Re: pseudoscience and fossils

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Pat Dooley: "Re: pseudoscience and fossils"
• Previous message: whittet: "Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION?"
• Maybe in reply to: Elaine Morgan: "pseudoscience and fossils"
• Next in thread: Pat Dooley: "Re: pseudoscience and fossils"

<< deletions>>

>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.

I have seen previous AAT opponents claim we weren't hairless
because humans actually had more hair follicles than chimpanzees.
Can't you guys make up your minds?

You also keep muddying the waters
on the ratio issue. Whether or not other apes have eccrine glands in
similar places to humans is irrelevant; it is about what you woul expect.
The key point you keep evading is the ratio of eccrine to acropine
glands.

Pat D

• Next message: Pat Dooley: "Re: pseudoscience and fossils"
• Previous message: whittet: "Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION?"
• Maybe in reply to: Elaine Morgan: "pseudoscience and fossils"
• Next in thread: Pat Dooley: "Re: pseudoscience and fossils"