Re: pseudoscience and fossils

Phil Nicholls (
16 Jan 1995 04:16:21 GMT

In article <3fckj9$>,
Pat Dooley <> wrote:
>>Perhaps I should point out that I am spectacularly unconvinced
>>by the aah, as I am with most biological "just-so" stories.
>>However, I reached that opinion mostly through your (Phil Nicholls)
>>factual critiques of the aah (the recent sweat gland post was
>>especially good)
>I would have been impressed too, if he had cited a peer-reviewed
>article that proved chimpanzees used their eccrine glands for
>sweating as a heat dissaption mechanism.

I did. I reposted the article and emailed you your own copy.
You obviously haven't bothered to check the references cited
in that article.

>I'd almost be impressed if could explain why 99:1
>compared to 1:1 or 2:1 or even 3:1 is part of a general trend.
>My rusty old maths won't buy that line, either.

Well, let's see, since apocrine glands open onto hair follicles
it seems to me that a reduction in the number of hair follicles
sort of explains why we have so few apocrine glands. If you
will check the references I posted you will see that they show
the distribution pattern of eccrine glands in chimpanzees and
rhesus monkeys is identifical to that in humans.

In your last two posts you are sticking within the predictable
pattern of pseudoscience a pseudoscience devote. We have seen
inaccurate accounts of Piltdown and continental drift and now
you have not even bothered to check the references I so
thoughtfully provided showing that you statements about
sweating are erroneous. You continue to naw away at the old
bones of refuted facts.

I have this image of your and other AAH proponents digging
frantically in a pile of horse manure hoping that somewhere
in there is a pony.

And you wonder why no one takes the AAH seriously.

Philip "Chris" Nicholls Department of Anthropology
Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies SUNY Albany
University of Ediacara
"Semper Alouatta"