Humans Bleed too Easily?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Aren't we the only mammalian, land "primate":

- with subcutaneous layer of fat

- while you're on the subject of blood, the only primate negative for the Rh factor?

- webbed skin between our fingers

- swim-streamlined pattern of peach fuzz on the back

As for bleeding out too easily, it may have been necessary to have such free flowing warm blood for spontaneity in nerve messages, ie fight-or-flight reactivity with ones environment.

The cold-blooded and/or slower-moving creatures with slow heartbeats likely bleed out somewhat slower. Too bad the clotting factors did not develop more extensively in Earthlings/humans, the vascular tissue itself, instead of just blood, should be able to clot/wall itself instantly (and re-epithelialize faster) with contact with air.

edit on 23-3-2012 by BiggerPicture because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
What animals are you comparing us to when you say we bleed too easily? Virtually every mammal out there will bleed when cut and doesn't have armor-like skin. Cats, dogs, chimps, monkeys, cows, deer etc. They all bleed fairly easily, which means 40 million+ years of evolution for that type of trait to emerge. There's no doubt in my mind that softer skin evolved slowly with intelligence. As creatures slowly increased their intellect, they became less reliant on strong skin to survive, and more reliant evading predators and hunting based on things like smarts, muscle expansion and fur color. As humans, intelligence is pretty much the primary trait for survival, even back in the day we we lived off the land.


As an old hunter of mostly small game in the US, I can plainly tell you that no animal bleeds as easily as humans. That was only my starting point and entirely valid. I can even include most fowl, big and small into that statement. I could throw in the fish family also, but overkill was never my forte.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Aren't we the only mammalian, land "primate":

- with subcutaneous layer of fat

- while you're on the subject of blood, the only primate negative for the Rh factor?

- webbed skin between our fingers

- swim-streamlined pattern of peach fuzz on the back

As for bleeding out too easily, it may have been necessary to have such free flowing warm blood for spontaneity in nerve messages, ie fight-or-flight reactivity with ones environment.

The cold-blooded and/or slower-moving creatures with slow heartbeats likely bleed out somewhat slower. Too bad the clotting factors did not develop more extensively in Earthlings/humans, the vascular tissue itself, instead of just blood, should be able to clot/wall itself instantly (and re-epithelialize faster) with contact with air.

edit on 23-3-2012 by BiggerPicture because: (no reason given)


I will strongly disagree with you on something many of us were taught in school. Warm-blooded mammals are not a bit faster than the cold-blooded in their active environment. Actually, human reaction times to stimulus are about the slowest of the slow of any creature,



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
As an old hunter of mostly small game in the US, I can plainly tell you that no animal bleeds as easily as humans. That was only my starting point and entirely valid. I can even include most fowl, big and small into that statement. I could throw in the fish family also, but overkill was never my forte.


They still bleed easily, relatively speaking. Compare them to reptiles and it's not even close. But that was my exact point. Humans are further removed from nature than any other animal. Humans have the most intelligence of any other animal. Human's have the lowest need for strong skin of any other animal. It's pretty much a slam dunk for the process of evolution. If a deer, a cat, a dog or another similar mammal got caught by a a large predator such as a bear or a panther, I don't think their slightly tougher skin is going to save them. A human wearing armor or wielding a weapon (products of intelligence) could pull it off. Hence why intelligence faded out those type of traits. They didn't matter at all. Smooth, sensitive skin also has to do with sexual selection. Again, it makes perfect sense.
edit on 24-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
There's variance in the thickness of human skin, and if for some reason thick skin started to be a factor favored by natural selection, we would have thick skin in no time (time being relative, and here referred to in the context of evolutionary time). As I said already before, you have to understand that every trait comes with negative things too. For example our large brain is good for thinking, but at the same time it consumes a lot more energy than a smaller brain would. We evolved to be hunter gatherers that had to move very long distances. Thick heavy skin would have meant more weight to be carried (more energy consumed), difficulties in body temperature control (esp. releasing heat), etc. So, always keep in mind that there are advantages and disadvantages to every trait, and these are weighted by natural selection. Things like body size also affect e.g. heat dissipation because of different size/surface ratios. The smaller the animal, the larger the relative body surface area and thus relative potential for heat dissipation..
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


As someone who spent years Thai boxing, I can tell you that the human body can take more of a beating than you think. Our bones are EXTREMELY strong.

To give you an example: When I was training 4-5 times per week, being on top of my game, my knee kicks had the force of 1.5-2 tonnes. For a short amount of time, the forces acting upon my knee are pretty insane...yet it doesn't injure me (most of the time).

As for bleeding...we only bleed more easily compared to animals that have thicker skin or armour plates of some sort.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by ANOK
 


I do not know. Is there information available about the descendents of the primates used in vaudeville, the "golden" age of Hollywood, or those simian performers of times gone by? As we still dress up non human primates for entertainment, seeing if clothing changes body hair should be easy.

Short answer: Agreed. No.


It would take generations to lose the hair. Dressing monkeys for a few years is not going to do it.

Evolution is a slooow process.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Verrrrrrrry slow, since I don't see for example black people become more white. And I don't think they will become white, after many generations when living in a colder climate.
Or white people becoming black..
edit on 27-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by ANOK
 


Verrrrrrrry slow, since I don't see for example black people become more white. And I don't think they will become white, after many generations when living in a colder climate.
edit on 27-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)


It all depends really. Races will inevitably mix as transportation improves...it's already been happening for decades now. So in a few hundred (or thousand) years most of us might end up as mixed race.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Interesting, ive never thought about that before. I really dont believe that we evolved so maybe our creator just didnt think we would need to be that strong. But on the other hand i think humans have many abilities that we dont really know about. For example, i have heard of humans being in extreme situations and doing some pretty super human things.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by ANOK
 


Verrrrrrrry slow, since I don't see for example black people become more white. And I don't think they will become white, after many generations when living in a colder climate.
Or white people becoming black..


If you look back at the entire homo genus, you can see exactly why people of recent African decent have darker skin. There was definitely more than one exodus from Africa. The first one in recent times was the ancestor of Neanderthal and Homo sapiens. They spread across Europe, and the need for dark skin was no longer as important(high melonin prevents skin cancer), since they were living in a cooler climate during more than one glacial period. So around 100,000 years pass, homo sapiens evolve in Africa, while Neanderthals (their cousins)skin slowly becomes lighter. Another 100,000 years pass and homo sapiens begin leaving Africa and breeding with Neanderthals, sharing the gene for lighter skin. Another 100,000 years pass and during that time Neanderthal dies out, and the homo sapiens that bred with Neanderthal take over and live in Europe. The skin slowly gets even lighter during this period. The homo sapiens that stay in Africa continue to have dark skin, as their climate demands it and survival depends on it. Those are rounded figures with the years, btw, not exact numbers, but that's pretty much how it went down. There are other factors involved in the skin color as well.
edit on 28-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join