someone handlable" and unloading it into the hair whether direct self gratuity or from a recent store of the stuff?
Too, who's about to prosecute him? the NSW Police? , the AFP? , the FBI? Scotland yards lot? , it is half a million to 6000 years previous.
Personally i think it was probably civilisation and precise vocal language that allowed a male to live with the females because the problem would likely cause his death 10,000 years ago and previous that for numerous reasons such as food share and other males requirements for females particularly , with the point of engineering weapons comes a subtlety of not requiring to face a stronger male as much as being when he's awake, he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head!