 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You know those random thoughts that crop up at times? Often described as 'shower thoughts.
Well, today I had one such random thought. For quite some time, the fashion in fur has been for well tended topiary. The days of the sprawling spider legs have long since vanished. With the advent of the BSC, it's both sides who are at it. So, we become accustomed to, and therefore most have a preference for a tidy spot.
Now, this led me to thinking about evolution. For example, the peacock gradually evolved his feathers as the peahens all loved a male with a beautiful plumage. So, the better the feathers, the more a peacock gets, and in turn, the offspring of said peacock have better feathers, and therefore get more red hot peahen action. And so it continues. Evolution, right?
So, how many millennia until humans evolve into a species that has a natural Brazilian? Or until we evolve thumbs that do nothing except type on a touch screen? Etc.
In short, how long for evolution to evolute?
depends on how quick a generation is so in our case quite long. I am going for 32 millennia.
It would also have to have some evolutionary advantage[ cannot see it for either tbh] but the bush one will not evolve as you could be breeding with the the hairiest woman alive , and also the best groomed, and your offspring will still be more likely to be hairy. We would need to be picking the least hairy naturally for it to evolve.
What is the point of our body hair?
Why would you expect it to evolve?
There would only be a selective pressure if there was no way of grooming. As there are a variety of grooming options the more hirsute are no less likely to produce offspring than others, so no selective pressure to be less hairy.
evolutionary advantage
Well, I suppose you could say that the peacock's feathers only exist to make him all of teh sexeh so he gets more peahen action. Could we see a point where those with unkempt gardens are less likely to breed, and if so, the natural Brazilian occurs?
It's more a point of wondering how long it might take for something like that to evolve. How long did it take for women to evolve to have significantly less body hair than men? Etc.
What is the point of our body hair?
In *special* places it reduces friction and helps keep a bit of a control on bacteria as well as helping sweat evaporate. See, evolution.
There would only be a selective pressure if there was no way of grooming. As there are a variety of grooming options the more hirsute are no less likely to produce offspring than others, so no selective pressure to be less hairy.
This, so unless people with alopecia (if that is even genetic) start getting all the chicks then I doubt it.
Nah, the people with shaved genitals will all be dead from chlamydia soon. The future is low maintenance.
Shave your arsehole then go for a sweaty workout. You'll feel like you've shat yourself.What is the point of our body hair?
thumbs that do nothing except type on a touch screen? Etc.
I don't think I've ever used my thumb on a touch screen? Am I cave man like?
If we start choosing our sexual partners based on the amount of pubic hair they naturally have them you might over several generations see a change in the amount of pubic hair naturally present. Shaving it off will not change this as.
If we start choosing our sexual partners based on the amount of pubic hair they naturally have...
Isn't there another stage again with humans? Choice of sexual partner is irrelevant if everyone is using birth control. I suspect [i][citation needed][/i] that those with the most perfectly-groomed pubic regions are actually less likely to be doing the sex for jism-transfer purposes than those with a full Bernard Shaw.
With the advent of the BSC, it's both sides who are at it.
Not in this household.
Or British Cycling.
I heard an interesting theory about evolution recently, the conversation being centred around the female pelvis.
Before recent advances in medicine, ladies with narrow pelvises (and their unfortunate infants) would most likely die in childbirth, thus preventing the narrow-pelvis gene from being passed on. The invention of the caesarean section means that the narrow-pelvis gene is being passed down much more frequently, so artificially affecting the course of human evolution.
I was surprised to discover the other day that 25% of UK births are by caesarean. Mind you, 10% are elective.