We cannot identify a person specifically with hair alone. Even if their is mtDNA, it isn't good enough-DNA is class evidence anyway.
It is not it just simply is not
Vestigial structures are considered evidence, but no more critical than any other line of evidence in Biology and palaeontology. They're considered evidence, not because of their function, but because of the way their morphologies follow the nested hierarchies of biology: the vestigial legs of whales, for instance, have exactly the kind of shape we would have expected them to have if whales had descended from land mammals. The same goes for human tailbones and embryonic branchial ridges, the wings of emus, and so on.
bats belong to the class mammalia, this is because they are warm blooded, have hair, bear live young and feed their babies milk.
The oldest bird fossil Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between reptiles and birds and is cited as evidence Describe three additional pieces of evidence for this claim?
Sheep belong to the Animalia kingdom, the chordata phylum, and the Mammalia class. Sheep are considered domesticated animals and are kept as livestock.
It is not it just simply is not
Dan bums squirrels
Hair does not have unique characteristics like fingerprints do. While it can provide important information such as DNA analysis, hair evidence alone is not as definitive for identification purposes because multiple individuals can have similar hair characteristics.
No. It is not.
when the evidence is relatable
Hair can be used for a DNA profile.
class 3
why is a warranty considered a class of insurance
The kiwi bird of New Zealand is considered to have hair.
There are a great many different things that could be considered the class. The class could be considered a group of children.
The upper class in Greece were considered the patrician.
Fibers are CLASS evidence. They cannot be individualized to a single person or thing, although there are many types of natural and synthetic fibers.