/mask/ - Ponyville Masquerade

To answer your question, please review this image.

Also, smooth is pretty nice too!

>>289
I GUESS THE ANSWER IS YES??

>>293
not imo

I def prefer soft

>>294
>>295
Da answer is, ya like what you like!

I don't know if that point C is entirely true, or at least I can't say I've ever heard of such a thing.

When it comes to our skin though, it is true that our hairless bodies kind of seem like a disadvantage. For instance, when we get goosebumps, our skin is trying to make our body hair stand upright to retain more warm air. This is how it works for animals as well.

Problem is though, with as little body hair as we have, this is completely ineffective. In fact, it might end up making us even colder. So in that regard, it seems that evolution did bamboozle us.

In regards to furries though, I'm not so sure if that's an evolutionary trait or just a kink obtained through years of suggestively designed cartoon animals. If I were to give them an evolutionary trait, I'd say they'd probably be more down to bang alien chicks if we discovered them.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. The monkeys wouldn't still be here

I don't know if it's really so simple. I don't think the evolution of the brain is really playing "catch-up". I think there is just no real threat to survival to have a desire to be affection with furred things, thus no environmental selective pressure against it. Evolution by natural selection produces a lot of "side effect" traits and "left over" traits that persist mostly because they are benign (mostly) and insignificant on one's ability to survive and thrive.

I don't know. The hairless parts of my body are definitely more sensitive to touch. It wouldn't surprise me that it's fur on skin you like.

>>303
well why *are* there still monkey then?

>>318

We haven't yet finished the job.

>>320
well fuck, dude. let's go build a bamboo pole to mars then

>>318

Because a species doesn't need to disappear in order for some population of that species to evolves into another species.

>>322
on a micro level, perhaps. but the massive differences between us and (pick whichever species you believe represents the monkeys we evolved from) are great enough that millenia must have passed between now and the breakoff point. Very few species, let alone an entire family of animalia, survive that long while the new adaptations provide an evolutionary advantage. Are you suggesting monkeys (whichever "species" you refer to) simply beat the evolutionary lottery?

I mean, unless I used to be a lizard, I doubt it. I'm far more in to scales, than fur./

>>324

Yes, a few thousand millennia must have passed between the point where apes started to evolve distinctly from other primates. No, modern monkeys are not the same species as monkeys from a million years ago. "Monkeys" aren't even a singular species anyway, there are, and have been many different species of monkeys, so the question of "why are there still monkeys" is kind of naive at best or disingenuous at worst.

Also, I think you are assuming that traits can't remain consistent. Species evolve to fit various niches, thriving and/or stabilizing when they evolve a successful survival strategy, and so long as a certain niches remain relatively stable, and that survival strategy remains roughly maximal for that niche in that environment, then rate of change in the gene pool of that species will remain relatively low when most potential variations would prove detrimental to the survival of that species, in that environment, in that niche they fill. Just look at alligators for example. The species has apparently existed in the fossil record relatively unchanged since dinosaurs where still around.