[removed]

The idea that humans evolved because of our bums seems reasonable. Our butts allowed us to become good at distance, running that we would out - endurance animals sprinting away during hunting until the prey eventually gave up. Having more calories and then fire to unleash those calories or hypothesized in some circles to be a major change in our development

Evolution is honestly a lot more nuanced than people generally realize. Even deleterious mutations and traits can rise to fixation in a population despite our understanding of fitness models.

Adding to this, no evolutionary biologists look at traits in organisms today and explain how / why they evolved by how they are beneficial. To do so is teleogical, explanation by the purpose they serve rather than the process by which they came to be. It also ignores that sometimes traits serve no actual purpose. They can arise to fixation randomly or the trait is vestigial for some other functions that are no longer relevant, but now serve a different purpose. A good example is that, in the case of human hairlessness, the reason why is still actually a pretty hotly debated subject because we don't really know.

Generally speaking, in order to confirm a trait's purpose and evolution you have to study the impact on fitness when you remove that trait and you have to use nearest relatives or most common ancestors to show how the trait evolved in the model species in question.

As a significant quantity of amputations (maybe even most) aren't a result of trauma, but due to things like diabetes or peripheral vascular disease, a lot of amputees will already be getting treated/monitored for heart disease, which will muddy the waters.

I tried to find a source for you, but I struggled to find anything other than a few studies confirming the increased risk in traumatic amputation patients.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I should look into it, i'm surprised i never heard that even though i live in a western european country

In a lot of cases the reason they got an amputation was decreased blood flow (diabetics) so they likely just normalize in that case lol

This is making me realize a question I didn't know I had about the circulatory system.

How do the "delivery" vessels connect back to the "return to the heart" vessels? Does blood come out from the capillaries and then get taken up by other capillaries?

I vaguely remember the aid training shifting in the late oughts from a kinda checklist/hierarchy of things to do before applying a tourniquet into something close to "when in doubt if they might need a tourniquet, put a tourniquet on it."

Aside from the reasons you gave, I think it probably came down to the fact that there was an expectation that you would be getting treated by an expert in a hospital or purpose-fitted vehicle within an hour (whenever life/limb/eyesight was in jeopardy)

I have a lot of mixed feelings about my country and my service, but am still very impressed/proud of the extreme lengths the medical corps and supporting units went through to make MEDEVACs and treatment such a priority.

I was just going off what my old prosthetics lecturer told us, but the UK and USA definitely do. The exact action taken (preventative medication and exercise programmes vs routine monitoring of cardiac function) may differ within the countries due to different states, health boards etc.

To be honest I'd be amazed if any Western country didn't have some sort of policy to monitor or preventatively treat amputees, as the increased risk of heart disease is well-known.

With knowledge like these, OP doesnt go to parties..... parties goes to him.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Is it like male down syndrome people are sterile and females have difficulty combining with 'normals' contribution?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The high surface area to volume ratio surprises me. Do we have any data on, say, averages across different species to compare to?

[removed]