Can we please have a reference for this claim? You seem to be employing circular argument. You started arguing that features such as the mane of lions and humans or the hump on Bos indicus bulls are not threat displays because they can never be deactivated, and therefore they must be simply condition indicators. You are now arguing that you know that these things can’t be threat displays because all mammalian threat displays are activated in times of need.
Your argument has become entirely circular. You need to present some evidence to present either your premise or your conclusion, ie either evidence that manes are not threat displays or evidence that all mammalian threat displays can be activated. You can’t use an unsupported premise as evidence for the conclusion, nor can you use an unsupported conclusion as evidence for a premise. That is circular reasoning.
Can you understand why carrying machine gun would scare other people? Do you understand that even if I walk around armed 24/7 I am still more threatening to potential rivals if I am armed with a machinegun? More sensibly do you understand that even if a person is 6’ 5” and weighs 110 kg he is threatening, despite the fact that his size can’t b turned off? If something is menacing it is not perceived as less menacing just because it always exists. There may be advantages in being able to deactivate such displays but I can’t understand the logic that it can’t be effective just because it always exists.
First off we’d better clear up what you mean by a “lesser predator”? You started by saying that mammals in general couldn’t be bluffed. Are you suggesting that foxes or bears can not be bluffed by these displays either?
What is that based on? By what logic would a hungry human be less likely to be bluffed than a hungry bear?
Once again though this is argument form assertion. You argue that mammals can’t be bluffed, which flies in the face of the evidence. Then when the evidence is presented you argue that it doesn’t apply to humans. From that unsupported position you extrapolate that beard can’t have worked either.
Once again, you need some evidence for one of your contentions, either the premises or the conclusion. We know that most other predatory mammals are easily buffed. We know that modern humans are easily bluffed. Can we please have some evidence that humans can’t be bluffed, or that they can’t be bluffed by beards specifically? An argument base don assertion tells us nothing.
So you are proposing that beardlessness in fact evolved three times? That the last common ancestor of hominids and the other hominoidae were bearded, and that our ancestors evolved to become beardless and so did the ancestors of the chimps and gorillas after they split, and that the ancestors of the oranges also became beardless as well after they split from the human line? Once again, Ockham’s razor dictates that we reject this. The simplest explanation that explains the known facts is that the common ancestor was beardless, and that beardedness evolved only in the hominid line.
It could be, but without any evidence you are needlessly multiplying entities. In an attempt to explain why human males have beards you produced a scenario where you now need to explain why the common ancestor had a beard, why humans devloped a thicker beard, why human females lost their beard and why the other great apes lost their beard. With no evidence at all you have solve done problem by producing 4 other equally perplexing problems.
Can I assume that you don’t; subscribe to the idea that Ockham’s razor is a useful tool?
That is possible, but once again you’re needlessly multiplying entities. You are creating entirely speculative scenarios to explain away flaws in an entirely speculative scenario.
If we want to play this game then maybe human males used their beard hair to weave baskets to give to potential mates. It is no more implausible and no more supported by the evidence, but at least it has the advantage that it doesn’t needlessly multiply entities. It explains why human males have beards without needing to explain the other 4 entities that your explanation creates. NB, of course I don’t; believe this, but it highlights the reason why baseless speculation built on baseless speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.
Yes, there is a reason. If all the taxa on earlier-dividing branches of a phylogenetic tree possess a trait, and it is only the taxa on a more recently dividing branch lack that trait, it is assumed the trait is pending evidence contrary. Standard assumption in evolutionary, and once again base don Ockham’s razor. In short you don’t force yourself to assume that a trait evolved two or three times when you could just readily explain the facts by assuming it evolved once.
We could have, but it would be a remarkable coincidence that the same trait evolved three times in three different lineages on two different continents and very different environments and social dynamics. That is far more puzzling and more demanding of an answer than why humans have beards.