Oi Martin, so if we lived back then, we'd have our pick of the leftovers?
Posted on 02/26/2006 11:56:29 AM PST by wagglebee
Such giddy assumptions as this "blonde" thing are at least fun on the surface. It would open the door to blonde jokes.
When a theory/opinion of what was is debunked--where does it go to die? Does it get filed somewhere, archived in the File of Abandoned Notions? In the past few weeks we've seen several "evidence would indicate that things were not as they were assumed to be" stories concerning prehistory.
What one wonders about are those who did the previous "assuming." Are they chagrined? Have they lost currency? Do they get a "attaboy"?
No, it's called "sexual selection", and in some cases is as important as natural selection for evolution to happen. It was discussed at length by Darwin.
Think of peafoul. The peahen is attracted to the showiest peacock. It can be a proxy for good health.
It always does seem to me, that the brown eggs are always tastier, just seem to have a fuller, richer flavor...
My cousin raises some sort of chickens on her farm...their eggs are a pretty blue-green, kind of like Easter eggs...she says, those eggs are tastier than both the white and brown eggs...
Having been raised as a city girl and moved out into the country, I've learned a lot about what real variety there is in the foods we can get and how wonderful that can be. But I was still shocked when I realised just how many colors eggs can come in cause all I was used to was white. I tried goose eggs once, too, and they were spectacular; they had chicken eggs all beat out.
LOL!
Like I said, you're just anti-science. You just can't help but to show it with statements like this.
(ps. And what exactly is it that I do that is so unscientific?)
The blond children among Australian aborigines have nothing to do with European settlement. The aborigines have always had blond children.
I have not always chased blondes ...there have been a few though.
Both my wives are Med looking.
The latest SI swimsuit was stellar though admittedly.
Nemcova looked nice with more meat on her bones.
Any anthropological syudy today exists to prove an already held belief.
with rare exceptions
Yeah the girls were great looking. I still wouldn't want to see my guy looking at that magazine though hehehehehe :D
Annette bought it for me...no kidding...i've gotten too old for her to fret over
i just cruised a count on the current models....about 50/50 tween auburns and monas
anyhow...i do agree that men may prefer blondes but castenas age better and have better definition
You're not old! LOL Maybe she trusts you :D
We provide warmth ;)
Why blonds were preferred>
It always amazes me how scientists can be so unaware of knowledge that is well known in other disciplines. In nutritional science (a field where woman are much more common) it is well known that fair skin more readily absorbs vitamin D. Vitamin D is formed in oils on the skin and then absorbed where it aids the growth of strong bones, teeth and a well formed pelvic girdle. Women with good pelvises bear more live young, so it stands to reason that they would multiply and men, noticing this would tend to prefer them as the potential mothers of their children. Once poeple moved into cold climates where they had to wear clothing of some sort, this ability to absorb vitamin D more easily became critically important.
Dark caucasians are found in India and dark negros are found in Africa, where the melanin in the skin prevents excessive vitamin D absorption.
Oi Martin, so if we lived back then, we'd have our pick of the leftovers?
That might suggest that fair skin is a better adaptation in those climates than dark.
Then how come there are no blonde Siberians, Eskimos, Aleuts or Inuits?
Why just in Europe?
Do you wish to advance the point that the abstraction of Science is holy and wonderful? Well, do so. "You're anti-science" goes nowhere.
Science is not finding some evidence and conjuring some plausible storyline to explain it-- until a different evidence calls for a new story. That is not science--just conjecture. You know what science is by the results it brings, by the fruits.
Cosmologists write a good tale, but it is the engineer who tests the physics and math of sending up a craft going 40Kmph over 100Mmiles into space, to flick some dust off a comet going 100Kmph. His rear is on the line. Everything he does can be tested, examined, challenged and demonstrated.
Science is reproducible. Science has to have measures which are reliable--if you are testing a chemical substance in a spectrophotometer, it must be calibrated to give a standard response from a standard sample. Science should have double blind studies to filter out wishful thinking and placebo effects.
Archeologists do things like dig up gravesites of neandertals, find some pollen and engage in playful fancy about how this was a ritualistic funeral with flowers, etc. And why not? No one can say them nay. They can say anything they want. No one can prove otherwise, only create an opposing fancy.
Good stories. Bad science.
I'd hit that like a mastodon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.