Re: A Specification for a

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: tears"
• Previous message: Adam K. Kirchhoff: "Phyical Anthro Lab"

j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) writes:

>And the variablity of amounts of hair through the human
>population, i.e. many humans, usually males, have a great deal of
>body hair. And I mean a great deal -- lots and lots. Since this
>characteristic varies regionally, it would appear to be of
>comparatively recent origin. If hair was "lost" during the
>transition from CA, as the AAT insists, it must have returned, in
>some people, with a vengeance. If it comes and goes that quickly
>(a few 10s of thousands of years or less), any theory postulating
>its "loss" during the transition can only be an untestable, and
>unwarranted, assumption.

Tens of thousands of years can't be right. That could/make
Eskimos and other Orientals living in the north hairy but they're
not. Australian aborigines are hairy too. I read somewhere that
Orientals such as Chinese might not have clumps of sweat glands
unlike whites who have them under the arm pits etc and Africans
who might even have them on their chests and backs. (As usual
I'm beginning to have doubts about claims of all sorts which
are taken back sometime later. This was from a book published
a decade or more ago. Who knows maybe that's changed too.)
In any case no sweat glands could mean cold climates using
your logic, and that would mean that the Orientals then would
have to be the hairiest. Doesn't wash.

-- 



				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey

• Next message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: tears"
• Previous message: Adam K. Kirchhoff: "Phyical Anthro Lab"