Bumbling in

Nader Fakhraie (nfakhrai@black.clarku.edu)
15 Aug 1996 20:51:36 -0400

To the person who critized James Howard's evolutionary hypothesis
(gassax@best.com) :

How would you explain the migration of the Australian natives from Africa?
I had read that they did so about 20k years ago, by boat(!!).

A rather "advanced" way to look for food, eh?

There's something missing from both arguments : "wandering" is a
psychological activity, too. JH's DHEA hypothesis at least gives
a basis for this (a "soft" assumption) which makes most anthropologists look
like chimpanzees
searching for bones. Brain activity depends on DHEA, and JH points this
out. Where have the "soft" scientists done this? If you think this is
unimportant, you can't go on w/the testosterone hypothesis.

Isn't it obvious, from present observations, that the dumbest men can
raise to high achievement by way of their "testosterone" (and ignorance
, to their detriment of their lifespan) ?
This doesn't
mean that testosterone makes men merely physically better, and thus
migration becomes possible. As for anthropological research, JH makes
it clear that it's "revolutionary" (i.e. new, undeveloped).

It's amazing how many people simply don't read everything one posts
before commenting. Is Usenet a way to go back to Jr. HS or a schema for
developing ideas ? (I guess you have more logic than a Jr. HSer; you seem
to use it to discredit others' work, instead of understanding their views).

What good is criticism if you have nothing to add?
Did you even read his articles?